Islamic Finance - Critical Survey of Islamization of Knowledge

A Critical Survey of
Islamization of Knowledge
By Mohamed Aslam Haneef 1
1 Currently Professor, Department of Economics, International Islamic University Malaysia. This article is extracted from A Critical Survey of
Islamization of Knowledge, Kuala Lumpur: International Islamic University Press, 2005.
e-Library | Islamic Banking and Finance Copyrights reserved by AIMS and/or Author 1
Section 1- Introduction
This article attempts to provide an analysis and evaluation of what the present writer
considers one of the more important intellectual movements of the 20th century, namely the
Islamization of Knowledge (IOK) project. It can certainly be considered one of the most
credible and long-standing contemporary Muslim intellectual responses to modernity, if we
take the late 1960s as its starting point. It is also important to mention at the outset that like
many of the scholars discussed in this paper, the IOK is, and has to be seen primarily as an
epistemological and methodological concern. Being almost 30 years old, there have been
numerous studies that have attempted to discuss and analyze the IOK project. However, the
works have usually been limited to the ideas of certain individuals or institutions and if
comparisons are made, these are rather limited in scope and number.
The proponents of IOK also see the root cause of all problems as that of knowledge, not as
against ignorance, but knowledge that has been interpreted through the western worldview
and developed through methodologies that are not in-line with the Islamic worldview and its
epistemological foundations. It is important at this juncture to state that all scholars who
claim to be promoting the IOK agenda, have to be by definition, supporting interaction with
modern knowledge rather than adopting a rejectionist stance. By definition, IOK implies
supporting the position that solutions to contemporary problems require the synthesis of
both Islamic heritage and contemporary knowledge 2 . However, as will become clear in the
paragraphs that follow, the emphasis on these inputs, what exactly needs to be done to
these two inputs and how to go about creating this synthesis, are points of contention.
Notwithstanding the numerous contributions made by scholars writing on IOK, this study
attempts to provide a thorough analysis of the IOK agenda over the last twenty odd years.
Those following the agenda may agree with our preliminary observation that while the 1980s
can be viewed as a decade of ‘enthusiasm’ and ‘active pronouncements’, by the 1990s, many
were beginning to question the ‘Islamized products’ being put forward, and even called the
whole project to question. Can the IOK project survive another decade? This, among other
questions is what the present study hopes to discuss.
Section 2 discusses why IOK is necessary or the rationale for IOK. Section 3 presents and
analyses what the IOK is or attempts at defining IOK. Section 4, which is probably the most
2 Therefore, this article leaves out works of contemporary scholars who either reject all modern knowledge or those who accept modern
knowledge due to its ‘neutrality’. For references to those in these two categories, see Rosnani/Imron (2000).
debated area, looks at the different opinions on how to go about Islamizing contemporary
knowledge or what the process involves. Section 5 discusses and analyzes the views of
reviewers and critics who have also contributed to the development of the IOK project.
Section 6 provides some thoughts on what the future direction of the IOK project may be
and concludes.
Section 2- The Rationale for IOK- The Why

When trying to discuss the rationale for IOK, there are a few background factors that must
be kept in mind. Firstly, most of the Muslim world had achieved political independence from
their colonial powers after the Second World War. With political independence came the
increasing pressure from the Muslim peoples on their governments for greater ‘indigenous
solutions’ to their political, social and economic problems. Secondly, the perceived failures of
both the capitalist and socialist systems for Muslims, coupled with the new found wealth in
Muslim countries rich in oil deposits also led to greater calls for Islamic solutions and
alternatives. Numerous national and international organizations were established in the
Muslim world to address the developmental problems of Muslim countries. Besides the
Organization of Islamic Conference, one can also cite the Islamic Development Bank based
in Jeddah as examples of the efforts made by Muslim nations.
On the intellectual front, Islamic economics was the first beneficiary of the newfound wealth
and intellectual revival resulting in the First International Conference on Islamic Economics
held in Makkah in 1976. The following year, the First World Conference on Muslim Education
was held also in Makkah, and discussed among other things the need for reforms in the
education system of Muslim countries as well as the idea of IOK. Although this conference
led to the establishment of specific ‘Islamic Universities’, one in Islamabad (1981) and the
other in Kuala Lumpur (1983), the IOK idea can possibly be traced back to the mid-sixties. 3
There are two main reasons that one can cite in the writings that provide the rationale for
IOK. The two main proponents of IOK, namely al-Attas and al-Faruqi/IIIT mention both
reasons, although with varying emphasis and prominence. The first reason that can be
considered to be the ‘external’ reason is the political, social and economic conditions of the
Muslims. Faruqi in particular mentions in the section entitled ‘the problem’ in his 1982 work-
plan, the ‘malaise of the ummah’, the backward and lowly contemporary position of the
ummah in all fields (pp. 1-6), political (divided, disunited, military rule), economic
3 See Wan Mohd. Nor Wan Daud (1998), pp. 291, 305-311.
(undeveloped, dependent on the west, illiteracy despite huge new found oil wealth) and
religio-cultural (westernized, alienated from Islam and its culture).
While all these manifestations may be actual facts in the Muslim world, Umar Hassan (1988)
in his short response to the IOK project cautions Faruqi’s overemphasis on these external
causes and what he sees as constant benchmarking to the west, fearing that it may lead to
entrapment in the western framework, a theme that many critics like Sardar, Butt and
Yasien take up as well.
The root causes of the malaise is seen to lie in the ‘present state of education in the Muslim
world’ and the ‘lack of vision’ on the part of Muslims. To be fair to Faruqi, these are internal
causes and are acknowledged by him. The former is a problem because it is plagued by a
‘dual’ system, one secular and modern, the other religious and traditional. The latter is not
given enough attention by Faruqi. Referring to the education system, he laments this lack of
Islamic vision has not allowed the education system to truly reflect Islamic ideals and hence
created mediocrity among teachers and students who are unable to confront the alien
ideologies faced in universities. Unfortunately, Faruqi did not elaborate sufficiently on what
the Islamic vision was and how it differed from the western vision and how it can be
elaborated in a positive way.
Abu Sulayman (1994, p. 2) sees the root cause of the malaise to be the ‘ummah’s
(mis)conception of knowledge and that this crisis of thought has led Muslims to be not only
mere imitators of the west, but bad even at that. Both Abu Sulayman and Al-Alwani (1989)
add what they call the ‘historical split’ in knowledge into shari’ah sciences and ‘other’
sciences, which led to over concentration and narrow specialization in the former and a
neglect of the latter. The other sciences that included the social sciences and humanities,
were left to the modern/secular system modeled after the west. To Abu Sulayman there is a
dire need to rectify this ‘revelation-reason’ relationship, redefine the scope of knowledge and
establish an Islamic infrastructure of education (including the system).
On the other hand, the other major contributor to the IOK discourse, i.e. Al-Attas, while
acknowledging that the problems faced by Muslim societies cannot be separated from the
‘external factors’ i.e. of the historical confrontation with western culture and civilization and
the consequences of colonization, locates the primary reason for this backwardness as being
due to internal causes, more specifically to what he terms the ‘loss of adab’ within the
Muslims themselves. By adab, al-Attas is referring to the discipline of the body, mind and
soul that have resulted in loss of justice, which betrays an internal confusion in knowledge.
This confusion of knowledge is due the inability of Muslims to distinguish ‘true knowledge’
from knowledge that has been infused with the western vision. The internal dimension or
reason for the call for IOK stems from the basic premise that contemporary knowledge is not
neutral. This requires some clarification, as there are different opinions on this, although one
could see this issue as a problem of definition and scope of what is being referred to when
IOK is mentioned. In the works of al-Attas used in this article spanning 1978-1996, he
focuses primarily on the connection of the Islamic worldview/vision to knowledge and makes
relatively profound comparisons to western (mainly Christian) philosophical and theological
positions.
Both al-Attas and Faruqi refer to the worldview/framework in which contemporary

knowledge is interpreted and presented in. While Faruqi and the IIIT (1982, 1989) do
mention the ‘dual education system’, one religious and the other modern, as being the
‘target’ for reform and unification, there is not sufficient deliberation on the issue of
knowledge. Their focus is more on the various disciplines found in modern universities. Al-
Attas, however is very clear in what he sees the problem to be.
Our real challenge is the problem of the corruption of knowledge. This has
come about due to our own state of confusion as well as influences coming
from the philosophy, science, and ideology of modern Western culture and
civilization (1995, p. 15)
I venture to maintain that the greatest challenge that surreptitiously arisen in

our age is the challenge of knowledge, indeed, not as against ignorance; but
knowledge as conceived and disseminated throughout the world by Western
civilization… It seems to me important to emphasize that knowledge is not
neutral….but its interpretation through the prism, as it were, the worldview,
the intellectual vision and psychological perception of the civilization that now
plays the key role in its formulation and dissemination (1978, p. 127).
As mentioned earlier, Al-Faruqi (1981, 1982) also discusses the ‘internal’ factors but not as
detailed as al-Attas. He sees western social sciences as ‘incomplete’ since it overlooks
revelation as a source of knowledge; ‘necessarily western’ or to be more precise,
eurocentric, since it developed within the experience of western Europe during the last 3
centuries; and finally, the rejection of revelation ‘violates a crucial requirement of Islamic
methodology, hence the need for IOK. Al-Alwani (1995) supports this by his view that
modern knowledge has become a ‘positivistic’, ‘one-book’ reading (universe only), hence
inadequate from an Islamic perpective that requires a ‘two book reading’ (revelation and
universe). In an earlier paper (1989), he acknowledges that contemporary social sciences
and humanities are products of the western mind and have methodologies, subject matter,
results, aims, explanations of human behavior and outlook of life and the universe that are
in conflict with the Islamic perspective. Only a ‘two-book reading’ will provide a balanced
understanding of reality. Failure to do so will not produce truly educated people, but mere
‘clerks and officials’ (1989, p. 233).
Other writers have also mentioned briefly the rationale for IOK, but mainly taking the cue
from the two main proponents. Brohi (1993) for example sees the need for IOK because
modern knowledge is based on a framework that is inconsistent with the Islamic worldview
as does Khalil (1991) who views all humanities as operating within value-bounded
intellectual and moral frameworks; Ali (1989) confers with this view stating that ‘every
system of social and behavioral science needs a conceptual framework or Grand Theory of
society’ and that the conceptual framework of modern science is not applicable to
Islamization of knowledge; Ragab (1995) while accepting the important role to be played by
social sciences in modern societies, sees the underlying assumptions of modern social
sciences as being unacceptable from an Islamic perspective; Idris (1987) views modern
knowledge as being based on ‘false assumptions of materialistic atheistic philosophy’; Hadi
(1984), while agreeing to the need for modern knowledge, sees its philosophical basis as
being profane and secular, hence unacceptable for Muslims; Kazi (1993) sees modern
knowledge as not being equally effective in an Islamic framework since the basic
assumptions of the two systems are different; Abu Fadl (1988) sees the need for IOK due to
the anomalies created by modernity (and modern sciences) that abandoned God/religion;
Ashraf (1984, 1988) and Sardar (1988) also cite the different worldview reason as the core
of our problem with modern science, although differences as to what IOK is and what it
entails are clearly seen from these writers’ papers.
As far as critics are concerned, while writers such as Rahman, Sardar, Yasien, Butt and Nasr
agree with the need to create alternatives to modern knowledge/ science, they do not, in
varying degrees, support the IOK project. In should be mentioned here that all of these
writers are usually referring to Faruqi’s work-plan in their criticisms, a point we will take up
later in this paper.
Section 3- The Meaning of IOK- The What
Before we even discuss the meaning of IOK it is important to differentiate the varied uses of
the term Islamization. Ragab (1995) rightly points out that the term has been used in many
‘confusing ways’ and that conceptual clarity is a sine qua non for efficient communication
and better collaboration among those interested in contributing to the Islamization effort
(pp. 113-114). Besides Islamization of knowledge, one can readily find terms such as
Islamization of (social) sciences (i.e. one area or category of knowledge), Islamization of
specific disciplines (e.g. economics, which is one discipline in the social sciences),
Islamization of curriculum (the content of programs in universities dedicated to promoting
Islamic perspectives of disciplines), Islamization of education (which includes not only
curriculum/knowledge but the entire system and institutions involved) as well as Islamization
of societies (which includes a scope that is much wider than knowledge and includes social
and political dimensions as well).
This paper deals specifically with the first, i.e. knowledge. There is a necessity to Islamize
contemporary knowledge since the knowledge and sciences that are taught, learnt and later,
applied in contemporary universities and other higher learning institutions are
representations of the western experience and are based on, and imbued with the western
worldview. Since this western worldview differs fundamentally on some very important
foundational concepts, the knowledge structures/systems or disciplines built on them cannot
be accepted as they are and need to be subject to a process of evaluation, sifting and
modification. This in essence is what the IOK is all about.
A further clarification is made by Khalil (1991, p.1) when he states that the IOK process
takes place at two levels. Firstly, we have the theoretical level that explains the dimensions,
motives, aims, stages and ways of IOK. Secondly, the actual Islamization of the various
disciplines which is to be done by specialists of those disciplines. One could say that the first
level theorizes about the rationale, justification, definition and process involved, while the
second requires the application of the process to various bodies of knowledge that have
been organized into ‘disciplines’ or sciences, utilizing those specific methodologies of the first
level. As we will see later, many scholars are of the view that the first level is still not
sufficiently understood and addressed by the proponents of the IOK and hence, any move to
the second level will not produce the desired results.
In order to deliberate and analyze the various opinions on IOK, proper definitions of the
phrase need to be presented. Some scholars give more attention to the need for a definition,
others are satisfied with a ‘working definition’ while many others have either not seen it as
important or have just assumed one of the definitions given by other scholars. The IIIT
seem to have taken the latter view as stated by al-Alwani (1995, p. 83) that
The scholars of our school of thought do not seek to provide a strictly

inclusive and exclusive definition in the classical manner.
He adds (p. 84) that the IOK agenda should not be limited to the confines of a hard and fast
definition. This paper takes the position that at least a working definition is needed so that
efforts at Islamization will have direction and focus. Having a definition also identifies the
scope of Islamization and allows prioritization of efforts. In this respect, Al-Attas stands out
from the others for his insistence on proper definitions of terms and concepts used in
scholarship. Generally, Islamization is defined by al-Attas (1978) as the
…..liberation of man first from magical, mythological, animistic, national-

cultural tradition (opposed to Islam), and then from secular control over his
reason and language.
With regards knowledge, specifically contemporary or modern-day knowledge, as mentioned

in the previous section, is not value-free. It necessarily reflects the interpretation and
framework of the civilization in which it developed. Hence, Islamization in this context means
The deliverance of knowledge from its interpretations based on secular

ideology; and from meaning and expressions of the secular.
A very important part of this liberation and deliverance is the concept of worldview which al-
Attas (1995) defines as ‘the vision of reality and truth that appears before our mind’s eye
revealing what existence is all about’, represented by the phrase ru’yat al-islam li al-wujud 4 .
4He criticizes other Muslim scholars especially from the IIIT for promoting the phrase al-nazaratul Islam li’l kawn to represent the Islamic
worldview as according to him nazarat denotes ‘seeing primarily with the physical eye’ and ‘al-kawn’ represented the created /physical
world. Hence this phrase is modeled after the idea of worldview as developed in the secular west rather than of Islam.
This Islamic vision of reality and truth, which is a metaphysical survey of the visible and
invisible worlds and life as a whole, needs to be understood by the ‘Islamizer’ first because
the process of Islamization cannot occur unless the one who is undertaking it knows what
needs to be ‘isolated’ and what needs to be ‘infused’, what are acceptable or not and what
alternatives are acceptable or not and why this is so.
While the human/social sciences are the primary branches of knowledge that are the focus
of Islamization, the natural, physical and applied sciences are also involved in terms of their
underlying philosophical foundations, the interpretations as well as the formulation of
theories. In fact, according to al-Attas (1995) the task of Islamization of knowledge must
involve
A critical examination of the methods of modern science; its concepts, presuppositions, and
symbols; its empirical and rational aspects, and those impinging on values and ethics; its
interpretations of origins; its theory of knowledge; its pre-suppositions on the existence of
an external world, of the uniformity of nature, and of the rationality of the natural processes;
its theory of the universe; its classifications of the sciences; its limitations and inter-relations
with one another of the sciences and its social relations.
Wan Mohd Nor (1997) in his work on al-Attas cautions that one may find those who are
‘feeble-minded’ who mistakenly suppose that the process of Islamization is a mechanical
process working outside the mind or soul. Quoting al-Attas, he reminds readers that the
process of IOK is ‘conceptual’ in nature, hence they are ‘present to the intellect, and hence
referred to as being in the mind’. It is these feeble minded individuals who then start talking
about ‘Islamic bicycles, Islamic trains and Islamic bombs’ or give higher priority to the
creation of physical institutions, without realizing that IOK requires first and foremost, great
intellects.
Faruqi (1982) also sees IOK as the process of ‘recasting knowledge as Islam relates to it’. It
involves a wide scope of activities including ultimately, to overcome the dichotomy between
modern secular and traditional Islamic systems of education. IOK also aims to ‘produce
university level textbooks recasting some twenty disciplines in accordance to the Islamic
vision’ and while mastering modern knowledge is a ‘first prerequisite’ for IOK, this must be
followed by ‘integrating the new knowledge into the corpus of the Islamic legacy by
eliminating, amending, reinterpreting and adapting its components as the worldview of Islam
and its values dictate’.
While many have criticized the IOK project, using its ‘failure’ to produce these textbooks as
proof of the futility of the project, it is felt that the more fundamental issues involved relate
to the methodological issues raised by al-Attas and Faruqi although in the case of the latter,
it was the textbook goal that was unfortunately given too much attention without much
thought about the Islamizers themselves and issues concerning methodology. Even by
looking at the writings of Faruqi, this becomes very clear when one asks how to ‘integrate’
modern knowledge into the corpus of Islamic legacy unless one is equipped with the
necessary requirements which requires the Islamizer to redefine, reorder the data, to rethink
the reasoning and relating of the data, to reevaluate the conclusions, to re-project the goals
and to do so in such a way as to make the disciplines enrich the vision and serve the cause
of Islam. To this end, the methodological categories of Islam, namely, the unity of truth,
unity of knowledge, unity of humanity, unity of life, the telic character of creation, the
subservience of creation to man and of man to God must replace western categories and
determine the perception and ordering of reality (Faruqi, 1981).
From the definition and scope presented by al-Attas and to a lesser degree al-Faruqi, it is
quite clear that IOK is as mentioned by Ragab (1995), primarily an epistemological and
methodological concern and involves ‘some sort of integration of knowledge based on
Islamic sources and that generated by modern social science methods’; it is a research and
theory building effort, meant to restore scientific enterprise in general and the social
sciences in particular, to the correct path of integration of revelation and observation of the
real world; it cannot be a simple-minded addition and subtraction process but is a serious
process of ‘creative engagement’ with modern social sciences (Ragab, 1997). Elsewhere,
Ragab (1999, p. 35) brings in the importance of the underlying worldview in any attempt at
Islamization.
The essence of the "Islamization" process is the systematic movement from the other-than-
Islamic ontology and epistemology to the Islamic ontology and epistemology. That essential
change is the foundation upon which the methodological shift is based. Therefore, it is
essential for the Islamizers--before undertaking any actual substantive attempt at
Islamization--to take stock of the Islamic ontological and epistemological assumptions. Of
special importance to the Islamic worldview are the Islamic concepts of God, man, society,
and cosmic order. This is an absolute prerequisite for any attempt to "Islamize" a social
science discipline, a subject, or even one social science concept.
This central point has repeatedly been stressed by al-Attas in his writings since the late
1960s and to a lesser degree by al-Faruqi. The above view is also shared by Khalil (1991,
p.3) who sees IOK as
practicing (i.e. discovering, compiling, piecing together, communicating and

publishing) intellectual activity based on the Islamic concept of the universe,
life and man.
He agrees that IOK is more readily applicable to the humanities and does not mean ‘making
rules about mathematical or chemical equations or interfering with laws of physics or biology
or amending atomic theory’. While he says that the pure and natural sciences would ‘escape
the scope of Islamization’, it should be seen with the qualification made by al-Attas
regarding the natural sciences, i.e. the philosophical foundations and interpretations of these
sciences are subject to ‘Islamization’.
Davies (1991, p. 231), although not a major proponent of the IOK project, would like to see
it as a ‘civilizational project of rethinking, taking the Qur’an as the frame of reference’.
Modernity itself could, and probably should, be questioned and seen as part of the problem
facing Muslims, but from an Islamic frame of reference (pp. 232-235). As with Sardar, she
sees the need for a conceptual approach derived from our frame of reference that questions
existing bodies of knowledge. In this process, evaluation, interaction and synthesis take
place but always with reference to our benchmarks.
Abu Fadl (1988) sees IOK as a force of cultural renewal and direction not only for Muslims,
but for humanity at large. She identifies the epistemological weaknesses of modernity and
sees the ‘tawhidi episteme’, promoted by the IOK project, as having great universal
potential. Kazi (1993) sees the Islamization of modern empirical knowledge as an effort to
assimilate what is ‘good’ in this knowledge in an Islamic framework, and to use this
knowledge for the greater good of Muslim society. This is not a new phenomenon as it had
already been done in our past when Islamic civilization came into contact with Greek,
Persian, Chinese and Hindu literature, and the product of that IOK became part of the
Islamic framework/heritage we inherited from our scholars of the past.
Abu Sulayman sees the present crisis in Islamic thought to be more alarming than in the
past because it is not just a question of incompetence or superficiality of thought. To him, it
is the inability of our thinkers to measure the extent of the change that has taken place in
the realm of knowledge, culture and civilization in the modern world as well as a parallel
inability to locate points of strength in the sources of Islamic knowledge and to learn from
past experience. While he sees the solution in restoring ijtihad, i.e. intellectual assertion, due
to the inabilities mentioned above, there is a need for a radical change in our attitude
toward knowledge. IOK can only take place if we have reforms in the following three areas:
rectifying the revelation-reason reason; redefinition of knowledge and clarifying the role of
ijtihad and the ifta’; reorganizing and reorienting the methodology of Islamic education in
order to end the existing dualism between secular and religious education.
Brohi (1993) agrees with this general position and sees IOK as a process to ‘reorganize the
elements of modern knowledge and to purge it of deleterious elements, which are currently
at war with the sanctity of our religious beliefs and practices’. Working within Faruqi’s
workplan, he accepts that the end product of IOK would be to ‘rewrite standard textbooks
on principal branches of human learning to make them consistent with the basic principles
that are discernable in the Qur’an regarding the nature of human life, mind and its social
behavior’.
If undue and unrealistic attention was given to the production of textbooks, this may have
been due to the ‘practical needs’ of institutions of higher learning dealing with IOK. It would
be unfair to condemn the entire IOK agenda due to perceived failures to achieve goals in
time periods that are not achievable. Ragab (1999) also rightly observes that textbooks are
the product of serious research and theory building in the various fields and is of the opinion
that this has not been done satisfactorily.
Prolific publishing of a sundry collection of booklets and articles or even of large tonnes
do not an “Islamized” textbook produce. Only serious, well-planned, institutional and
individual coordinated efforts, based on sound methodologies will be capable of doing
the job.
Although the individual researcher's eye-view has been adopted in this paper, it should be
clear by now that the Islamization of the social sciences is not an individual effort (although
creative work is basically an individual undertaking). It should be always remembered that
the “infrastructure” needed for even the beginnings of an effort to Islamize a limited subject
within the social sciences should indeed be an institutional or at least organized team effort.
From the lengthy elaboration above, it should be clear that IOK is all about providing
meaning and presenting knowledge based upon an Islamic ontological framework and
through an Islamic epistemological framework utilizing methodologies derived from these.
This leads us to the discussion on how actually the IOK process will be carried out or the
procedures involved in IOK.
Section 4- What Does IOK Involve- The How

Discussions on the ‘how’ of IOK are the most diverse and debatable. Most criticisms of IOK
center around interpretations of what IOK involves. Proponents argue that following the
steps prescribed will provide the solutions for Muslims to meet the challenges of modern
times while opponents and critics see it as intellectually misguided at the least. It should also
be stated at this juncture that most of the material written on this part of the IOK project
and the debates ensuing are based on Faruqi’s 1982 IOK work-plan which was the more
popular version of IOK as well as revisions put forward by IIIT proponents. This part of the
paper will present Faruqi’s 12-point work-plan, revisions made on it, the criticisms leveled
against it, followed by some of the alternative views on IOK.
With the ultimate aim of ‘integrating’ the two education streams found in Muslim countries
by producing University level textbooks, Faruqi’s IOK work-plan identifies the following steps
(p. 49)
1. To master the modern disciplines
2. To master the Islamic legacy
3. To establish the specific relevance of Islam to each area of modern knowledge
4. To seek ways for creative synthesis between the legacy and modern knowledge.
5. To launch Islamic thought on the trajectory with leads it to fulfillment of the divine
pattern of Allah (s.w.t.).
Not many would object to steps 1, 2, 4 and 5. What is a point of contention for some like
Yasien, Sardar and Butt is the ‘priority’ being given to step one. Making mastery of modern
disciplines as step one could possibly be interpreted as making modern disciplines and the
principles, categories etc as the point of reference or category base. Step three is more
sensitive. Sardar for example argues that instead of trying to establish the relevance of
Islam to the modern disciplines, genuine efforts at creating Islamic alternative should work
to identify the relevance of the modern disciplines to Islam. Islam (and its worldview) should
be the reference point, not the modern discipline. These five steps are expanded to his 12-
point work-plan (pp. 50-62).
1. Mastery of the modern disciplines: Categories breakdown reflecting the ‘table of

contents’ of modern textbooks in a particular area
2. Discipline survey that presents the history, methodology and main contributors of that
discipline, including a bibliography
3. Mastering the Islamic legacy: The Anthology. Here, the products or efforts in steps 1-2
will provide the basis for creating anthologies from the legacy arranged according to the
categories of that discipline.
4. Mastery of the Islamic legacy: The Analysis. This is a more in-depth, prioritized mainly
historical analysis of how the Islamic legacy contributed and was translated into
prescriptions for action
5. Establishment of the specific relevance of lslam to the disciplines covering what the
legacy has contributed to the range of issues envisaged by the discipline, the legacies
achievements and shortcomings vis-à-vis the ‘vision and scope of the discipline’, why it is
so and what can be done.
6. Critical assessment of the modern discipline: The State of the Art involves a critical
assessment of the discipline from the standpoint of Islam and is seen by Faruqi as a
major step in IOK as it involves an evaluation of the discipline based on Islamic criteria,
but with knowledge of the modern discipline, its history and development etc thereby
producing genuine state of the art reports on the disciplines in question.
7. Critical assessment of the Islamic legacy: The State of the Art which involves a critical
evaluation of the interpretation of Muslim scholars of the sources of knowledge in Islam
vis-à-vis the sources themselves, identifying strengths, shortcomings and possible ways
forward.
8. Survey of the Ummah's major problems requiring insight, good judgment and knowledge
of both the legacy and modern knowledge.
9. Survey of the problems of humankind as IOK is seen to not only be for Muslims but for
all humanity.
10. Creative analysis and synthesis between the Islamic legacy and modern disciplines taking
into consideration both the need to be faithful to the Islamic vision and to ensure its
relevance to the problems of today.
11. Recasting the disciplines under the framework of Islam: The University Textbook as a
replacement or at least a complement to the standard textbook used in a particular
discipline.
12. Dissemination of Islamized Knowledge where ideas and thought of Muslims involved in
IOK must be available to all.
Steps 1-3 are clearly points of contention that are seriously criticized. The fact that the
‘standard tables of contents of modern textbooks’ are made the topics of reference for which
the Islamic legacy will be analyzed, is seen to be a major weakness of Faruqi’s workplan.
This fundamental criticism has been addressed in later modifications to the work-plan but
within the IIIT School, this general scheme is agreed upon.
For example, IIIT’s 1989 revised and expanded version of the IOK, sees it as having ‘two
elementary stages’, the mastery of knowledge (both branches) and defining the main issues
through Islamic creativity and initiative. While agreeing with the need to master both
branches of knowledge and their methodologies and using both branches in the process of
IOK, as mentioned above, some have criticized among others, the sequencing of the 12
point plan, the over dominance of modern disciplines in the work-plan and the over reliance
on the modern scholar. Furthermore, Sardar (1988, p. 100), one of the most vocal critics of
the 12 point plan argues that if, as pointed out by Faruqi, modern social sciences is
necessarily western, then
‘what purpose is served by breathing Islamic spirit into disciplines that are
shaped by other people’s perceptions, concepts, ideologies, languages and
paradigms? Does that constitute Islamization of knowledge or the
westernization of Islam?’
The 1989 revised edition is also interesting in terms of it being a good indicator of the
development of debate and ideas regarding IOK. While it maintains the 1982 version’s
explanation of the ‘malaise, its causes, the task of integrating the two systems of education
and instilling the Islamic vision (via a compulsory study of Islamic civilization and the
Islamization of knowledge), discussion of traditional methodology, especially its
shortcomings, the first principles of Islamic methodology’, Faruqi’s 12 point plan which was
the center of nearly all debates and discussions on IOK, is no longer presented in its original
form. As mentioned in the Introduction to the 1989 version, this new edition ‘reflects the
interaction between increased knowledge and increased involvement of the scholars in the
process of thinking and writing in the field- the process of “learning through doing” (p. xv)
and affirms that IOK is a continuing process and that its major goals are achieved through
the accumulation and development of ideas in the various fields of knowledge’.
Besides the views of the critics of IOK like Rahman (1988), Sardar (1988, 1989), Nasr (1991)
and Yasien Mohamed (1993, 1994) that certainly had an impact in the development of the
IOK agenda, this change can also be attributed to the writings of three main IIIT
proponents. Abu Sulayman (1989, 1994), who took over as President of IIIT after Faruqi’s
assassination; Al-Alwani (1989, 1995) who became President after Abu Sulayman and Louay
Safi (1993) who can be considered as one of the main ‘modifiers’ of Faruqi’s workplan. Abu
Sulayman, being one of the founders of IIIT was a contemporary of Faruqi and shared the
ideas of the initial work-plan. However, by the late 1980s, reflection on the problems of
implementing the IOK agenda and producing the results (i.e. university level textbooks) as
well as the views of the critics, led the IIIT to significantly revise the 12 point plan, put in a
new chapter, Chapter V ‘Agenda of the Institute’, Chapter VI ‘Indispensable Clarifications’
followed by Chapter VII Financial Requirements.
Under the heading ‘Stages of the Agenda’, the 1989 edition of the IOK work-plan revises the
steps ‘towards rectifying Islamic thought, methodology, and knowledge’ as follows:
1. Creation of Understanding and Awareness- this point was discussed in the original work-
plan after the 12 point plan under the headings ‘other necessary aids to IOK’ and ‘further
rules of implementation’. It becomes the first stage of IOK probably reflecting on the
activities of the IIIT over the years as no IOK can occur without efforts made to promote
it seriously via active participation, including financing of activities related to IOK both at
the individual/institutional and government/national/ international levels.
2. Crystallization of Islamic Thought, Concepts and Methodology- this is a new explicit

addition to the IOK agenda, probably as a result of the realization that some
prerequisites are needed before dealing with the branches of knowledge. It is focused on
methodological and epistemological issues dealing with the heritage and includes
knowledge of the Qur’an, the sunnah as well as sciences related to the shari’ah, the
Arabic language and the early history of Islam, to provide an ‘overall philosophical and
methodological vision’ (or what we have term the Islamic worldview) to scholars who will
undertake IOK efforts.
3. and 4. Mastery of the Legacy and Mastery of Contemporary Knowledge- A detailed list of
projects including the publication of encyclopedias of both branches of knowledge to
serve in the IOK process is put forward. Again no one would disagree with these goals,
although some may query about the expertise available to produce these encyclopedias.
What is significantly different in the revised edition is the ‘switching of places’ between
which mastery is to come first. While stage number 2 reflects the need for the Islamizers
to have a proper Islamic worldview, putting the legacy as stage 3 before contemporary
knowledge (stage 4) is probably due to the influence of al-Alwani, whose views clearly
indicate a preference for the mastery of the Islamic legacy and also the more significant
role of the traditional Islamic scholar in the IOK process. Also we have to keep in mind
the criticisms of people like Sardar (1988), who viewed Faruqi’s 12 point plan as ‘putting
the cart before the horse’ and that it was not Islam that needed to be made relevant to
modern knowledge but modern knowledge that needed to be made relevant to Islam.
4. Textbooks in Disciplines- In addition to the works on the vision of Islam, on our legacy
and assessments of contemporary western civilization, textbooks in the various
disciplines need to be produced. 5
5. and 6 Priorities of Scientific Research and preparation of academic cadres.
Another interesting change in the emphasis of this revised edition is the priority
given to the area of methodology. While methodology is recognized in the
original work-plan as one of the areas/types of knowledge needed for IOK (the
other being substantive knowledge of the discipline), this revised edition,
5 This task has proven to be much more difficult that initially envisioned by Faruqi and probablt his colleagues at the IIIT. The experience at
the IIUM, especially during the rectorship of Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman,, which saw the IOK agenda being implemented rigorously, failed
to produce the desired results in the form of textbooks.
probably benefiting from the experience of (failed) efforts at producing
textbooks, realized that without sufficient attention in the area of methodology
(in both traditions), there would not be genuine ‘Islamic’ alternatives. For this
purpose, human resources ‘instilled with the Islamic vision’ and understanding
the methodological issues of both traditions are needed. Safi’s (1993) paper quite
boldly admitted that after 10 years, the IOK agenda was still in its ‘pre-
methodological’ stage. The changes in this revised edition are made even clearer
when we look at Al-Alwani’s 1995 paper ‘Islamization of Knowledge: Yesterday
and Today’. He states clearly in the first few pages of his paper that
‘the idea of IOK has always been understood as an intellectual and

methodological outlook rather than as an academic field of specialization, an
ideology or a new sect…..some people however, were unable to discern the
essential methodological issues in the IOK, perhaps due to the pragmatic
manner in which Islamization was first articulated……the IOK school is not
blind to the fact that it may take decades before the methodological and
epistemological issues involved in this proposition are clarified in a definitive
manner’.
In this context, the IOK (1989, p. 89) requires the combination of ‘two readings’,
that of revelation and the natural universe in order to attain a balanced
understanding of reality where ‘the Qur’an is the guide to the real-existential,
and the real existential is the guide to the Qur’an’. He then adds that the ‘IOK
undertaking may be pursued only by those endowed with a vast knowledge of
the Qur’an and a firm grounding in the social sciences and humanities’. The IOK
agenda is then presented as consisting of ‘six discourses’ :
Discourse 1 and 2- Articulating the Islamic paradigm of knowledge and developing a

Qur’anic Methodology
The first discourse is concerned with establishing a tawhidi episteme that represents two
bases: one that activates and transforms the articles of faith into a conceptual framework
and, secondly, that elaborates the paradigms of knowledge that guided historical Islam with
all its schools of thought. In order to help develop the Islamic paradigm of knowledge, a
Qur’anic methodology that can help the Muslim mind deal effectively with historical and
contemporary problems by ‘rooting’ the paradigm to the book of God, is important.6
Discourse 3- A Methodology of Dealing with the Qur’an
This may require a review and reorganization of the Qur’anic sciences to move away from
concentrating overly on lexical and rhetorical perspectives culminating in interpretive
discourse (tafsir). There is also a need to be wary of attempts to try and ‘relativise’ the
Qur’an with the aim of linking the social and natural sciences to the higher purposes of
creation.
Discourse 4- A Methodology for Dealing with the Sunnah
As the best interpreter of the Qur’an, the Prophet’s deeds and words played the role of narrowing
the distance between revelation and the real existential. However, the Prophet sunnah is
bound by space and time constraints. Hence the need for us to be able to understand the
sunnah and how it can be applicable to the present context.
Discourse 5- Reexamining the Islamic Intellectual Heritage
There is a need to be able to distinguish between what should be totally rejected, totally accepted
and piecemeal grafting/modification. Since this heritage is a product of the human mind, a
thorough evaluation of the heritage is needed to ensure that we do not confuse
interpretations that are of a historical context and reality that may be very different from
ours today, with the primary source of revelation.
Discourse 6- Dealing with the Western Intellectual Heritage
It is interesting to note that al-Alwani brings dealing with modern knowledge here, after the legacy
is first understood. If we are to truly liberate ourselves from the dominant paradigms
developed in the west, there is a need to develop a methodology for dealing with western
thought. Outright rejection, or acceptance or cosmetic grafting without reference to a
‘proper’ framework, will not constitute IOK.
6 The presentation of these two discourses are somewhat confusing. If al-Alwani is referring to the need to elaborate an Islamic worldview
that forms the pre-analytical basis of Islamic methodology, this can be understood. However this is not very clear and the way discourse 2
and 3 are worded adds to the confusion.
Certainly from the sequencing of these six discourses, al-Alwani is almost ‘reversing’ Faruqi’s
12 point plan. Benefiting from the debate on the IOK, as well as probably learning from
experience, i.e. the difficulty and almost inability to produce ‘authentic’ textbooks
representing ‘Islamized knowledge’ and subject matter from genuine Islamic perspectives,
al-Alwani stresses the importance of creating what Rahman (1988) calls scholars who ‘are
imbued with the attitude that the Qur’an wants to inculcate in us’ and also agrees with
Rahman that we need to first examine our own heritage in the light of Qur’anic/Islamic
criteria before moving on to critically studying modern knowledge. Again, al-Alwani is also
putting greater emphasis on the methodological issues involved in the IOK.
In this light, Safi (1993) carries out an evaluation of the IOK project and argues that it is still
in ‘its pre-methodological’ stage. Sharing Abu Sulayman and al-Alwani’s view that the IOK
must be seen as an epistemological and methodological concern. He is of the view that
Faruqi’s 12 point plan can be perceived as psychologically (and intellectually) overwhelming
as well as logistically difficult to achieve. Hence, he proposes a modified strategy,
highlighting the possibility of reorganizing the 12-point work-plan into parallel tracks: one
dealing with modern knowledge and its methodologies and another dealing with the Islamic
legacy and its methodologies. His important contribution in the development of the IOK
agenda is his explicit mention, perhaps for the first time, that within each track, two types of
knowledge are to be mastered by modern Muslim scholars:
i. substantive knowledge (mastery of modern knowledge, mastery of Islamic legacy:

anthology and analysis, steps 1, 3 and 4)
ii. and secondly, technical (methodological) knowledge (critical assessment of the modern
discipline, critical assessment of the Islamic legacy and the creative analysis and
synthesis, steps 6, 7 and 10).
The discipline survey, establishment of relevance of Islam to the modern

discipline, survey of the ummah’s and humanity’s problems, steps 2, 5, 8 and 9
cannot be considered as separate from the process of thinking itself. Only when
this is done can we produce the textbook (step 11) and disseminate it (step 12).
While he does see the production of Islamized knowledge as contingent upon the
application of methods that are rooted in the Islamic worldview, he does not
think it necessary for the articulation of an Islamic methodology to precede a
substantive contribution to the IOK process. Safi does not give reasons for his
view, although it may be that since there two types of knowledge to be mastered,
either one can come before the other, hence making partial contribution to the
IOK. However this is not clear from his article and judging from the evolution of
the IOK agenda, I would not think it possible to undertake the ‘creative analysis
and synthesis’ step without this Islamic methodological framework. Finally, one
more unique contribution of Safi is that he viewed any product of these various
steps as only ‘Islamic tentatively’. Acceptability of Islamized knowledge can only
be substantiated through ‘verification’, i.e. the process of scrutiny by other
scholars, hence undergoing the process of ijma’ (consensus).
Besides Safi, Ragab (1995, 1997 and especially 1999) can be considered the other main
commentator of the IOK agenda and has presented a variation of Faruqi’s work-plan, but
still retains the general sequencing of Faruqi and the emphasis placed on modern
knowledge. In his 1997 paper, Ragab (p. 35) calls for ‘creative engagement’ that he defines
as
The process of approaching the social sciences in a spirit of confident search for the truth; of
digesting and assimilating their research findings, their hypotheses and their theories; of
rigorously evaluating them in the light of revealed knowledge; and most importantly, it
refers to the ability to transcend them wherever appropriate, in search of a bold and
unhesitant synthesis.
He sees the IOK going through two phases. The first is what he calls ‘integral theorizing’ that
involves three steps (1997, pp. 45-48). In step 1, modern knowledge is systematically and
critically reviewed and then ‘sifted’; in step 2, the Islamic heritage (Qur’an, hadith and works
of scholars) is used to ‘develop a conceptual framework’; and in step 3, ‘a unified integral
theoretical framework’ is developed through cataloguing, organizing, rearrangement and
reinterpretation. He clarifies the above three steps by stating that this first stage requires
not only understanding and mastery of the substantive knowledge in the modern sciences
but has to involve an understanding of the Islamic worldview, a critical evaluation and
modification of modern social sciences from an Islamic viewpoint. Only then can it lead to
step 3, which will involve ‘reconstruction, validation and realignment’. While step 2 provides
the check and balance to step 1, it is still unclear why he does not reverse the order since
step 3 can only be truly ‘Islamic’ if the Islamizers are ‘qualified’.
The second phase he calls ‘validation through research and practice’ where hypotheses are
tested. If they are confirmed, we can be more confident with our framework; but if not,
either our understanding and interpretation of our heritage in our framework was incorrect
or our research methods/procedures were deficient. Unfortunately, Ragab does not explain
what needs to happen if both the above are ‘correct’ and our observed facts still does not
tally with our tentative theory.
An early commentator of the IOK, Ja’afar Sheikh Idris (1987) also discusses the process
involved and places the sequencing of steps closer to the position of al-Alwani, i.e. on
‘resting it on the solid foundation of Islam’. He then presents his ‘11 point plan’ which
although not as clear as Faruqi’s work-plan, does try to integrate empirical findings with
revelation. Although accepting both the ‘world and wahy (revelation)’ as sources of
knowledge, and since there should not be conflict between the two (ideally but never in
practice), he still maintains that ‘we should not expect our Islamized sciences to consist of
absolutely true statements’. He also welcomes the possibility of different Islamic points of
view and different Islamic scientific theories, to be judged on its supporting evidence. I
assume that he also accepts the possibility that there could be different opinions on the
criteria of supporting evidence.
Imad al-Din Khalil (1991, pp. 8-13) also supports al-Alwani’s position (and that of critics like
Rahman and Sardar) of starting with the Islamic legacy. After thoroughly examining this
legacy and undergoing some process of ‘sifting’ using an Islamic framework, we then turn to
the modern and contemporary material, again going through a ‘sifting’ process. Nasr (1991)
also sees the need for Muslim scholars to understand both the ‘philosophical underpinnings
of scientific thought and praxis in Islam’ as well as ‘the basic premises of modern and social
sciences, identifying the key assumptions and theorems upon which the structures of the
sciences and social sciences rest’, then undertaking some sort of sifting or Islamization
process.
Ali (1989, pp. 52-55) also argues for the need to establish an Islamic ‘Grand Theory’ that is
made up of key concepts forming conceptual schemes from which the various behavioral
sciences will follow. This grand theory, or worldview as others have called it, will include
theological, eschatological, philosophical, anthropological and societal concepts that are all
geared to solving societal goals that are determined by the framework itself.
Having looked at the view of Faruqi, one of the two main proponents of the IOK project,
followed by the modifications to his original work-plan as well as the views of some other
writers and commentators, we now look at the views of the other main proponent of IOK,
i.e. al-Attas. The first thing that strikes one who reads al-Attas and is looking for his views
on ‘how’ to do IOK, is the absence of ‘work-plans’, despite his long contribution to this area.
In this, al-Attas does not open his views to the criticisms of scholars like Rahman and Sardar
who have taken Faruqi to task for trying to chart out maps and plans to Islamize knowledge.
To al-Attas, the IOK process has to begin with the articulation and understanding of the
Islamic worldview. Since language is the communicator of this worldview, Islamization
necessarily begins with language. Hence he argues that wherever Islam spread, certain key
Islamic concepts that represent this worldview can be found either in the existing language
or in many cases, new languages were created by Islam. Examples of these new languages
are Malay, Urdu and Swahili, since the original languages of the people were too immersed
in alien worldviews. This is also why al-Attas stresses throughout his works the importance
of correct definitions of terms and concepts. He has also talked about the common ‘Islamic
language’ i.e. Islamic concepts in Qur’anic arabic that project the Islamic worldview that are
found in all Muslim languages, whose purpose is to convey the correct Islamic worldview.
The corruption of knowledge through the changing of meanings of concepts is taken very
seriously by al-Attas to be one of the main reasons for the ‘Muslim dilemma’ and condition
today.
As far as education/curriculum was concerned, Wan Mohd. Nor (1998) mentions al-Attas’
efforts in the early 1970s at the National University of Malaysia (which was suggested by
him to be an Islamic University) to require all students at its Institute of Malay Language,
Literature and Culture (that he was founder-Director of) to take at least one course on
Islamic thought, history and culture every year throughout their study to convey aspects of
Islam and its worldview, hence enabling students to receive the fard ‘ayn knowledge in
addition to their other fard kifayah subjects, thus assisting in the ‘gradual and subtle process
of islamization in these fields of study’. This idea is very similar to the idea promoted by
Faruqi in his 1982 work-plan that requires students to take courses in Islamic civilization
throughout their study as a way to expose them to the Islamic perspective of things. This
was also the experience in the initial years at the International Islamic University Malaysia,
where students were obliged to take eleven courses in various areas of Islam and its
civilization as part of their undergraduate programs.
While for al-Attas, contemporary/present day knowledge is the focus of Islamization, we
agree with Wan Mohd Nor’s observation (1997, p.4) that al-Attas also called, albeit not as
strongly as scholars like Fazlur Rahman, for the reformation of traditional learning, hence his
call for a ‘new’ Islamic university since the late 1960s.
As for modern/contemporary knowledge, al-Attas sees it as being founded on, interpreted

and projected through the western philosophical outlook or worldview, and has caused the
‘deislamization of the Muslim mind’. What is needed is to Islamize modern knowledge via a
two-step process:
i. isolation of key elements that make-up Western culture and civilization from every
branch of knowledge (dewesternization/desecularization)
ii. infusion of Islamic elements and key concepts into all branches of knowledge
In total, these two steps are part of the Islamization process. However, this can only be
done by those who have a ‘profound grasp of the nature, spirit and attributes of Islam as a
religion, culture and civilization as well as western culture and civilization’ (Wan Mohd. Nor,
1998). Unless the Islamizer clearly understands the Islamic worldview as defined earlier,
he/she may not know what needs to be isolated and what needs to be infused, what are
acceptable, what are not and what the Islamic alternatives are. Certainly for al-Attas, IOK is
an ‘epistemological and methodological’ concern, dealing with how ‘Islamically creative
minds can evaluate modern knowledge using Islamic benchmarks’. At the end of the process
is the ‘reconstruction’ or ‘reformulation’ of contemporary knowledge and disciplines, either
those existing or the creation of new disciplines if necessary. 7
Ali Ashraf, another pioneer of contemporary Islamic education agreed fully with al-Attas that
Islamization of knowledge cannot be merely adding new or modern knowledge to the old or
traditional knowledge found in Muslim countries. Like al-Attas, Safi, Ragab and many others
who have ‘learnt from the experience of Islamization’, Ali Ashraf also is of the opinion that
no real creative synthesis is possible till we Islamize the approach to all branches of
knowledge (which is a methodological concern) and thus fulfill the real aim of education as
enunciated in the First World Conference on Islamic Education held in Makkah in 1977. The
7 Refer to unpublished paper of Muhammad Kamal Hassan, now Rector of the IIUM, presented at the Kulliyyah of Economics and
Management Sciences’ Islamic Orientation Program, June 1997.
vision of Islam (or its worldview) will provide the Islamic Frame of Reference that is the pre-
requisite for Islamization. This frame of reference consists of spiritual, intellectual and
educational dimensions.
While agreeing with Sardar that it is not the Qur’an that has to be adjusted to society but
society that has to be reformed to the path of the Qur’an and sunnah (1989, p. 2), one
could see his reservation to Faruqi’s 12 point plan, especially the step that states ‘finding the
relevance of Islam to the discipline’. However, he also criticizes Sardar and the Ijmali school
for what he considers to be ‘overly rational’ at the expense of the ‘intellect’, similar to his
and Hadi’s criticism of Faruqi.
Ashraf goes on to explain that Islamization efforts have actually suffered a setback since the
1977 Conference. This is because Islamization is disliked as it focuses on modern knowledge
and its system. Instead, ‘modernization’ of the traditional system is preferred since this effort
focuses on the religious school system that is seen to be backward. Rather controversially,
he lays blame on this state of affairs on the officials in Muslim countries whose nationalistic
sentiments prove to be the greatest obstacle towards a unified system of education.
Section 5- Reviewers and Critics

In addition to the main proponents and those who have developed the IOK agenda, no
survey on the IOK project would be complete without discussing the views of two other
categories of writings: those who have attempted ‘reviews’, either of individuals,
comparisons between scholars or of institutions and those who have been critical of the IOK
project as a whole or of certain ideas and/or ‘steps’ founds in the writings of some
proponents. The latter category is always left out of studies on the IOK as they are seen to
be ‘outside’ the IOK project. This article breaks with this tradition as it considers these critics
as making an important contribution to the IOK debate since many of the developments,
modifications and improvements to the IOK agenda have come about, among others, in
response to these criticisms.
In this section, we will try to present the main comments found in these two categories of
writings. In should however be noted that there is no total mutual exclusivity in writings that
are ‘reviews’ and ‘critiques’. Most if not all the works that are surveyed in this article are
either supportive of the IOK agenda, or if not, are proponents of alternative views on
contemporary Islamic scholarship and its reformation in the 20th century.
Some reviews like that of Safi (1993) given in the previous section, while generally
supportive of the IOK agenda, are also critical of some points in the IOK agenda given by
Faruqi. Some reviews like that of Sardar (1988) are more dismissive of the IOK agenda,
although again it is based on the views of Faruqi’s work-plan. Most comparative studies have
also by definition, reviews. Some of these studies are critical of the ideas of one or more of
those compared. Yasien’s (1993) comparative work of Rahman and Faruqi is supportive of
the former and while not totally dismissive of the Islamization agenda is critical of the
sequencing of Faruqi’s workplan.
Wan Mohd. Nor’s (1997) comparison of Fazlur Rahman and Al-Attas clearly supports the
position of Al-Attas, while his 1998 survey of ‘contemporary responses’ to the IOK agenda
laid out by Al-Attas 8 gives probably the most comprehensive review/critique of the various
views of scholars who have discussed not only the IOK, but who have talked about Islamic
intellectual development in the second half of the 20th century. Finally one finds studies that
attempt to ‘bridge’ differences between proponents. Moten’s (2000) work looks exclusively at
the IIIT’s evolution via the writings of its three presidents (Faruqi, Al-Alwani and Abu
Sulayman) and Rosnani/Rossidy’s (1999) comparison between Faruqi and Al-Attas tries to
develop the common themes and ideas between the two main proponents.
For purposes of this article, we will divide the works surveyed in this section into works that
are generally critical of the IOK project as a whole like that of Rahman (1988) and Sardar
(1988, 1989); works that are critical of aspects of the IOK agenda like that of Yasien (1994)
and Safi (1993); finally, works that compare views of scholars and in the process review the
views of those compared like that of Yasien (1993,1994), Wan Mohd. Nor (1997) and
Rosnani/Rossidy (1999).
1. Critique of IOK- 'Opponents'
8 The sub-title of his book indicates explicitly his view that Al-Attas’ views are the ‘original exposition’ of the IOK agenda. While Chapter 7
discusses the views of other contemporary scholars, the earlier chapters elaborate in detail the intellectual life and ideas/thoughts of al-
Attas, including his views on Islamization. It is also interesting to note that in this sense, this book becomes an intellectual biography of al-
Attas rather than being a commemorative work on a scholar as available for some other scholars.
As mentioned earlier, most critiques of the IOK project are based on Faruqi's work-plan,
and implicitly that of IIIT, although the IIIT position has itself evolved over the years.
Although in terms of writings, one would place Sardar's criticism as the earliest
comprehensive critique of Faruqi's IOK work-plan, other scholars such as Seyyed Hossein
Nasr and Fazlur Rahman were already presenting alternative ways to develop contemporary
Islamic scholarship with their writings in the 1960s. 9 Rahman (1988) criticizes Faruqi's work-
plan for being too 'enamoured over making maps and charts of how to go about creating
Islamic knowledge' (p. 10) when what is more needed are greater efforts in the ‘creation
not of propositions, but minds' (p. 4).
According to Rahman, while 'ilm (knowledge) by itself is good, the problem is its misuse
that occurs due to man's lacking the responsibility that comes together with the power of
having knowledge. Hence, it is the human being and his moral priorities that should be the
focus of Islamization not knowledge. Rahman calls for the creation of thinkers who when
they are 'imbued with the attitude that the Qur'an wants to inculcate in us', are able to
first examine our own tradition in the light of the Qur'an and only then critically study the
body of knowledge created by modernity (emphasis added). In many ways this criticism
has been accommodated in the views of the IIIT via Taha Jabir al-Alwani's 'reversal' of the
work-plan sequence when he talks about his six discourses that clearly begin with the
heritage. More importantly and not directly mentioned by Rahman, al-Alwani's views on
the IOK project also lay primary stress on epistemological and methodological issues.
This is exactly the reason why Sardar (1988) is dismissive of Faruqi's workplan. While
acknowledging Rahman's ideas and prioritization, Sardar is more comprehensive in his
critique. In his article, which was written originally in the mid-1980s, he criticizes Faruqi's
methodology as consisting of only 'first principles', and hence 'mounting to very little' (p.
9). While agreeing with Faruqi that western social sciences are Eurocentric, he accuses
Faruqi of choosing to ignore the reality that it is the epistemology of modern science that
has created the modern world and that this is what any IOK agenda has to focus on, rather
than the output, i.e. disciplines. He sees as misplaced the emphasis on disciplines, which to
him are born within the matrix of a particular worldview. Hence, it is also not possible to
accept the disciplinary divisions of knowledge as they exist in western epistemology (p. 101,
emphasis added). Taking the examples of our past scholars, Sardar argues that a reclassification
of knowledge is necessary.
9See for example Nasr's early works like Ideals and Realities of Islam (1971), Man and Nature (1976) and Islam and the Plight of Modern
Man (1976). Also Rahman's Islam (1966) and Islam and Modernity' (1982).
'The task before the Muslim intelligentsia, then, is to develop, using the epistemology of Islam,
alternative paradigms of knowledge for both the natural and social sciences and to conceive and
mould disciplines most relevant to the needs of contemporary Muslim societies. Only when
distinctive Islamic paradigms and associated bodies of knowledge have evolved can Muslim
scholars contemplate achieving a synthesis on appropriate footing with knowledge created by
western civilization' (p. 104).
Presenting the Ijmali view which sees the need to develop Islamic paradigms of knowledge
and behavior from concepts found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, Sardar (1989) also stresses a very
important point that has not been emphasized concerning the views of critics of Faruqi's work-
plan is that they do not call for a total 'disengagement' with modern knowledge. What is the
point of contention is the quality of the individual that is to Islamize and also the criteria that will
be used to Islamize (the Islamic worldview), the framework that this will take place (within
Islamic epistemology) and the way the Islamization will take place (methodology). One does not
see the same criticism leveled against Al-Attas as he is very careful to point out the above. In
this context, Nasim Butt (1989, pp. 96-97) also sees modern disciplines as manifesting 'post-
enlightenment materialistic' worldview and have evolved to solve problems arising from this
intellectual tradition. Hence, trying to Islamize these disciplines is futile and will only ‘only serve
to relegate Islamized disciplines to the derogatory position of minority sub-disciplines and not
really Islamic discipline construction’ (p. 97).
One could readily accept Sardar’s critcism of the IOK by the many failed attempts at producing
Islamized textbooks. However, one must also be willing to accept the possibility that this is due
to the wrong way in which the IOK has been understood and the misunderstanding of the pre-
requisites for successful implementation. In other words, failure to produce textbooks may not
be due to a failure of the IOK agenda in itself as opposed to a failure to understand it.
2. Critique of Aspects of IOK
Most writings on the IOK, even those written by proponents, do contain some critical views,
either on the 'what' or definitions (or lack of them) of IOK or on the 'how' to IOK. This group
generally supports the effort of IOK but some have differences with what is proposed. For
example, while Yassien (1993a) sees the IOK project as a 'revivalist response to modernity', he
also criticizes the 'sequencing' of Faruqi's 12 steps. Although he understands why Faruqi
focused on modern disciplines and the modern Muslim social scientist, he sees this as
acceptable only as a short-term measure or something that can provide 'immediate relief from
our problems but one that does not get to the heart of the problem. Quoting Davies (1986), he
laments that Faruqi's work-plan has possibility of 'over-exposure to the disease'.
Genuine Islamization entails the elaboration of earlier Islamic conceptual frameworks to

convincingly meet the challenges of intellectual modernity. These frameworks must emerge,
first of all, from the Islamic legacy before the relevance of the modem discipline in question
can be determined for them (1994, p. 288)
Following the arguments of Rahman and Sardar, he also sees the need to 'disengage' with
the west, to turn to our legacy in order to build Islamic disciplines first, before we try to
evaluate modern disciplines.
Safi (1993) a proponent of the IOK project, also takes a critical look at Faruqi's work-plan.
He agrees with earlier writers such as Sardar that Faruqi's work-plan does not really discuss
methodology but only 'identifies some epistemological principles' (p. 25). He also views the
12-point work-plan as 'overwhelming and exceedingly complicated' (p. 27) and suffers from
logistical deficiencies. While much of the (failed) attempts at IOK have been concentrated
in the 'substantive knowledge areas' i.e. in the relevant disciplines, not sufficient
attention has been given to the other type of knowledge needed, i.e. that of methodology.
He rightly argues that we cannot have the emergence of 'substantive Islamized
knowledge' without the emergence and application of Islamic methods first (p. 28). In
addition to this issue of methodology, he also adds that the Islamized knowledge that is
produced after the twelve steps is only 'tentative', subject to confirmation by the Islamic
scientific community, thus creating some sort of ijma' or consensus.
His paper than critically evaluates the views of several proponents as well as opponents of
the IOK project (ala Faruqi). Some deny the need to have IOK, seeing all solutions already
within our heritage while some tend to overdo the use of reason and overlook the rich
heritage of our past scholars. Relying on only one source, either our heritage or modern
knowledge is inadequate although he is quick to point out that the substantive knowledge
and methodology of the two sources is not necessarily 'invalid' but 'less than adequate',
hence requiring 'dialogue and interaction'.
An Islamic methodology has to emerge, at least partially, by appropriating elements of both
classical Islamic and modern western methods. A wholesale and a priori rejection of either
the two traditions is unscientific (1993, p.41)
Other writers such as Syed Ali Ashraf (1984) and Hadi Sharifi (1984) who were both present
at the first international conference on Muslim education in Makkah in 1977 have some
reservations about Faruqi's work-plan. The former sees too much emphasis on the modern
discipline in Faruqi's work-plan while too much emphasis on 'modernizing Islamic
education' in Muslim countries without the right pre-requisites, while the latter sees Faruqi's
work-plan as too 'this worldly', neglecting to handle the philosophical foundations of
modern science. This makes the work-plan overly ‘external’ and hence superficial and
lacking the spiritual dimension of any true Islamic reform agenda. Added to this is the
worry that Faruqi’s (mis)translation of important terms such as ‘aql as ‘rational’ rather
than intellect and his emphasis on this kind of ‘rationality’ can lead to an overly 'secular'
approach to life and thought.
3. Comparative Studies
The last group of writings are those who have attempted comparative studies between
proponents of IOK or between intellectual responses of Muslims to modern knowledge.
Yasien's (1993) study that compares Faruqi's intellectual contribution to IOK with that of
Rahman who is a critic of the IOK project actually falls under the latter category although
Yasien's paper discusses IOK. As mentioned earlier, Yasien is supportive of Rahman's view
and while not totally dismissive of the IOK agenda, is clearly critical of aspects of the IOK
agenda.
For example, he criticizes Faruqi for not paying enough attention to defining secularism,
hence creating ambiguity on what are the ‘alien’ elements that need to be ‘eliminated,
amended reinterpreted and adapted according to the Islamic worldview’ as stated in his
work-plan. As with Ashraf, Hadi, Sardar and other scholars, Yasien also concurs that the
secular foundations of modern sciences have not been addressed adequately by Faruqi. He
also thinks that Faruqi has presented Islam as a monolithic system, without sufficient critique
of the Islamic legacy (p. 33). Finally, he also criticizes the overemphasis on the modern
disciplines, seeing that this could divert attention away from the Qur’an as the ultimate
reference point (1993, p. 34; 1994, p. 286). He does however credit Faruqi’s work-plan as
potentially providing ‘immediate relief’ from the anguish experienced by western trained
Muslim graduates but does not see this work-plan as providing long-term solutions to
intellectual modernity.
Here he shows his preference for Rahman’s call in the latter’s Islam and Modernity (1982)
that Muslim scholarship has to first ‘disengage from the west and cultivate an independent
but understanding attitude toward it’ by going back to our legacy so that Islamic disciplines
can be developed first (1994, p. 287). Reading Faruqi as above is not so simple as Faruqi did
make reference to ‘critical’ evaluations of both the legacy and modern sciences, although we
would agree that not enough was probably said about the methodological requirements of
these steps. Similarly, one could argue that Rahman, while mentioning the need to ‘evaluate
modern knowledge’ (1988, p. 36), did not really give much attention to this. It both cases,
these major contributors to contemporary Islamic scholarship died before they could address
these issues. Hence, like Rahman, we can say that Yasien disagrees with Faruqi’s work-plan
but not to Islamization of knowledge in principle.
Wan Mohd Nor's (1997) comparison of al-Attas and Rahman is an interesting article as the
writer has been associated with both scholars. He rightly points out that Rahman was a
'late and indirect participant' of the IOK agenda (through his 1988 article). Instead,
according to Wan, Rahman in his Islam and Modernity (1982) presented his own views on
how education of Muslims needed to be undertaken but concentrated more on the socio-
legal dimension of the community (p. 16). Wan is of the opinion that many of Rahman's
later criticism on Faruqi's IOK work-plan do not apply to al-Attas' views on IOK as the latter has
always stressed the importance of beginning with the Islamic worldview and basing all
Islamization efforts on this worldview and utilizing methods that are products of the
epistemological foundations of this worldview.
Finally, one finds the work of Rosnani/Rossidy, which is based on the latter's Master's thesis
where they look at the views of al-Attas and Faruqi, both major proponents of the IOK project.
As mentioned in their introduction, one of the aims of their comparison is to actually 'create
understanding and tolerance among the adherents of al-Attas and al-Faruqi and for possible
reconciliation' between the two groups.10 After elaborating on the philosophical framework,
10 While Faruqi's views became the more popular version of the IOK project with the institutional support of the International Institute of Islamic
Thought (HIT) based in Herndon, Virginia, it also has borne the brunt of criticism. Al-Attas on the other hand, while writing in the areas of educational
reform and Islamization since the late 1960s/early 1970s, was not as widely read by scholars outside Malaysia. However, with the establishment of the
International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC) in 1988, via the International Islamic University Malaysia, his ideas have gained
prominence and are seen by some as having greater vitality and rigor than Faruqi. However, it must also be noted that Faruqi was assassinated in
definitions of IOK and methodologies or more precisely the IOK process as mentioned by the
two scholars, they conclude that there are actually many fundamental similarities between the
two. Their paper generally sees al-Attas as having a more profound view of the IOK agenda as
he bases his IOK views on a stronger philosophical position and stresses the methodological
emphasis in his agenda (pp. 21-23).
They also view al-Attas' concern for definitional clarity as a strength for the IOK agenda as a
whole. Faruqi is seen to have taken one step further than al-Attas, by concretizing his ideas on
'how to Islamize' by developing his 12-point work-plan (p. 31). It is probably here that the
writers find the greatest differences between the two. Al-Attas, they rightly state, does not
spell out in ‘steps’ how to go about Islamizing knowledge, preferring instead to talk about the
‘pre-requisites’ needed (i.e. understanding the Islamic worldview and its metaphysics). Faruqi
on the other hand, seems to have concentrated more on ‘downstream’ activities, represented
by his 12 point plan (or at least this part of his work-plan received greatest attention from
others). They also see Faruqi as a ‘salafiyyah-reformist’ emphasizing society and the ummah,
while al-Attas emphasizes the immense contribution of tassawuf in the formulation of a
philosophy of education/science (p. 36). However, they are of the opinion that these
differences, while significant, must be seen vis-a-vis the similar philosophical framework
shared by both al-Attas and Faruqi (p. 38), hence reconciliation is possible.
Section 6- Future Direction and Concluding Remarks

It is now time to take stock of the discussion thus far, to restate some of the
main issues raised and to provide some suggestions as to what the future holds
for the IOK project.
Without doubt, whether one is a proponent or an opponent or even a neutral

bystander, it cannot be denied that the IOK project has played a prominent role
in contemporary scholarship and literature, both in theory and in practice, the
latter manifested in attempts to provide ‘Islamized’ curricula and textbooks in
undergraduate programs in various universities both in the Muslim and non-
Muslim world. This presence has been consistent for the last two decades,
although at the time this article is being written (end of 2003), the IOK project is
facing a relatively low ebb in its existence. While partly due to external events
1986 in the US and since then, the IIIT has continued to expand and modify Faruqi's initial ideas, partially in response to the criticisms leveled at the 12-
point work-plan.
such as post 9-11 effects that include pressure on many Islamic institutions and
organizations and Islamists, the main reason according to the present writer is
an internal one, i.e. the over emphasis and unprepared human resources capable
of producing ‘Islamized textbooks.
Certainly in an institution like the IIUM, where the practical aspects of the IOK
were to bear fruit, it is very clear that the results have been far from what was
hoped for. The problem was not a lack of financial resources nor a resistance
from the leadership (if anything, there was full support) to achieving the aims of
the IOK project. The fault lay in the neglect and inability to develop coherent
epistemological and methodological bases upon which the Islamization of
‘disciplines’ or knowledge can take place and for these to be understood and
utilized by the academics at the IIUM. In many ways, we are still in the ‘pre-
methodological’ stage of IOK as mentioned by Safi ten years ago. Realization of
this ‘mistake’ is now setting in. Even within those proponents of IOK, the articles
by Safi (1993) and Ragab (1995, 1997 and 1997), who were both academic staff
at the IIUM, very clearly stated their views on the need to first get these
methodological concerns sorted out.
Despite its current ‘stagnation’, the IOK as envisaged by its main proponents, is
nevertheless still a necessity for the Muslim ummah. The rationale of the IOK is
still valid, probably even more important now when the ‘clash of civilizations’
thesis of Huntingdon is being realized by its proponents under the various
contemporary agendas of the post 9-11 world. Against this ‘clash’ mentality, the
IOK is in actuality calling for engagement, discourse and dialogue. All are
generally in agreement that the Muslim ummah cannot afford to ‘live in the past’.
All would agree that lessons can be learnt, although different scholars may treat
the past differently and hence take different lessons from it.
What may seem to be worrying some is that the call for engagement in IOK is a
call that sees dialogue and interaction between parties that must be accepted as
equals. This means something very different from mere blind acceptance of
concepts (and their foundations) in modern sciences or the emotive rejection of
concepts, theories and views just because it comes from the west. Rather, it
implies a thorough ‘evaluation’ of the foundations of western science, its
methodologies and its resulting bodies of knowledge from Islamic perspectives.
It may also be for this reason that the IOK project may be targeted by its
opponents since any success in ‘creating equals in the domain of intellectual
pursuit’ will certainly have tremendous political, economic and social impact.
The terms and scope of engagement according to scholars such as Al-Attas and
Sardar are very clearly defined as being those that are developed from our own
worldview and utilizing our own epistemological base from which our own
methodologies would create modified disciplines and possibly, even ‘new’
disciplines. Some, like Sardar even call for a reclassification of
knowledge/sciences based on our Islamic epistemological base. Ragab and Safi,
would also generally agree with this position, although they, especially the
former, would accept the existing disciplines after a process of sifting based on
the Islamic worldview takes place. The modified versions of the IIIT work-plan
and Al-Alwani’s focus on the heritage and on Islamic methodology also moves in
this direction of the need to develop genuine Islamic scholarship before
interaction/dialogue takes place.
All are in agreement that it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, but the IOK is
not, and cannot become a process to do patchwork or cosmetic surgery on
existing bodies of knowledge or to graft/transplant existing bodies into Islamic
frameworks. There is a need for serious evaluation (implying criteria, standards)
before accepting, rejecting, assimilating or synthesizing can be done in
developing contemporary Islamic knowledge. However, as stated by Safi (1993),
these criteria and standards for dealing with our heritage and modern science
have not been elaborated on sufficiently, hence the shortcomings and criticisms.
While the need for a genuine contemporary philosophy of knowledge- one that is
firmly rooted in the heritage, one that is aware of the strengths and
shortcomings of aspects of this heritage, one that is aware of the western
heritage with its strengths and shortcomings, one that is able to be faithful to the
core of Islam but able to address contemporary issues- is acknowledged by all,
contemporary writers differ as to the best way to achieve the results sought.
Some like al-Attas and Sardar and to a lesser extent, Safi and Ragab would argue
that more work has to be done in the areas of clarifying the Islamic worldview,
philosophy of science including methodological issues before jumping into
disciplines. In this regard, Sardar (and Nasr, in his article that looks at economics
as a case in point), is actually against the idea of trying to Islamize existing
disciplines since he sees these disciplines as infected by the worldview of the
west. The other three would probably be more willing to interact with existing
bodies of knowledge, provided we did it from Islamic perspectives.
Ragab, Safi and even the IIIT school, while acknowledging the importance of a
genuine contemporary Islamic philosophy of knowledge, also look at ‘practical’
needs, i.e. the immediate requirement to teach Muslim youth from Islamic
perspectives. In this, the IIIT has stressed the importance of creating and
publishing Islamized knowledge in the form of textbooks, despite all
shortcomings provided we are clear about what we want to do. In fact, Abdul
Hamid Abu Sulayman, the former Rector of the International Islamic University
Malaysia, an institution promoting ‘Integration and Islamization’ of knowledge as
its objective, was known to have viewed Islamization as a process of ‘moving
towards a moving target’, implying both means and ends could and most
probably would, change. He preferred ‘doing something’, even if it meant that we
could be wrong, provided we were willing to learn from mistakes.
In this sense, and by analyzing the revised IOK workplan, Abu Sulayman (1989)
has clarified many areas that were criticized by writers such as Sardar. In
another writing (1994) he attempted to redefine, recategorize and re-evaluate
concepts in political science from an Islamic perspective, hence taking Sardar’s
criticisms to heart and clarifying what he thinks the IOK would imply (1994, p.
36).
Admittedly, the effort needed can be exacting, because it requires the

comprehensive and systematic analysis of the legacy of Islam in all its primary
and secondary sources. A great deal of editing will be needed. Subjects will have
to be categorized; terms will have to be coined, modified, or defined anew. A
total renovation will be required. Armed with deep insight, critical understanding,
and systematic analysis, we would not refrain from investigating knowledge
discovered by non-Muslims or adopting new experimental methods, provided
that we remain conscious of the differences in background, motivation, and
purpose.
Therefore the worry that somehow the IOK project does mere ‘patch work’ is
certainly not justified based on the intentions of the scholars promoting IOK.
While modern knowledge is the prime focus of the IOK proponents, other
scholars like Fazlur Rahman would instead focus on Islamizing the human
intellect rather than knowledge. This would be done by going to the heritage
(especially the Qur’an) and deriving a Qur’anic methodology that would be first
used to evaluate our heritage first. Here the emphasis is to relook at our legacy
first and to ‘sift’ it so that we do not mistake cultural inputs as that of the main
sources of knowledge in Islam, i.e. the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet
(pbuh). Only then would we attempt to address the western/modern knowledge.
This is also what Al-Alwani suggests in the first five of his six discourses.
It must be borne in mind that no Islamizing of disciplines or even of minds can

take place without a basis or worldview that forms the criteria of evaluation and
methodology that will be used in Islamization. In this respect, al-Attas’ emphasis
and often repeated lesson that scholars (and later Muslims in general) must first
understand their worldview and the components within, is now almost an
accepted fact among all. However, the present writer is still not convinced that
the implications of this statement on the curricula has been fully understood by
academics, especially those in administrative positions. It is not easy to change
curricula to include more philosophy and methodology when what is being
sought after, especially by the ‘market’, are solutions to ‘practical problems.
We would strongly urge scholars and administrators to stand firm and insist that
greater elaboration of an Islamic worldview or metaphysics needs to be included
in curricula. We should not succumb to the temptation of rushing to come up with
instant ‘solutions’ without first preparing ourselves sufficiently. We should not
take too seriously calls to move away from discussing ‘philosophy and
methodology’, which are only ‘abstract’ areas that do not really have any
‘practical use’. The deliberation of the scholars reviewed in this article should
help convince skeptics that epistemological and methodological concerns are
very practical and have practical implications on curricula and its output, i.e.
Islamized knowledge. The main lesson gained from 30 years of the IOK project is
that we have not really discussed and understood the philosophical and
methodological issues of the modern disciplines we have been trying to Islamize.
Also we have not sufficiently dealt with our own legacy.
However, there is also an urgent need to be able to connect this philosophy and
methodology to the disciplines and maybe more importantly to the scholars who
are involved in those disciplines. As Ragab (1999, p. 35) rightly points out
There is no shortage of materials written about different aspects of

Islam as a religion or way of life. However, most of the reference
material on Islam and the Islamic worldview. Encyclopedic or
monographic, do not lend themselves readily for use by Muslim social
scientists embarking on the Islamization of their disciplines
No creative synthesis or Islamized knowledge in the form of textbooks can be

produced unless this gap is bridged. Unfortunately, modern western trained
Muslim social scientists are not able to appreciate these philosophical and
methodological issues underlying their own disciplines, let alone having any
meaningful exposure to the Islamic legacy. Their training has created, in many
cases, ‘second class’ western scientists, who some times even fail to grasp the
essence of their disciplines, not to mention any ambition of ‘mastering’ their
disciplines.
For example, most economics programs in western universities today hardly

discuss philosophical and methodological issues in economics. The underlying
assumptions of mainstream neoclassical-keynesian economics is accepted as
‘truth’, while most if not all attention is placed on mastering the latest
quantitative techniques (now available in software packages) and applying these
to ‘analyse data’. 11 In addition, western methodology and its ‘scientific methods’
are accepted as objective and correct, with an overwhelming attention paid to
technical procedures and application of quantitative techniques to solve
mathematical equations, without ever questioning the foundations of these
11 In this regard, it is very interesting to note that there has been a credible reaction to this in France, the UK and the US with the
establishment of a ‘post-autistic economics’ movement. Beginning as a graduate student protest towards the ‘narrow’ scope and approach
to the teaching of economics, this movement has gained momentum and now has a credible following worldwide calling for a pluralist
approach to teaching and learning economics. The movement has a quarterly on-line journal (now in its 24th issue) from economists and
other scholars who have taken the very challenging task of critically analysing the philosophical and methodological issues of the discipline.
The reason that the scholarship in this journal is worthy of reading is its common critique of ‘modern disciplines’ (in this case neoclassical
economics). Scholars keen on IOK would certainly benefit from reading the material coming out from scholars and graduate students in
western universities. See www.paecon.net.
methods and techniques and the theories they are used to promote. Certainly,
this is what the IOK agenda is all about and it would seem the logical area to
allocate resources, both financial and human. If nothing more, we should at least
learn from the developments in the west where an increasing number of
economists and philosophers of science are questioning the entire framework on
which conventional neoclassical economics rests.
Bibliography
A.K Brohi. “Islamization of Knowledge: A First Step to Integrate and Develop The Muslim
Personality and Outlook.” in Islam: Source and Purpose of Knowledge. Herndon:
International Institute of Islamic Thought, (1993), 5-12.
_________. “Islamization of Knowledge.” Islamic Thought and Scientific Creativity 4, no. 4

(1993). 31-37.
AbdulHamid Abū Sulaymān (ed.), Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and

Workplan. 2nd revised and expanded edition, chapter 5-7. Herndon: International Institute
of Islamic Thought, 1989.
_________. Islamization: Reforming Contemporary Knowledge. International Institute of

Islamic Thought, Herndon, 1994.
Abdul Rashid Moten. “Approaches to Islamization of Knowledge: A Review.” International

Conference on Islamization of Human Sciences. Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge
and Human Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia: (2000). 1-20.
Aliyu. U. Tilde. “A Critique of the Islamization of the Sciences: Its Philosophy and
Methodology.” The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 6, no. 1 (1989): 201-
208.
Ausaf Ali. “An Approach to the Islamization of Social and Behavioral Sciences.” The
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 6, no.1 (1989): 37-45.
Fazlur Rahman. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Response.” The American Journal of Islamic

Social Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 1 (1988): 3-11.
Hadi Sharifi. “Review of Islamization of Knowledge by Ismail Raji Al Faruqi.” Muslim

Education Quarterly (MEQ) 1, no. 3 (1984): 88-93.
Ibrahim A. Ragab. “On the Nature and Scope of the Islamization Process: Toward
Conceptual Clarification.” Intellectual Discourse 3, no. 2 (1995): 113-122.
_________. “Creative Engagement of Modern Social Science Scholarship: A Significant

Component of the Islamization of Knowledge Effort.” Intellectual Discourse 5, no. 1 (1997):
35-49.
_________. “On the Methodology of Islamizing Social Science.” Intellectual Discourse 7, no.
1 (1999): 27-52.
Ilyas Ba-Yunus. “Al-Faruqi and Beyond: Future Directions in Islamization of Knowledge.” The
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 1 (1998): 13-28.
Imad al-Din Khalil. Islamization of Knowledge: A Methodology. Herndon: International

Institute of Islamic Thought, 1991.
Ismail Raji al Faruqi. “Islamizing the Social Sciences.” Islamika, 1 (1981): 1-8.
_________________. Islamization of Knowledge: The Problem, Principles and the Workplan.
Herndon: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1982.
Ja’afar Sheikh Idris. “The Islamization of Science: Its Philosophy and Methodology.” The
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 4, no. 2 (1987): 201-208.
Louay Safi. “The Quest for an Islamic Methodology: The Islamization of Knowledge Project in
Its Second Decade.” The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 10, no. 1
(1993): 23-48.
M. A. Kazi. “Islamization of Modern Sciences and Technology.” In Islam: Source and Purpose
of Knowledge. Herndon: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1993, 177-186.
Merryl Wyn-Davies. “Rethingking knowledge: Islamization and the future.” Journal of

Forecasting, Planning and Policy 23 (1991): 231-247.
Mona Abul-Fadl.. “Islamization as A Force of Global Renewal.” The American Journal of

Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 2 (1988): 163-179.
Nasim Butt. “Al-Faruqi and Ziauddin Sardar: Islamization of Knowledge or the Social
Construction of new disciplines.” MAAS Journal of Islamic Science 5, no. 2 (1989): 79-98.
Rosnani Hashim and Imran Rossidy. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of

the Conception of Al-Attas and Al-Faruqi.” Intellectual Discourse 8, no. 1 (2000): 19-44.
Seyyed Vali Nasr. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Critical Overview.” Islamic Studies 30, no. 3
(1991): 387-400.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Approach to Knowledge or Modernization of Traditional

System.” Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 1, no. 2 (1984): 1-5.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Planning for the Islamization of Education: Pre-Requisites for a Model.”
Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 6, no. 1 (1988): 1-3.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Planning for the Islamization of Education: Contribution of Private Bodies.”
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Education: Need for the Islamic Frame of Reference.”
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Education: The Islamic Frame of Reference (Part Two)”,
Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ), 6(4) (1989): 1-6.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “The Islamic Frame of Reference: (B) The Intellectual Dimension.” Muslim
Education Quarterly (MEQ) 7, no. 1 (1989): 1-8.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “The Islamic Frame of Reference: The Intellectual Dimension II-The
Methodology.” Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 7, no. 3 (1990): 1-7.
Syed Muhammad Naquib Al Attas. “The Dewesternization of Knowledge.” Chapter 4 in Islam

and Secularism. Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM), 1978, 133-150.
_________. The Concept of Education in Islam: A Framework of an Islamic Philosophy of

Education. Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM), 1980.
Taha Jabir Al Alwani. “Islamization of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences.” The American

Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 6, no. 2 (1989): 227-238.
__________. “Islamization of Knowledge: Yesterday and Today.” The American Journal of

Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 12, no. 1 (1995): 81-101.
Umar A. Hassan. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Response.” The American Journal of Islamic
Wan Mohd. Nor Wan Daud. “Islamization of Contemporary: A Brief Comparison Between al-
Attas and Fazlur Rahman.” al-Shajarah, Journal of International Institute of Islamic Thought
and Civilization 2, no. 1 (1997): 1-19.
__________. “Islamization of Contemporary Knowledge: Theoretical Dimensions and

Practical Contributions, Chapter 6.” In The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Syed
Muhammad Naquib Al-Attas. Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1998, 291- 369.
Yasien Mohamed. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of Faruqi and

Rahman”, Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 2, no. 1 (1993): 27-40.
__________. “Islamization: A Revivalist Response to Modernity.” Muslim Education

Quarterly (MEQ) 10, no. 2 (1993): 12-23.
__________. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Critique.” The American Journal of Islamic

Ziauddin Sardar. “Islamization of Knowledge: A State of the Art Report.” In An Early

Crescent: The Future of Knowledge and the Environment in Islam, edited by Ziauddin
Sardar. London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1989, 27-56.
__________. “Rediscovery of Islamic Epistemology.” Chapter 4 in Islamic Futures: The

Shape of Ideas to Come. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publication, 1988.

Islamic Finance - Critical Survey of Islamization of Knowledge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Islamic Finance - Critical Survey of Islamization of Knowledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Survey of

By Mohamed Aslam Haneef 1

Islamization of Knowledge, Kuala Lumpur: International Islamic University Press, 2005.

Section 2- The Rationale for IOK- The Why

Both al-Attas and Faruqi refer to the worldview/framework in which contemporary

I venture to maintain that the greatest challenge that surreptitiously arisen in

The scholars of our school of thought do not seek to provide a strictly

…..liberation of man first from magical, mythological, animistic, national-

With regards knowledge, specifically contemporary or modern-day knowledge, as mentioned

The deliverance of knowledge from its interpretations based on secular

practicing (i.e. discovering, compiling, piecing together, communicating and

Section 4- What Does IOK Involve- The How

1. To master the modern disciplines

2. To master the Islamic legacy

3. To establish the specific relevance of Islam to each area of modern knowledge

1. Mastery of the modern disciplines: Categories breakdown reflecting the ‘table of

2. Crystallization of Islamic Thought, Concepts and Methodology- this is a new explicit

5. and 6 Priorities of Scientific Research and preparation of academic cadres.

‘the idea of IOK has always been understood as an intellectual and

Discourse 1 and 2- Articulating the Islamic paradigm of knowledge and developing a

Discourse 3- A Methodology of Dealing with the Qur’an

Discourse 4- A Methodology for Dealing with the Sunnah

Discourse 5- Reexamining the Islamic Intellectual Heritage

Discourse 6- Dealing with the Western Intellectual Heritage

i. substantive knowledge (mastery of modern knowledge, mastery of Islamic legacy:

The discipline survey, establishment of relevance of Islam to the modern

As for modern/contemporary knowledge, al-Attas sees it as being founded on, interpreted

Management Sciences’ Islamic Orientation Program, June 1997.

Section 5- Reviewers and Critics

1. Critique of IOK- 'Opponents'

2. Critique of Aspects of IOK

Genuine Islamization entails the elaboration of earlier Islamic conceptual frameworks to

Section 6- Future Direction and Concluding Remarks

Without doubt, whether one is a proponent or an opponent or even a neutral

Admittedly, the effort needed can be exacting, because it requires the

It must be borne in mind that no Islamizing of disciplines or even of minds can

There is no shortage of materials written about different aspects of

No creative synthesis or Islamized knowledge in the form of textbooks can be

For example, most economics programs in western universities today hardly

_________. “Islamization of Knowledge.” Islamic Thought and Scientific Creativity 4, no. 4

AbdulHamid Abū Sulaymān (ed.), Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and

_________. Islamization: Reforming Contemporary Knowledge. International Institute of

Abdul Rashid Moten. “Approaches to Islamization of Knowledge: A Review.” International

Fazlur Rahman. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Response.” The American Journal of Islamic

Hadi Sharifi. “Review of Islamization of Knowledge by Ismail Raji Al Faruqi.” Muslim

_________. “Creative Engagement of Modern Social Science Scholarship: A Significant

Imad al-Din Khalil. Islamization of Knowledge: A Methodology. Herndon: International

Merryl Wyn-Davies. “Rethingking knowledge: Islamization and the future.” Journal of

Mona Abul-Fadl.. “Islamization as A Force of Global Renewal.” The American Journal of

Rosnani Hashim and Imran Rossidy. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of

Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Approach to Knowledge or Modernization of Traditional

Syed Muhammad Naquib Al Attas. “The Dewesternization of Knowledge.” Chapter 4 in Islam

_________. The Concept of Education in Islam: A Framework of an Islamic Philosophy of

Taha Jabir Al Alwani. “Islamization of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences.” The American

__________. “Islamization of Knowledge: Yesterday and Today.” The American Journal of

__________. “Islamization of Contemporary Knowledge: Theoretical Dimensions and

Yasien Mohamed. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of Faruqi and

__________. “Islamization: A Revivalist Response to Modernity.” Muslim Education

__________. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Critique.” The American Journal of Islamic

Ziauddin Sardar. “Islamization of Knowledge: A State of the Art Report.” In An Early

__________. “Rediscovery of Islamic Epistemology.” Chapter 4 in Islamic Futures: The

You might also like