Islams Contribution to Modern Science

A discussion on the past, present, and future

Panelists: Dr. Noah Aydn and Dr. Taner Edis
Why were ancient Muslim societies more relevant to the scientific debate/discoveries than
today? What changed? What is the future for Muslim scientists?
History of Islam and Science
1) What factors influenced the Muslim worlds contribution to the sciences, in the past?
(Islams Golden Age?)
a. Was religion one such factor?
b. Other cultural/economic/social factors?
We shouldnt think of the so-called Golden Age as a special, almost mythic time of creativity. In
conditions of relative political stability and economic prosperity, intellectual activities such as
science and philosophy, even when socially not very significant, more easily find breathing
space. Today, often for reasons of nationalistic and religious prestige-seeking, we tend to put
too much emphasis on Muslim contributions to knowledge during the Golden Age.
Premodern science and philosophy was not like todayit was a largely marginal indulgence
within the Muslim scholarly tradition. It had an ambiguous reputation, and it was not often
associated with influential and dedicated institutions or large expenditures of public resources.
The motivations for support, as with the premodern state of knowledge itself, were thoroughly
mixed with what with hindsight we would call superstitions. Mathematics and physics came
together with astrology, and public health and hygiene were joined with humor theory and
supernaturalistic speculations about macrocosm and microcosm. Much of our popular
discourse on science in the Golden Age is distorted by our way of imagining premodern
knowledge enterprises to be merely less well-developed precursors of modern science. That is a
very selective view that does not do justice to premodern intellectual life.
2) What caused the Golden Age to fade, if you think that it did?
The narrative of decline has been around since at least the late eighteenth century, when elites
in Muslim empires had to confront the fact that they were militarily weak compared to
technologically rapidly advancing Western colonial powers. Reformers adopted a story of
decline and departure from the more rigorous practices of the pious ancestors, and called for a
revival of piety, discipline, and knowledge. Later variations on the decline narrative
alternatively blamed departures from orthodoxy or rigid impositions of orthodoxy, depending
on who their political enemies were. These are all interesting morality tales, but they are not

good history. The premodern, medieval forms of knowledge did not decline, they continued
their slow-paced development within established institutions. The orthodox discouragement of
the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, for example, did not much affect the precursors of what
we now call science. Western Europe, with the scientific revolution, adopted a new,
substantially different way of investigating and explaining naturewhat we call modern
sciencethat turned out to be very powerful. The new sciences were linked to incipient
capitalism, new technologies, and new forms of social organizationmodernity. Muslims were
left behind when compared to the explosive growth in knowledge and accompanying military
and commercial power of Western Europe. But that is not decline from a Golden Age.
Present: Islam and Science
1) What does the discourse on faith and science look like, in general, today?
It is mostly apologetic, and typically of rather low intellectual quality. The range of Muslim
positions on science and religion are very similar to those encountered in, say, Christianity. But
Christians have been addressing questions about science and religion for a longer time, and
especially academic theologians have become quite sophisticated about it, even if their efforts
need not impress more secular scientists and philosophers. Muslims, however, tend to have a
different emphasis, especially since historically they have encountered those aspects of modern
science that challenge religious perceptions of nature not as heresies developed internally
within their intellectual culture, but as an import. In the past few centuries, Muslim populations
have encountered modern science as a Western enterprise, associated with the commercial
and military dominance of colonial powers. Acquiring and adapting modern technology, while
resisting some of the cultural and religious changes often associated in the West with science,
has been a prime concern for most Muslim elites.

2) What does Islams intersection/interaction with the sciences look like now?
At the more popular level, there appears to be a common concern with possible conflicts
between modern scientific ideas and traditional supernaturalistic notions. Rejection of
Darwinian, naturalistic evolutionevolution as biologists understand itis very common. The
ijaz literature that attempts to find modern science and technology prefigured in sacred texts
is also very popular. Much of this is not intellectually serious, though more academic,
sophisticated attempts to argue that true science supports traditional beliefs are also easy to
find, as are arguments that some of the basic conceptual frameworks of modern science are
fatally flawed due to materialist assumptions that are falsified by spiritual knowledge. Most of
the time, though, science and religion are separate institutions and distinct practices that do
not touch on each other. For most scientists, and for almost all applied scientists, trying to get a
project to work in the lab and performing religious rituals are separate activities that fit
together without undue friction.
a. Why do you think that is?

At least since the nineteenth century, some important ideas in modern science have had a
naturalistic tendency, encouraging skepticism about traditional supernaturalism. As might be
expected, there is also an extensive literature about reconciling faith and modern knowledge,
whether by modifying science, liberalizing religion, or both. Islam is no different from other
religions in this regard.
Future of Science and Islam
1) What do you expect Muslims contribution to the sciences to be like in the 21st century?
a. Will this be any different than the 20th century?
The 20th century has not been very encouraging in this regard. In conditions of political
dependence and economic backwardness, few Muslim countries could devote resources to
basic scientific investigation. That has largelyfor understandable reasonsseen as an
indulgence compared to much more urgent tasks of modernization and technology transfer. For
generations now, Muslim regions of the world have typically emphasized engineering and
applied science. Moreover, the political condition of Muslim countries has usually been such
that the weak states controlled by often corrupt elites have not supported institutions that can
allow free criticism in areas of religious and political sensitivity. In this regard, the basic sciences
are more similar to the humanities and social sciences than the applied sciences that can more
easily thrive in conservative environments. Muslim populations have not, by and large,
institutionalized independent criticism; this still negatively affects efforts to develop a culture of
inquiry, even in instances where lots of resources are devoted to research in shiny new labs.
2) How do Muslims gain a foothold in the sciences?
a. What needs to change or improve?
Muslim scientists are not hard to find; they just happen to be proportionally fewer, given the
well-over a billion Muslims worldwide. Sometimes the very few Nobel winners in basic science
among Muslims are brought up as an illustration. Aziz Sancars recent share in the Chemistry
prize was much celebrated in Turkey, while Abdus Salams Physics success was much more
ambiguously received in Pakistan, due to his heterodox Ahmadi background. And then we start
to run out of examples. But even such examples show that very often, concerns about Muslim
underperformance in science are driven by nationalistic and religious prestige-seeking,
analogous to worrying about Olympic medals without truly caring about sports. Some Gulf
countries think they can solve the problem by pouring money into new universities and
research institutions. Any success they may haveand it is not muchis as fake as changing
the citizenship of some East African runners and claiming gold medals. A proper scientific
culture is hard to nourish. Some countries do better than othersIran, and Turkey perhaps,
and even those have to be laden with many qualifications. To improve the situation, I would
suggest that if and when Muslim authorities devote resources to basic science, they also accept
that an environment of intellectual freedom will accompany science. Some scientists will be
comfortable with more traditional political and religious institutions and beliefs. Others will not.