Here is an interesting and thought provoking article which was forwarded by a fellow soulmate and freethinker ...
==========================================
When did Freethought Cease in the Muslim World?
M. Gill
Freethinking is a natural instinct. Children are curious about every thing and they ask questions all the time, which at times become irksome for the elders to answer. As they grow up, they get brain washed as to which questions are appropriate to ask and what others are inappropriate. This instinct is suppressed in the Muslim world at a fairly early stage in life because questioning is discouraged by the parents and the elders. It is curiously considered a sign of disrespect. According to a common adage among the Muslims, questions should not be asked in matters of religion ? particularly about Islam; religion should be practiced uncritically according to the usual rituals. For the troubleshooters, there is the law of ?blasphemy?.
According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, ?freethinker is one that forms opinion on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or denies religious dogma.? Take for instance the Ptolemaic thesis Earth is stationary and is the center of the universe. The Sun and other planets revolve around Earth. This was based on Ptolemy?s astronomy, which somehow became an article of Christian faith. One could have disagreed with Ptolemy?s formulation with impunity if it didn?t have the Christian underpinnings. When it became an article of religious faith, denying it became a blasphemy punishable by death. For example, Giordano Bruno was burnt alive on the stake for his expressed belief in heliocentricity.
A freethinker doesn?t refute a statement just for the heck of it; he should have a good sound reason to do so otherwise it becomes wholly subjective and a matter of ?my word against yours.? So Ptolemy?s formulation held sway for centuries until it became obvious through observations that his astronomy had become unnecessarily too cumbersome and alternate formulation could explain matters much simply. The time was opportune for the heliocentric theory to replace the geocentric concept. But the faith in gocentricity had become ingrained and dogmatic. The freethinking scientists, Galileo and others, had to take a firm position against the Church and suffer for it before the geocentric concept was replaced by the heliocentric theory.
A lesser but equally vitriolic issue pertained to the Throne of God (Sura 7, verse 54, Holy Quran, for example) in medieval Islam. It was hotly debated whether God actually ?sits on His Throne? in the heavens or is it just an allegorical and figurative statement? For a modern freethinker, the throne issue is largely meaningless because there is a bigger issue (of which this is a minor extension), which needs serious consideration and resolution, if possible. The bigger and more fundamental issue for him is whether a Christian God or Islamic Allah (defined and described by the ninety nine attributes) can possibly exist or not. Some of these attributes conflict with each other.
A freethinker is not necessarily an unbeliever although a believing freethinker has to make compromises with his religious faith. Thus a freethinker can be a theist, an atheist, or any one ?in-between.? The one in-between is usually called agnostic. For example, Bertrand Russell was an agnostic, nearer to atheism.
When did Freethinking Begin in Islam?
Freethinking began in Islam with the Mutazilites. The founder of Mutazilism was Wasil bin Ata (d. 74. When Islam expanded into foreign lands outside Arabia, the Muslims came in contact with Egyptians, Syrians, and Greeks living in these lands. Greek philosophy and rational sciences existed in these lands and the early Muslims were naturally influenced by them. Their blind faith in the divine revelation was thus confronted by rational thought and many people started questioning the viability of the dogma in the divine scriptures. Such an experience was quite new to the Muslims who were intellectually challenged to reconcile some of the improbable scriptural text with reason. When suitable bridge could not be built and mutual reconciliation seemed impossible, recourse was made to reinterpretation of the scriptural text for resolving the (apparent) conflict. Such an effort was spearheaded by the first Arab philosopher al-Kindi, which was later formalized by ibn Rushd into a doctrine, which was called the doctrine of the double truth. He (2) argued, ?Since this religion is true and summons to the study which leads to knowledge of the Truth, we the Muslim community know definitely that demonstrative study does not lead to (conclusions) conflicting with what Scripture has given us; for truth does not oppose truth but accords with it and bears witness to it.? This doctrine was also unsuccessfully used by Galileo in his reasoning with the Church. In the light of such arguments, it was suggested that where a conflict appears to exist between reason and the Scripture, Scriptural language should be considered allegorical which needs to be suitably interpreted to achieve harmony between the two.
The literalists however wouldn?t have any of this. According to them, Quran needed to be understood literally; any allegorical symbolism is innovation (bid?at), which does not have any place in the religion. So according to them (1), ?God?s settling Himself firmly upon His throne is known, the how of it is unknown belief in it is obligatory, and questioning about it is an innovation. Any speculation about sacred things was considered an innovation. Every dogma was to be believed in without raising questions how or why (bila kaifa).?
The period in which rationalism was tangled with orthodox thought lasted for about four to five hundred years. In spite of its stresses and strains, this was a very productive period of intellectualism in the Muslim world. Some of the top-notch philosophers who belonged to this period were al-Kindi, al-Farabi, al-Razi, ibn Sina, and ibn Rushd among many others. Likewise, some of the contemporary excellent theologians such as al-Ghazali, and eminent jurists like the four Imams, the founders of the four schools of jurisprudence, namely Abu Hanifa, Shafi?i, Malik, and Hanbal lived in this glorious period of Islamic ascendancy. Two of the excellent philosophical works, which are still extant and widely read and used as reference source material are al-Ghazali?s Incoherence of the Philosophers, and ibn Rushd?s Incoherence of the Incoherence of the Philosophers. Al-Ghazali?s kalam argument has recently been used by the Christian theists for the existence of God in their debates with the Humanist atheists. Al-Razi?s al-Hawi and ibn Sina?s al-Qanun-fi-al-Tibb (popularly known as Canon in the west) were encyclopedic works on medicine which were used as text books in the European universities almost into the seventeenth century.
Then the curtain fell and intellectual darkness started creeping into the Muslim world until in due time it was completely engulfed by it.
When did Rational Thought vanish from the Muslim World?
Ibn Rushd (1126-119 is said to be the last philosopher of the Muslim world. He was abandoned by the Muslim world and was totally eclipsed by al-Ghazali. He however was instrumental in starting a new era of intellectual enlightenment in Europe. Greek philosophy was introduced into Europe through ibn Rushd?s commentaries and Arabic translations of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. His works were translated into Latin and avidly read in Europe.
The Muslim world was overtaken by mysticism and metaphysics. All the philosophers subsequent to ibn Rushd, in the Muslim world, were metaphysicians. The Muslim world lost touch with the physical reality and drowned itself in the ?otherworldliness.? The Muslims lived their lives to lose materialism (no material comforts) and to make a smooth passage to the ?other world? through recitation (zikr), meditation, ritual prayer, and other associated practices. Eschatology became more important than rational and physical sciences. This brought us to the crossroads where we find ourselves standing now and wondering, ?What happened??
Did the World Begin with Islam?
The Old Testament narrates the story of the creation of the world by God in six days and is a short history book of the Jewish prophets. After reading it, a thought comes to mind as if the world began with the Jews; nobody else of any import appears to have existed in the world other than the Jews and the animals, which were rescued by Noah in his ark during the Great Flood.
Later, Jesus Christ (a Jew) was elevated to the level of the Ultimate Redeemer of mankind who atoned for their sins by dying at the Cross. So, according to Christians, Christianity supplanted Judaism as the righteous and divinely revealed religion. Every thing that is good and needed for the redemption of mankind is in the Bible, which is the ?word of God?. The Jews by and large disagree with the Christian comprehension and postulation.
According to Islamic faith, both Christian and Jewish books are corrupted by alterations and interpolations and are thus not the genuine divine scriptures in their present form. The original texts are lost and are irretrievable. There was thus a need for reviving the true word of God and the Quran does that precisely. Many orthodox Muslims like to believe that all of the human knowledge (that exists, and then some more) is already there in the Quran.
The question whether the Quran is ?created? or ?uncreated? was the subject of hot debate in the heydays of Islamic glory. The freethinkers (Mutzalites) claimed it was created while the orthodoxy believed it was not; they believed that it was uncreated. The issue was not resolved and is still pending, either side being unable to comprehend the feasibility of the other?s viewpoint.
The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) focus only on the people who follow these religions while the remaining humanity is glaringly diminished if not completely ignored. What about Buddha, Krishna, and Confucius? There is no mention of them and their teachings in any of the Abrahamic holy books. Similarly, what about the great ancient Babylonian, Hindu, Chinese, and Egyptian civilizations? Egyptian civilization is marginally mentioned in the anecdotes involving Moses and the Pharaoh but nothing is mentioned how great these civilizations were. If these (the Abrahamic) religions are truly divine and universal, why would God ignore His own people, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hindus, Chinese and others? The world was not created for the Abrahamic people only.
The world did not begin with Islam (or, did it?), per se, but according to the traditional belief, it is in accord with the holy book. So, a necessary corollary to this line of argument is that Quran is sufficient in itself and by itself. If there appears any internal contradiction in the text, it is not real; it is human misunderstanding.
What more would one need to seal the Muslim mind?
Opening the Muslim Mind Again
There is an ongoing intense struggle between the rationalists and the conservatives in the Muslim world. The conservatives look backward to the glories of Islam and insist on going back to the original roots of Islam while the rationalists are tugging to move forward into the modern world. There is a catalytic realization in several Muslim countries that they should have nuclear deterrent like several non-Muslim countries. They also realize that the non-Muslim world would not help them in this venture; they have to develop such a deterrent by their own efforts and resources. For this, they need to have their own scientists equipped with the latest know-how in nuclear science and technology. They will perforce have to relax (or release) the stranglehold on the rationalists. The scientists need to be freed from the bonds and shackles of the mullahs and orthodoxy. The mullahs need to be controlled and awakened to the existing realities. A process of re-education is needed not only for the scientists but for the orthodox mullahs also. The taboo subjects (philosophy and rational sciences) need to be taught and learnt.
Philosophy, call it the western philosophy, if you will, by itself doesn?t take you to the stage at which you can craft scientific theories and validate them empirically. It does however teach you how to think rationally, analytically, and creatively, which is prerequisite for doing science. The same kind of effort should go into the development of technology. A philosopher is not a scientist but is an integral part of the society in which science and technology germinate and prosper. If we need to seek any spiritual inspiration in scientific matters from our forefathers, we should go to ibn Rushd and not to al-Ghazali. Both of them are now outdated anyhow. We need to imbibe from the west because that is where the scientific knowledge is. And thank God we, who are living in the west, are doing that. We are part of the west. The west and the western knowledge are taboo words in the Muslim world. We need to give them respect, which they deserve. Remember, the west began its quest for the scientific and creative knowledge by learning from the Arabs. The Europeans learnt Arabic language to read the science and philosophy books written by the Arabs. It appears so remote now that it seems hard to believe that their edifice of scientific excellence was raised on the foundations laid down by our forefathers. In due time, they translated these books in their own languages. Now the process is reversed; we need to learn and recapture from the west what we have lost in the recent centuries. There should be no hesitation in doing so.
Renaissance of the Muslim World
Renaissance of the Muslim world will require an unremitting and concerted effort. A few positive things have happened recently which should be optimally exploited to move forward. Professor Abdus Salam?s contributions in the modern physics are a matter of great pride for the whole Muslim world. His example should be followed and consistent progress should be attempted in science. His individual contributions were not the result of any formal process of renaissance in the Muslim world but his example could be used to stimulate a renewal and rejuvenating process in the Muslim society.
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan?s contributions need also not be minimized due to his selfish pursuit of personal aggrandizement. He helped in putting Pakistan on the nuclear map of the world, which was not a mean feat of achievement in the given circumstances. The upside of his efforts should be appreciated and followed forgetting the downside aspects of his personal character (I do not have first hand knowledge of his personal character and any of my remarks pertaining to it are merely conjectural and taken from the news media). Again, his example should be used to spark interest in the development of technology.
The future of Islamic renaissance probably lies in the west where millions of Muslim immigrants have moved to live. Religious freedom and freedom of thought in these countries are bound to fire up the interest of the Muslim generations growing up and going to school in the west. They will be free to demarcate milestones in the work that they choose to do. Muslim theology scholars may (and will) emerge from them to reinterpret Quran in appropriate ways to disentangle and release the Muslim world from the clutches of 1400 years old culture. It is futile to foist an old and outdated culture on to the 21st century electronically wired and globalized world and expect productive results.
References
1.M. Abdul Hye, ?Ash?arism,? in ?A History of Muslim Philosophy,? Vol. I, ed. M.M. Sharif, Low Price Publishing, Delhi-110052, p. 222, 1999.
2.Hourani, Albert, ?A History of the Arab Peoples,? Warner Books, A Time Warner Company, pp. 174-75, 1992.
