THROUGH SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY
TO
RELIGION
DR. Muhammad Fazlur Rahman Ansari (RA)
I. Problems of Human Life
Life means
activity and all activity brings with it certain problems. Those problems have
to be solved successfully in order to make the human life a success.
If we analyse
the human problems, we find that they fall under two categories, viz:
(1) Immediate
Problems;
(2) Ultimate
Problems.
The immediate
problems are the practical day-to-day problems such as those which refer to the
immediate personal needs of the individuals and such problems as the
administration of the state, the production, consumption and distribution of
wealth and the relations between the different nations of the world. There is
no human being living on earth who has not to face these problems one way or
the other during his life. The manner in which they are faced and the
efficiency and practical common sense which are shown in connection with their
solutions form the measure of human success.
As regards the
ultimate problems, every human being who takes life seriously finds himself
face to face with them as soon as he attains the age of maturity and feels the
strains, the burdens and the intricacies of life. The first question which
arises in this connection is: "What am I?" Every human being is
closer to himself than to anyone else. Hence the first problem which should
arise in his mind in connection with the ultimate problems should naturally be
about his own self.
The question:
"What am I?" is a question about the nature of human beings. But this
simple question opens a whole field of questions which shoot off in a
continuous chain and whose links are forged with the unbreakable bond of
necessity. Consideration of this first question, therefore, leads to the next
one, namely: "From where have the human beings come? Then a third question
arises: "What is the nature of human life?", and Then a fourth
question: "What is the purpose and end of human life?"
All the
above-mentioned questions are, so to say, personal. But, then, no human being
lives in a vacuum. He lives in a world which is infinitely and immeasurably
vaster than his physically infinitesimal personality, and this world influences
his life and his actions at every step. His fortunes, nay, his very life is
interlinked with and dependent upon the world around him. For instance, if the
sun were to stop its function, the entire related physical environment would be
shattered to pieces. Or, if the heat of the sun rises above or falls below the
average to certain levels, the very existence of the human beings on the earth
would become impossible.
This being the
case, the questions about one's own self lead to questions about the world. The
first question in that connection is: What is this world?", which in other
words means: "What is the nature of this world?" But the nature of a
thing cannot be properly understood unless we have a clear idea about the
origin of that thing and the purpose for which it functions. Therefore, the
question about "what" leads to questions about "when",
"how", "wherefrom" and "whereto". In other words,
the enquiry arises: "When did the world come into being?" "How
did the world come into being?"; "From what source did the world
acquire its life?"; "What is the end towards which it is
moving?"; and "What is its final goal (destiny)?"
Tod Among the
questions about the world, the question: "How did the world come into
being?" brings forth a number of further questions, namely:-"If this
world came into being by itself, how is that conceivable, i.e., on what
ground?" "If this world was brought into being by some other force,
what is that force?" "Is it an impersonal force like electricity, or
is it a person?" "If it is believed to be an impersonal force, that
would mean that it is a blind force like all impersonal forces; and if it is a
blind force, how could intelligence, foresight, plan, purpose and law come out
of it?" "If it is a person, what is the nature and constitution of
that person?" "Is He a person like us-physical, faltering and subject
to the processes of decay and death, or is He eternal?" If not physical,
what else is He?" "Is He finite or infinite?" "Is He one in
number or two or three or more?''
The
above-mentioned questions concerning man, the world and God are ultimate
questions (or fundamental problems). The questions are so vital that every
thinking human being is bound to face them at one time or the other during his
life and they have such a close bearing on the immediate questions of life that
anyone who has any knowledge of human problems will admit that they cannot be
shirked.
II. Importance
of Ultimate Questions in Practical Life
Some might
doubt that these ultimate questions may not after all be as important as they
are said to be. Indeed, the modern secular civilisation is, for all practical
purposes, based on the notion that these ultimate questions have nothing to do
with the immediate practical problems of mankind and that the interest that can
at all be reasonably taken in them cannot be anything else than academic. In
other words, these questions are meant only for philosophers and no practical
person should waste his time and energy on them. But if we go deep into the
matter, we are bound to come to the conclusion on the basis of our common sense
itself that the ultimate questions are infinitely more important than the
immediate questions.
The problem can be attacked from different
angles. But here it will suffice to quote just one instance of the importance
of ultimate questions in the field of the immediate problems of life, namely,
we shall discuss the practical consequences of belief and disbelief in the
existence of God. Taking up disbelief in the existence of God first: If there
is no God and the world came into being by itself, it means that it came into
being by chance. In other words, it is a world of chance in which everything
and every event emerges and dies out by chance.
If we consider
the nature of "chance" itself, we find that it always indicates an
event which has no pre-conceived cause. In any case, it cannot be said to be a
planned event. Again, if there is no plan in an event, there can be no purpose,
because all purposive activity is planned, whether the planning is conscious
(namely, based on intellectual appreciation) or merely instinctive. Resuming
the argument, if the world came into being by chance, it is a blind and lawless
world. Indeed, the very word "chance" means the absence of law.
Now, if the
world is lawless in its inherent constitution and if everything which is born
out of it is also in its nature without law, it means that the formulation of
any laws by human beings, whether those laws are scientific or ethical or
political or economic, would be a violation of human, nature and the nature of
the world itself. But human beings cannot exist without law. Therefore, they are
bound to give up the atheistic hypothesis of the existence of the world in
order to live. If they don't and if they carry the atheistic hypothesis to its
logical consequences, the only law which they can establish for themselves
would be the law of the jungle in political administration and the rule of
expediency in moral life.
Speaking from
the other side, namely, affirmation of faith in God's existence, if we believe
that God exists and that He has created the world, it means that the world came
into being through planned creation, is functioning under a system of law and
is moving towards a purpose. In other words, plan, purpose and law are inherent
in the very constitution of the world. This, in turn, provides the ground for
every branch of human law-ethical, political, economic and so on.
III. Source of
Guidance-What?
Bra There are
three claimants in the field of guidance and every- one of them claims that it
can guide humanity in the ultimate problems of life. These claimants are:-
(1) Science;
(2) Philosophy;
(3) Religion.
We might take
them up one by one and examine the validity of the claim of each.
(1) Science
Modern science
entered the field of human thought as the all-solving branch of knowledge and
the rival of religion towards the middle of the 18th century. The reason of
this new attitude of Science was not that Science had found out some such
unerring methods or instruments of knowledge that could authorise it to make
the claim. Rather, it was purely a sentimental affair.
Science came to
the modern West from the world of Islam. It was the Muslims who, after the
conquest of certain parts of Europe, specially Spain, established the first
universities, scientific observatories, laboratories and libraries on the soil
of Europe, and the first Christian, scientists who, after centuries of darkness
and ignorance, lit the torch of scientific knowledge in England, France,
Germany and so on, were pupils of Muslim masters.[i]
Christianity as distinct from the original Message of the Holy Prophet Jesus
(Peace be on him! had been anti-Science and anti-reason from the very start.
Indeed, it was Christianity which extinguished whatever light of knowledge was
to be found in Greece, Egypt and Syria when it became politically powerful[ii].
Besides, as already stated, Science came to the modern West through Muslims
whom the Christians regarded as their deadliest enemies. Hence, the Christian
Church persecuted the scientists, burnt them at the stake and hanged them on
the gallows[iii].
That violent
persecution made the Western scientists the enemy not only of the Christian
Church but of all Religion, and because religion concerns itself basically with
the ultimate problems of hum n life and demands the loyalty of human beings on
that score, the scientists entered the field of ultimate problems and started
in the name of scientific facts to oppose the teachings of Christianity
concerning such problems as the origin of man, the origin of the world, the
existence of the supernatural world and the existence of God. Thus, for instance,
Darwin sought to show that man was not a superior being as taught by religion,
that he was not a being created in the image of God, but just an animal among
animals merely a higher variety of apes! Indeed he tried to trace the origin of
human beings to the lowest form of life, namely, the amoeba, and said that the
species had evolved through the process of transmutation, and that the position
of man as the strongest of all animals was just due to chance and not because
of any Divine decree. This entire thought was actually anti-religious, and
others who came after him added to the list of the mistakes of Christian
teaching in the name of scientific facts, on www solo to
But the
question remains: "Is science really capable of answering the ultimate
questions on the basis of sure knowledge?" The answer to this question
lies in the analysis of the Scientific Method,
The scientific
method of obtaining knowledge consists in observation and experiment. We shall
have to examine the validity of observation in order to find out as to how far
it can help us in solving with any certainty the ultimate problems.
Scientifically
viewed, every observation is made up of three factors, namely:
(1) the
Observer;
(2) the Object
which is observed;
(3) Conditions
under which the observation is made. Let us examine these factors and find out
whether they are variable or stable, in order to understand if we can arrive at
sure knowledge of ultimate things on the basis of Observation.
The first
factor is the Observer. Now, observation is bound to vary from observer to
observer, because different human beings do not have similarly sharp and
accurate powers of observation either as regards their physical senses of
sight, smelling, hearing, taste and touch or as regards the intellect which
co-ordinates the reports that the brain gets through the physical senses. For
instance, a person may be colour-blind or myopic and as such his observation,
will always differ from the observation of those who have what is called normal
eyesight. Similarly, a person may be hard of hearing, or may have lost the
smelling sense or the discrimination of taste or the sense of touch, or he may
be an idiot or a lunatic. It is thus a well-established fact that the first
factor in every observation is a variable factor, which means that different
observations can vary on the basis of this factor.
The second
factor is the Object which is observed. It does not require much deep thought
to realise that the more immediate, the more concrete and the more comprehensible
an object is, the more is the possibility of the observation being correct; and
the more remote, the more subtle and the more ungrasp- able an object is, the
less possibility is there for anything like correct observation-nay, even for
observation itself. For instance, if we have to find out the chemical
properties of Sodium Chloride or of Calcium Carbonate, it is something easily
available in its standard form. Also, it is something which is concrete and it
is some- thing which can be examined in a test-tube. But even in immediate
objects, if we turn to Atomic Physics and try to observe the behaviour of the
atom, it is bound to be a most difficult task, although the atom concerned may
be one of Sodium or of Calcium or of Carbon. Going to remote objects and trying
to observe them is a different matter altogether. For instance, if we try to
observe the interplanetary strata, there are bound to be different opinions,
even as they are there already. As a matter of fact, even in the case of an
object like the moon which is observed and enjoyed even by the child,
scientific observation begs for accuracy. instance, till sometime back
scientists had agreed on a certain calculation of the distance between the
earth and the moon. But- now they say it was a miscalculation and that the real
distance is more than what had been believed in.
Coming now to
the third factor, namely, the conditions under which an observation is made, we
find that it also is a variable factor. For instance, if we take a straight rod
and dip a portion of it in water, thereby placing one part of it in the medium
of water and keeping the other part in the medium of air, we observe that the
straight rod appears tilted at the point where air and water meet, although
when we view it only in one medium, which may be air or water, it always
appears straight. This normal change in the appearance of the shape of the rod
is due only to change of conditions of observation and not due to any change in
the structure of the rod.10 Another common instance is that where the distance
of an object varies. For instance, when we view a sandy waste in the sultry
heat of the sun from a distance, it appears to us as if it is a huge expanse of
water-the common phenomenon in the deserts known as mirage. The false nature of
this observation becomes known to us only when we approach that supposed lake
of water. This means that if we become contented with the first observation, we
would always remain in misunderstanding about the supposed lake of water.
We have seen in
the foregoing that all the three factors which constitute a scientific
observation, are variable. In other words, any and every scientific observation
is liable to vary in its accuracy according to any one or two or all of these
factors. The margin of this possibility of error in scientific observation
becomes wider and wider as the objects observed become more subtle and more
distant. This means that physical science can be a good guide and source of
knowledge only in our immediate, and mostly physical, problems-although even
there it is not immune from error. Indeed, it has been making lot of mistakes,
as is well known to every student of the history of science. As regards the
ultimate problems which comprehend within themselves the entire universe and
all aspects of existence, it should be very plain, even to a person of ordinary
intelligence, that it would be extremely unscientific and even foolish to
expect their sure and accurate solutions from physical science.
We have said in
the foregoing that physical science cannot give us sur us sure knowledge in all
cases even as regards the immediate physical objects. We might illustrate this
fact by instances. The human body is the most immediate physical object of
observation for a scientific observer. But, in spite of the fact that physical
science is carrying man to the moon, it has not succeeded so far even in
mastering thoroughly the mysteries of the human body For instance, the
Allopathic system of Medicine and the Homoeopathic system of Medicine are both virtually
equally successful in treating human diseases. But the conceptions of human
nature on which they are respectively founded are diametrically opposed This
clearly means that neither of them has yet succeeded in grasping the mysteries
of human nature (even in its physical aspect) truly and comprehensively. Also,
we must bear in mind that if Medical Science, which is a part of Physical
Science, had genuinely succeeded in knowing with certainty, accuracy and
thoroughness the physical aspect of human nature and the medicines needed for
the cure of the different human diseases, the margin of failures in the cure of
diseases would have become zero, which is not the case at present. As regards
the details of the human body, here again the same lack of accuracy and
finality exists. For instance, there was a time when the scientists of the
Allopathic school of medicine were of the opinion that the appendix and the
tonsils were useless things and that they could be cast out of the body even as
a precautionary measure. The scientific belief about the appendix was so
vehemently stated that it gave rise even to an English proverb, namely:
"as useless as an appendix" But medical thought is now directed more
and more to keeping these organs intact.
We may also
give an instance concerning the ever-changing character of scientific
conclusions as regards the ultimate problems. We might leave out here the
pre-Newtonian scientific thought, in order to be more charitable, and consider
only the era starting with Newtonian Physics, which is considered to be the era
of the maturity of Science. But what situation do we find here too? Sir Isaac
Newton affirmed and proclaimed to the world that the universe was
three-dimensional and that Space and Time were two different and independent
entities. The entire scientific progress after him proceeded on this
assumption. It was held by scientists to be an infallible truth, which they
defended and by which they swore day in and day out. But then came Einstein who
proved, again scientifically, that Newtonian physics was all wrong in its
foundations, that the universe was not three-dimensional but four-dimensional,
that Time was the fourth dimension of Space and not an independent entity, that
instead of immutability (on which Materialism had thrived) there was
indeterminacy in the universe (which renders the scientific affirmation of the
existence of God possible,-and Science has proceeded since then to show that
Matter itself is unreal. Who knows that tomorrow another great scientist may come
and explode the Physics of Einstein also?
(2) Philosophy
All Philosophy
may be broadly classified into four schools namely:
(1) Formal
Rationalism;
(2) Empiricism;
(3) Criticism;
(4) Empirical
Rationalism.
Of these four,
nos. (2) and (3) do not deserve consideration in the bac' ground of our present
problem and that for very definite reasons. No. (2), namely, Empiricism, holds
that the only source of obtaining knowledge is sense-experience. It means that
the empirical philosopher cannot even aim at trying to understand the whole of
Reality, because in their very nature the human senses are very limited in
their scope and also liable to error, as we have already seen in the section on
Science. Indeed, the only natural and logical consequence of Empiricism is
Scepticism, namely, that we cannot know Reality. In other words, the Philosophy
of the Empiricist school itself asserts the incompetence and the failure of
Philosophical endeavour to answer the ultimate questions. As regards No. (3),
namely, Criticism, it says that both Reason and Senses are sources of knowledge
but that both are very limited sources. Hence, the knowledge of the world which
we can get through them can only be very limited in its scope as well as
character. In other words, according to this school of Philosophy,
philosophical effort can succeed only in knowing a part of Reality. This, in
its turn, means that comprehensive and sure knowledge, which is the necessary
condition for solving the ultimate questions successfully, cannot be obtained
from Philosophy. Thus there remain only two schools of Philosophy, namely,
Formal
Rationalism and Empirical Rationalism where the belief is found that Philosophy
can discover the Ultimate Truth and which alone, therefore, deserve our
consideration in connection with the present discussion. Let us examine the
validity of their claim.
Formal
Rationalism holds that human Reason, unaided by anything else, is capable of
knowing the ultimate facts of life and the world
Empirical
Rationalism holds that Reason and Sense-Experience should combine to enable
human beings to find out the Ultimate Truth and that through this combination
of the sources of know- ledge Philosophy can solve the ultimate problems and
guide humanity in that behalf.
Formal
Rationalism depends wholly on Logic. Its method is to choose a hypothesis as
the starting point of its investigation and on that hypothesis to build up a
whole world of philosophical thought by using the instrument of Logic.
Empirical
Rationalism may be better named as "Philosophy of Science'. Its method is
to collect and arrange the facts dis- covered by Science and to endeavour, by
using the instrument of Reason, to form an integrated picture of the world as a
whole and thereby to answer the ultimate questions.
If we evaluate
Formal Rationalism, we find that, on the face of it, it is incapable of giving
us any sure and accurate knowledge of the ultimate problems. This is so because
its starting point is always a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a
supposed idea or at best an observation based on common sense, and it has
always been chosen by every philosopher arbitrarily. Now, every hypo- thesis,
especially in the realm of abstract thought, is, in the very nature of the
case, unverifiable. In other words, it is uncertain. And if it is uncertain,
the thought-structure built upon it and the conclusions arrived at must also be
uncertain. That is, the knowledge of ultimate problems given by Formal
Rationalism cannot be sure and accurate.
As regards Empirical
Rationalism, its starting point consists in the scientific facts, namely,
sensorial observation, and its method is to reason out the ultimate problems on
their basis. But, as we have already seen in the discussion of the Scientific
Method, scientific facts are at best workable hypotheses or working material on
the scale of observation or the system of reference with which they are
connected. Hence, for ultimate problems, they have neither finality, nor
perfect accuracy, nor absolute certainty. This means that if the starting point
and the working material of Empirical Rational- ism lack accuracy, certainty
and finality, the conclusions arrived at will also suffer from the same
shortcomings. In other words, a solution of the ultimate problems on the basis
of sure knowledge is impossible even for the Empirical Rationalist school of
Philosophy.
An eminent
scientific thinker of modern times admits this truth in the following words:
"Many people wrongly think that logical mechanisms are 'standard' and that
logical reasoning, and all the more so mathematical reasoning, are inevitably
'true'. This is not always the case. We must beware of the process of human
thought because, in the first place, the starting point is often a sensorial
observation (therefore of doubtful value) or an observation based on common
sense. Now common sense cannot be trusted. It is common sense that leads us to
think that the earth is flat; that two plumb lines are parallel (they are both
directed toward the centre of the earth and consequently form an angle); that
motion in a straight line exists, which is absolutely false as we have to take
into consideration not only the motion of the earth around its axis and around
the sun, and that of the entire orbit of the earth, but also the motion of the
whole solar system toward the constellation Hercules, etc. As result, a bullet
or an aero- plane, which seem to move in a straight line with respect to the
earth, for a certain length of time, in reality follows a trajectory more
closely resembling a kind of corkscrew with respect to a vaster system of
reference, the nearest stars for instance. Common sense tells us that the edge
of a razor blade is a continuous straight line, but if we examine it under a
microscope it resembles a wavy line drawn by a child. Common sense tells us
that a piece of steel is solid; X-rays show us that it is porous, and the
modern theories of matter teach us that it is in reality made up of trillions
of animated, miniature universes having extraordinarily rapid movements and no
contact with each other.
"If,
therefore, the starting point, the premise, of a reasoning is false, the
conclusion will necessarily, logically, be false.
"As we
have no other means of knowing and describing nature but those given us by our
senses and our reasoning faculties—i.e., by our brain cells-we must be
extremely cautious and never forget the relativity of the picture which we
construct a relativity with respect to the recording instrument, man. (Lecomte
du Nouy in Human Destiny, pp. 5,6).
The competence
of Science and Philosophy in unravelling the mysteries of the ultimate problems
can be examined through an- other argument also. As stated in the foregoing,
the ultimate problems refer to three main heads, namely: Man, Universe and God.
Let us take here the case of Man himself. Can Science or Philosophy, or both
combined, provide us true and accurate knowledge of the ultimate problems which
refer to Man? If we consider this question cool-mindedly and dispassionately,
we find that neither the origin nor the constitution nor the functioning of man
can be The individual human reasonably conceived to exist in a vacuum. The
human race, in its turn, being is a part of the human race. is part of a larger
whole, namely, the animal world. The animal world, in its turn, is part of a
larger whole, namely, the organic world (which includes plant life). The
organic world, in its turn, is part of a larger whole, namely, the Earth,
(which includes the organic world and the inorganic world both). The Earth, in
its turn, is part of a larger whole, namely, our solar system. Our solar
system, in its turn, is immediately part of a galaxy of unknown number of solar
systems and ultimately a part of the entire Universe which is unknown to us as
a whole thing and which, according to Modern Science, should be termed as
virtually infinite both in Space and Time, and is, therefore, incapable of
being grasped in knowledge by our finite powers of perception and reasoning,
both logical and mathematical. Thus, the human individual is ultimately part
and parcel of a universe which, in its origin, constitution and purpose, is
unknowable as a whole thing.
Now, if we wish
to obtain true, accurate and comprehensive knowledge of the fundamental laws
which govern the existence of the human individual, we find that just as the
human individual does not exist in a vacuum the laws also which govern his
existence do not exist in a vacuum. For, the system of laws which governs the
existence of the human individual is part of a larger and higher whole, namely,
the system of laws which governs humanity as an entity. This larger and higher
system of laws is, in its turn, part of another system which is higher and
larger than it; and this series goes on--the levels of laws rise higher and higher,
tier after tier, until we reach the level where we are confronted with the laws
which govern the entire universe as an entity and fundamentally.
We are now
heading towards the conclusion. To know the nature and destiny of the part we
must know the nature and destiny of the whole. Hence, to know the nature and
destiny of the human individual we must know the nature and destiny of the
whole of which it is a part. As we have already seen, immediately it is part of
the human race. But the human race itself is not the final whole. Rather, it is
a part of a larger whole, and that larger whole is part of a still larger
whole, until, if we were to stop even at physical concepts only, we reach the
final whole which is known as the Physical Universe. This means that unless we
know the nature and destiny of the universe, we cannot know the nature and
destiny of anything which forms part of it, including the human individual.
All the above
discussions lead us positively to the conclusion that neither Science nor Philosophy
can ever be capable of giving accurate answers to our ultimate questions on the
basis of sure knowledge. And those answers which they have been giving, or
might give in future, have been, and shall always be, at best approximations in
the nature of partial truths and, in most instances, what the following verse
of the Holy Qur'an calls "conjectures'?:
"But they
have no knowledge thereof. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture
avails nothing against Truth."? (LIII: 28).
The question now
is: If Science and Philosophy fail in guiding us on ultimate problems, is that
the end of the road, or is there a way out? The answer is: Yes, there is a
way--the way of Religion
(3) Religion
The
plausibility of the claim of Religion to answer our ultimate questions consists
in the source of knowledge. Among the various religions of the world, Islam
agrees with us that the human faculties of sense and reasoning are, in their
very nature, incapable of arriving at accurate and sure knowledge of the ultimate
facts both through logical reasoning and mathematical reasoning. But side by
side with that it gives us a message of hope and imparts to us a very plain and
convincing guidance in that behalf. That guidance may be stated as follows:
There are two
factors in every act of knowledge, namely, the Subject and the Object. As
regards the process of knowledge, it is possible in two ways, namely: (1) the
subject may embrace the object with the instruments of knowledge which, in the
case of man, are senses and reasoning; (2) the object may reveal itself to the
subject.
The usual path
of knowledge is the first one, and it is this which Science and Philosophy
employ. And because the finite cannot embrace the infinite, the attempts of
Science and Philosophy at solving the ultimate problems end in failure.
The second path
of knowledge is the path of Revealed Religion. That this path is a matter of
experience in the scientific field also is known to all scientists. For
instance, there are planets which are far away from the farthest horizon which
the most advanced instruments of astronomy have been able to penetrate. Those
planets enter that horizon only for a while after very long periods of time.
Thus, instead of the powers of the astronomical instruments going out, so to
say, to embrace them, they themselves reveal their existence by moving for a
while into their embrace from a position where their existence cannot be known,
and after that revelation they again disappear into the Unknown. Those whose
gaze is fixed and whose instruments of observation are focussed on that horizon
see them and know them, while others affirm their existence afterwards only on
the basis of authority, because verification through observation does not
remain possible after the disappearance of those planets.
This much about
the physical world-the world of sense experience the world which in quality as
well as quantity is only a part of the Unknown and Infinite Universe. But it
brings home to us an important fact. The farther removed a thing is
qualitatively (i.e., as regards its difference from us in its nature and
constitution and function) or quantitatively (i.e., in Space or Time), the
greater becomes the necessity for the first path of knowledge to give place to
the second path, i.e., Revelation.
Islam
emphasises this all-important fact of Revelation. It affirms the existence of
God and says that He is the Creator and Cherisher of the Universe. Also that He
is All-Powerful, All- Knowing and Omnipresent. He possesses perfect knowledge
of the origin, the constitution and the function of everything, and His
knowledge comprehends the past, the present and the future. And He not only
possesses that knowledge but He has also revealed to humanity the correct
guidance on the ultimate and intricate problems which defy correct and sure
solution by means of senses and reason. His Revelations came, much like the
distant planets mentioned in the foregoing scientific argument, through the
Spiritual Luminaries who appeared on the horizon of humanity from time to time.
Those Spiritual Luminaries included men like Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the
last among them being Muhammad (Divine Peace and Blessings be with him and all
other Messengers of God); and the last Revealed Book is the Holy Qur'an.
APPENDIX
References to
the respective attitudes of Islam and Christianity towards Science have been
made on pages 5 and 6. The truth of the statements made there is known to all
the scholars of history and has been stated by the most eminent authorities of
the West and the East. For instance, the renowned British Orientalist Marma-duke
Pickthall says:
"The
Qur'an undoubtedly gave a great impetus to learning, especially in the field of
natural science; and, if, as some modern writers have declared, the inductive method
to which all the practical modern discoveries are chiefly owing, can be traced
to it, then it may be called the cause of modern scientific and material
progress.
"The
Muslims set out on their search for learning in the name of God at a time when
Christians were destroying all the learning of the ancients in the name of
Christ. They had destroyed the Library at Alexandria, they had murdered many
philosophers including the beautiful Hypatia. Learning was for them a devil's
snare beloved of the pagans. They had no injunction to 'seek know- ledge even
though it were in China.' The manuscripts of Greek and Roman learning were
publicly burnt by the priests.
...the revolving terrestrial globe happened to be part of the educational equipment of the Spanish Muslim Universities at the time when the learned Bruno was burnt at a slow fire by the Inquisition for upholding the Copernican theory of the Earth, and before the even greater Galileo was forced by persecution to recant and sign a solemn declaration that the Earth was fixed immovably, as the Bible said it was. He is said to have murmured under his breath, as he put his name to the lie: E pur se muove ("And yet it moves"). It was from the teaching of the Spanish Muslim Universities that Columbus got his notion that the world was round, though he too was forced by persecution to recant it afterwards. When we remember that the Spanish Muslim Universities in the time of the Khalifa Abdur Rahman III and the Eastern Muslim Universities in the time of Al Ma'mun-I mention these two monarchs because it is specially recorded of their times- welcomed Christian and Jewish students equally with Muslims not only that, but entertained them at the Government expense: and that hundreds of Christian students from the South of Europe and the countries of the East took advantage of the chance to escape from ecclesiastical leading strings; we can easily perceive what a debt of gratitude modern European progress owes to Islam, while it owes nothing whatsoever to the Christian Church, which persecuted, tortured, even burnt the learned." (Islamic Culture, pp. 64, 67 68).
The learned
author of Islam in the World says (pp. 142- 149):
"The
influence of the powerful movement of Islamic culture in Spain rapidly made
itself felt throughout Europe. Petrus Alfonsi (b. 1602, who studied at the
Arabian medical schools, came to England from Spain as Physician to King Henri
I and, in 1120, collaborated with Walcher, Prior of Malvern, in the production
of a translation of Alfonsi's astronomical treatise, based Arabian sources. In
England their united effort represents the first impact of Arabian learning.
Its effect was rapid, for immediately afterwards Adelard of Bath earned the
distinction of being the first prominent European man of science, outside
Spain, to come to Toledo and make a special study of Arabian learning. The
cultural links thus formed between England and Muslim Spain were destined to
produce important results. They stimulated in England the desire for the new
philosophical and scientific learning and led to the achievements of Michael
Scot (c. 1175-1232) and Roger Bacon (1214-1294).
"Scot
proceeded to Toledo in order to gain a knowledge of Arabic and of Arabian
philosophy. At Oxford, Roger Bacon achieved brilliant success as an exponent of
the new Arabian- Aristotelian philosophy. In the library of the Dean and
Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral is a late thirteenth century illuminated
manuscript, 'Vetus Logica,' the earliest known commentary on Aristotle's logic
produced in England following the Arabian "renaissance' of Aristotelian
philosophy. Amongst those scholars who came to Spain from Britain were Robert
of England (flourished 1143), first translator of the Qur'an, Daniel Morley
(flourished 1170), etc. Roger Bacon's work 'Optics' was based on Alhazen's
'Thesaurus Opticae.' The alchemical teachings of Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber) and
other Arabian writers, are apparent in the works of Albert Magnus, Vincent of
Beauvais, etc.
"In a
recent study made by the 'Madrid School of Spanish Arabists', (a school which
is concerned with the study of Islamic civilisation in Spain and of its
influence on Christian civilisation in the Iberian Peninsula as well as in the
rest of Europe), Julian Ribera demonstrates that many of the institutions of
Christian Spain were nothing but a copy or an imitation of similar institutions
of Muslim Spain. He discovered Arabic sources for the doctrines of certain
thinkers and certain poetic forms of songs of the Middle Ages, and for the
mediaeval Andalusian music and songs of the troubadours, trouveres and
minnesingers. Don Miguel Asin Palacios, in studying the origins of philosophy
in Spain, traces the influence of such Arabian thinkers as Avempace, Averroes,
Abenarabi, Abenmasarra and others. He, also, establishes the point that one
should seek the key of the Divine Comedy of Dante in the Islamic legends of the
nocturnal voyage of Muhammad. It is further shown that historiographers,
mathematicians and lexicologists, etc., owe much to their Muslim predecessors
of Spain.
"Emmanuel
Deutsch says: 'By the aid of the Qur'an the Arabs conquered a world greater
than that of Alexander the years as Great, greater than that of Rome and in as
many tens of the latter had wanted hundreds to accomplish her conquests; by the
aid of which they, alone of all the Semites, came to Europe as kings, whither
the Phoenicians had come as tradesmen, and the Jews as fugitives or captives.
They came to Europe to hold light to Humanity, they alone, while darkness lay
around, to raise the wisdom and knowledge of Hellas from the dead, to teach
philosophy, medicine, astronomy and the golden art of song to the West as well
as to the East, to stand at the cradle of modern science, and to cause us late
epigoni for ever to weep over the day when Granada fell'."
Post a Comment