Prof Ziauddin Sardar

SINCE THE 1950s, when most Muslim countries acquired their independence, science and technology in the Muslim World has been in a continuous state of flux. A great deal is talked about the importance of science and technology for development, but little is actually done to promote indigenous research and development or otherwise increase the expenditure on science. Scientific and technological education is considered by a large proportion of decision makers in Muslim countries as the key to a non-dependent future, yet no attention is paid either to the quality of science education or developing a research base geared to local needs and requirements. There is, however, a growing awareness among scholars, intellectuals and thinkers that science is a double-edged sword. This awareness is concerned with the ethical dimensions of science and technology and its compatibility or non-compatibility with the worldview of Islam.

We do not have to raise doomsday scenarios or conjure images of Dr Frankenstein to be concerned about what is happening in science and technology today. As the beneficial or the destructive effects of science affect all of us, we should all be concerned about science. What distinguishes Muslims from other people is the way they ought to be trying to find solutions to these contemporary problems.

Most science today is big science, requiring many millions of dollars and tying the work of the majority of scientists to the military-industrial complex. Science may claim spectacular success and amazing results, but its routine by-products and ecological and human disorders are now beginning to concern us all. For the last forty years, most people have looked to science to solve the inequalities of this world--between the rich North and the poverty-stricken South. The argument has focused on getting enough money to pay the way for science in the Third World. Forty years on the trouble is that, though there is some science in the Muslim world, that science is not solving the pressing problems of most people. This is because what counts as good science, the kind that establishes reputations, builds careers and wins international acclaim, is not relevant or even applicable to the daily problems of the disadvantaged and needy in the Muslim world. The question is how this mismatch has arisen. The problem proceeds from the very concept of science, which despite the good intentions of the practising scientist creates a paradise for the few and a wilderness for the many. Any solution to the problem of science requires that we look for moral and social responsibility outside science, and that is where Islam comes in.

Before I explore how the fundamental concepts of Islam can shape and give direction to scientific activity, let me clear away two crucial points. The first concerns what I regard as science. Science is an objective, systematic way of studying nature. Its results are universally applicable and reproducible. Two scientists from two distinct cultures studying a phenomenon and taking readings on a metre would not come up with different readings. The difference lies elsewhere and not in the objective and systematic observations of phenomena. Second, science is a human activity and despite all the efforts to be objective and detached, subjectivity and value criteria do creep into its practice, indeed, into its theory as well. Values, for example, play an important role in deciding the objectives of research, how this research should be funded, what areas should be investigated, how these investigations should be carried out (for example, can experiments be done on animals) and so on. Moreover, as a human activity, science, ideally, is open to all humans. While in today's world science requires a great deal of education and training, it is an activity that is, properly speaking, limited to a select few. I make these points because some Muslim scholars and their followers equate 'Islamic science' with mysticism and elitism, while other Muslim scientists still believe science to be totally neutral and value-free.

Many Muslim scientists find it difficult to believe that religion can have any role to play in science. Despite their firm faith in their religion, the integration of the words 'Islam' and 'science' to produce 'Islamic science' sends shudders down their spines. They have learned that ever since Galileo and his telescope, science and religion have become opposite poles. There are two points to be made here. First, Islam has never agreed to this great divide, insisting that everything can and must fit together in a unitary worldview. There is no counterpart in Islamic history of the great war of science and religion that took place in Christendom. Second, Islam is not a religion, or a theology, as the term is understood conventionally. Indeed, Islam cannot be understood simply as a religion. It is also a culture and a civilization of over fourteen hundred years of history; but more than that, it is a worldview, a way of looking at and shaping the world. And it is as a worldview that Islam shapes and gives direction to scientific activity. In the contemporary world, science has itself become an independent and autonomous worldview; is not shaped by society, but increasingly society is shaped by science. Under Islam, science is not an autonomous worldview but a problem-solving and knowledge-seeking enterprise. It does not determine its direction unilaterally, but it is the moral and value criteria of Islam as well as the more practical consensus of the community which give direction to science. As the very questions about science that we are forced to ask today are moral and ethical questions, it becomes a matter of cultural as well as physical survival for us to shape our scientific activities by the principles and values of the worldview of Islam to produce a morally-, ethically- and socially-responsible science. That is what I call 'Islamic science'.

How can the worldview of Islam shape and direct scientific activity? How do we justify the attribute 'Islamic' applied to science? What do we mean when we talk about 'Islamic science'? And how would Islamic science differ from the science of today?

The notions of tawheed and khilafa are central to the evolution of a contemporary Islamic science. Tawheed means not only that there is one God but that all His creation is integrated into a unified whole and is equal before His eyes. What khilafa means is that Muslim scientists must approach creation as a trust from God, and as trustees they are accountable for this trust. Misuse of resources, depriving other creations of God of their rights and domination of nature are all abuses of this trust and, hence, from the vantage point of Islam are blameworthy (haram).

Thus, a scientist must enter a laboratory in total humility as a trustee of God and not as an arrogant demigod wresting, against all odds, nature's secrets from her, assaulting truth in an attempt to capture the universe in a single equation. As a trustee, he or she approaches nature as sacred, as an equal partner in creation, as a friend and not as an enemy, as something to be respected and nurtured rather than exploited and defiled. The study of nature is akin to worship (ibadah) and the scientist must approach his or her work as a devotee approaches the prayer mat.

In such an Islamic framework, science does not yield absolute truth. The notion that defines knowledge in Islam is ilm, which has two components. The first is that the fountainhead of all knowledge is revelation, which actually means the Quran: this is the category of absolute truth. The second is that all systematic, internally-coherent methods of knowledge acquisition are equally valid; they all yield partial fragments of truth and reality, the fragments most useful for solving the problem at hand. In classical Islam, mathematics was referred to as ilmut taffakur or science of reflection. Thus, for classical Muslim scientists, mathematical equations did not represent absolute reality, but were a mere reflection. When al-Khwarizmi invented algebra he knew he was not describing some total, external reality, but simply solving a few problems of inheritance. When Omar Khayyam solved cubic equations for the first time, he knew he was not discovering some absolute truth but simply finding an answer to a complex astronomical problem.

Thus for Islam all methods of acquiring knowledge are equally valid: the intuition of the mystic, the insights of the poet, the aboriginal metaphysical metaphors for physical topography (songlines), detailed chemical spectrographic research, computer analysis and rigorous logic. What scientists discover in the laboratory is therefore not somehow superior because of its objective and universal significance. It is not just that scientists themselves must be humble before God, before nature and before other creation, but science itself is only one social obligation and enterprise among many as well as one method among many of knowledge and discovery.

To classify as worship a scientist's actions must conform to the Islamic notion of adl (justice), which demands that both the means and ends of science must be just. Experiments must not violate the rights of other human beings or animals. Violence must not be an integral part of experimentation. Moreover, the end products of science must not be destructive for humankind, for the environment that is the abode of our terrestrial journey or for the flora and fauna that enrich our planet. Furthermore, scientific activity must reflect as well as satisfy the needs and requirements of the society, i.e., the requirement of istislah (public interest), which is a source of Islamic law. Finally, science must be backed by the ijma (consensus of society).

All this means is that Islamic science is a very special activity. It is a science in the way we understand science: a systematic, objective, rational mode of inquiry whose results can be readily duplicated. It is different in that it operates within a set of a priori notions and values. Thus, Islamic science is not science for science's sake; it is science for the sake of humanity. Islamic science is not the quest for absolute truths or total understanding, it is a mode of reflection on the wonders of creation. It is a way of studying nature without destroying the object of study. In its ultimate sense, it is the glorification of God for the well-being of men and women: their worship.

How does this way of practising Islamic science differ from the way science is done today?

The first difference shows itself in science policy. The conceptual notions of Islamic science provide an in-built system of priorities and choices. The notions of adl (justice and equity) and istislah (public interest) imply that the needs and problems of the vast majority must be the focus of scientific research. And the notions of ijma (public consensus) means that these needs and requirements are defined by the public itself and not by some external power, including the scientists themselves. What this means is that society directs science; science does not lead society towards some unknown destination. When the late President of Pakistan, General Zia-ul Haq, was presented with this analysis, he was forced to hold an open, public debate on science policy in Pakistan, a debate that raged for months. However, when it became clear that his pet project of building a nuclear facility in Pakistan would be outlawed by the public, he quickly outlawed the whole debate. It also became clear that in this framework, there is no place for 'pure research', research for the absolute sake of research.

As an illustration of this point, consider the new particle accelerator at the Geneva Centre for European Nuclear Research (CERN). For several decades we have been told we are getting closer and closer to the structure of the universe, yet no end is in sight. The only thing that is accelerating are the costs; along with the machines, the budgets grow bigger and bigger. As soon as a new accelerator is finished, a new one with more power is needed. The notion of istislah would not allow such research-- which I would argue to be an extravagant and elitist journey into meaninglessness--at the expense of more pressing needs of humanity. The money spent on particle physics can be diverted to such projects as, for example, the greening of the desert. The resources spent on a single accelerator can transfer the Sahel wasteland into an agriculturally rich paradise.

Much of modern research in particle physics is directly related to the development of nuclear weapons. Needless to say, the dictates of khilafa, adl and istislah would outlaw all such research, as well as research on chemical and biological weapons. In clear text it means that over four-fifths of scientific research which is connected to 'defence' would go out the window for a simple reason: how can research on weapons of mass destruction and torture be classified as worship? In Islamic science, these resources would be diverted towards such global problems as bilharzia, river blindness and diarrhoea and the diseases associated with poverty, malnutrition and the like; the discovery of alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind and biomass; the development of easily assembled yet comfortable housing for refugees.

While Islamic science closes a number of gates, it also opens many new ones. Vivisection, for example, cannot be justified in an Islamic framework: it negates the idea of khalifa. Unable to reconcile their ethics with their work, Muslim scientists are constantly abandoning fields of research where vivisection is the basic methodology. But if we do away with vivisection, does it also mean abandoning important research designed to find solutions to pressing problems? Islamic science insists that for every door that is closed for ethical or value reasons, another must be opened to solve the necessary problems. Indeed, both the closing of one door as well as simultaneous opening of another is a religious obligation. And as the khalifa of God, human ingenuity knows no boundaries, new doors can be opened, provided research is directed towards them. Islamic science would, for example, promote the use of, and methodological research on, tissue culture as a possible substitute for experiments on animals.

Consider another example. In modern medicine radical mastectomy is a common practice. As the human body is a trust from God, unnecessary violence against it is unjust (zulm, the opposite of adl). Radical mastectomy is common not because alternative therapy does not exist, but because invasive surgery has been made the norm. Alternative therapies can be found if medical research is directed towards them. Islamic science would shun both the practice of, and research on, radical mastectomy and focus on research for alternative therapies.

Conventionally, it is claimed that discoveries are made for their own sake; research is done because it can be done and not because it ought to be done. The ethical connotations and public relevance of research is considered after the cat has escaped from the bag. Islamic science focuses on the 'ought' before the 'doing'. It seeks to bring the ethical concerns and public interest to the centre of the arena, it explores the ethical questions first and only if the answers have public relevance does it proceed further. Consider, for example, recombinant DNA research which involves a selective insertion or deletion of certain genes and manipulation of the biomolecular structure of genetic material. Recombinant DNA techniques can isolate and identify the eukaryotic genetic structure, insert natural or synthetic genes into the host cells and study genetic functions under strictly controlled conditions. As a result, previously unknown living systems can be produced. Recombinant DNA has an awesome power and frightening social implications. Some of its ethical implications include the exploitation of sexual selection, genetic screening for gender specificity and manipulation of genes in artificial insemination for such socially-unjust reasons as racism. Islamic science would unequivocally outlaw such research. It would strictly regulate, after public discussion and participation, the direction of rDNA research towards enhancing the quality of life, towards, for example, the production of antiviral proteins such as interferon and insulin.

Critics would argue that Islamic science limits the freedom of inquiry and closes avenues of new knowledge. Exponents of Islamic science argue that it appears limiting only because ethical questions are raised at the beginning, in the heart of scientific inquiry, rather than after the discovery. If ethical questions are left to the end, it is not possible to put the cat back into the bag; in fact, under those circumstances there would be no place for ethics at all. With ethics included we are likely to take a more prudential, caring approach, aware of things we do not know how to handle and, therefore, not developing them until we have asked more questions and learned more. Moreover, there is no such thing as 'free' inquiry: all scientific research is limited by such considerations as funding, power groups, secrecy, hidden cultural and social values, metaphysical assumptions about nature, the universe, time and so on. Islamic science is much more honest: it lays its values on the table and defines them as the rules of the game. It may close certain doors but it insists that others should be opened so that the advancement of knowledge does not just continue but brings positive benefits for humanity and our terrestrial environment.

The model of Islamic science presented here is, of course, rather primitive. The work on Islamic science, like other areas of the global 'Islamization of knowledge' movement, is still at an embryonic stage. Already it has generated intense debate, as can be seen from the pages of the Journal of Islamic Science (published by the Centre for Studies on Science at Aligarh), which has played a pioneering role in the evolution of thought on a contemporary Islamic science. Of necessity, much of the discussion has focused on theoretical issues. Practical work cannot be done in the absence of a theoretical structure; but at least we now have the makings of a theory of Islamic science which can be used to undertake policy work.

It is quite possible to use the model described above to develop pragmatic science policies for such countries as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran and Sudan. The movement towards Islamic science does not mean reinventing the wheel, but focusing on those areas of science and technology that promote the values of the fundamental Islamic concepts. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the prevalent view in the Muslim world was that the gap between the industrialized countries and Muslim nations could be bridged simply by the transfer of technology. Technological transfer was the cornerstone on which the development plans, for example, in Saudi Arabia and the Shah's Iran were based. Those efforts have not helped alleviate dependency and the technology transfer view of development has now been totally discredited. We have learned from bitter experience that there is no substitute for indigenous capabilities and promotion of local resources for research and development. Where the Muslim countries have focused on indigenous efforts, real dividends have resulted. As examples, one can cite rubber and palm oil research in Malaysia, agricultural research in Pakistan, industrial research in Turkey and medical research in Egypt, where considerable gains have been made without outside help. It is this kind of self-reliance that the contemporary notion of Islamic science seeks to promote and on which policy work in this area must focus. The principles of Islamic science can become signposts for giving positive help to science in Muslim countries. Equally, we can use the notion of Islamic science presented here to develop a model science policy for the global Muslim community, represented as independent but interconnected nation states. Eventually, we must move on to research on methodology and experimental and empirical work on key areas. Efforts should also be made to incorporate notions of Islamic science in science curricula and text books at undergraduate level. The newly established Islamic universities in Pakistan and Malaysia ought to be exploring this fertile arena of thought and practice.

If Islamic science can demonstrate, theoretically as well as practically, that there is more than one way of doing science, studying nature and understanding the physical universe, it will have produced an original synthesis of unparalleled magnitude in recent times. It would also be a watershed in the creation of a genuine pluralistic, multicultural future based on the contributions of all peoples and worldviews.