|
Dear Pervaiz sb,
First congratulations for organizing successfully a stimulating seminar.
Comparing a scientific theory
such as Darwin’s theory of evolution with the theological accounts of
creation is as good as comparing Beethoven’s symphony #5 in C minor with
the toilet paper.
The trouble I have
with assimilating what was presented at the seminar is manifold and I
would like to list some of the points here in order to show a view point
which could not find an expression just in the limited time available
for the free debate at the floor.
1.
I noticed an attempt on part of some presenters either to
belittle Darwin distorting some facts of his biography or to glorify him
by portraying him as stalwart against the religion. This type of
approach does not bid well for an intellectual discourse. In an
analytical or intellectual study we must focus on comparing the ideas
and not the personalities. In particular to discredit Darwin on any
basis other than the intellectual merit does not fit well in environ of
a debate like this. On the other hand giving the impression that Darwin
developed or presented this theory to invalidate the religious dogmas is
also untrue. Darwin, first and foremost, was a true scientist of highest
stature and was just focusing on the scientific nature of his work and
kept faithfully to the rigorous approach of science not letting him to
be bogged down in a distraction of this nature. He realized that his
theory will have implications on theology but he kept himself detached
from this fight not because he was shy but because he understood that
these two were completely different areas of study. He being a true
scientist had neither inclination nor capacity to embark on such an
adventure.
2.
I found lack of
understanding in some of the presenter’s mind about what a scientific
theory is. Besides, there was no attempt made in any of the papers to
clarify this fundamental point. In encyclopedia Britannica scientific
theory is defined as “systematic
ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination,
that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding
regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited.
A scientific
theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to
explain them in a scientifically rational manner.” As can be seen that
scientific theory is based on empirical data and rational conclusion
about the observed patterns in that data. It cannot leap forward to
philosophy or theology without remaining scientific theory per se and
that is exactly what many of the presenters kept doing. Leaping to and
fro over the chasm between the science and theology unabashedly not
realizing futility of that effort.
3.
One of the most amusing things I find about “Muslim theorists” is
their queer approach towards history of Islamic scholarship. They always
find scientific works of a particular historical period of Islamic glory
more advance than even the modern scientific works. No doubt works of
great elegance and value were produced in those periods but to say that
some of those works propounded a theory of evolution more advance than
Darwin’s theory shows either lack of understanding of works of science
or it is “feel-good- about- inheritance” syndrome.
4.
Lack of forthright conviction was also apparent in some writer’s
mind. For example, Qur’an was quoted in ways that implied that both the
viewpoints (evolutionist as well as creationist) could find validation
in its text. However, most of the quotations were put forward to
indicate the evolutionary process in the nature, and almost no quotation
was presented of the creationist approach, such as story of Adam or
story of creation of the world by Allah in six “days”. This lack of
balance was in sharp contrast against the view by the author viz.,
believe in the creationist point of view and implicit rejection of
Darwin’s theory. Neither any effort was made to reconcile the two sets
of quotations either in the paper or in the answers to the questions.
5.
I find that euphuism is often used to divert the critical
evaluation of sacred texts, and is common among most religious theorists
and Muslims are no exception. For example, attempt to translate Qur’anic
word of “Ayyamin” as referred in 10.3 as “periods” instead of “days’ is
a point in case. I perceive that this euphuism is just an effort to
avoid the embarrassing situation where we have to believe that God
created world in six days when DAY itself is product of revolving of the
earth at its axis and how before the creation of anything there could be
DAYS. So by arguing that God created the world in six periods, not in
six days, it may become little more palatable, though still question
remains that ‘period’ also indicate a linear measurement of time and we
all know that time itself is a dimension of physical reality. So in real
sense, the contradiction is still not resolved by converting days into
periods. And then how about coming up with euphuism for following
description of meteor in the verses 15.16 to 18 of Qur’an.
a.
And verily in the heaven
we have set mansions of the stars (“zodiacal signs” as translated by
Yousuf Ali, in Arabic being ‘Burj’), and We have beautified it for
beholders. And We guard it against every accursed Shaitan. But he who
steals a hearing, so there follows him a visible flame (Shihab =
meteor).
Or of man and Jinn in the verses 15.26 &
27
b.
And certainly We created
man of clay that gives forth sound, of black mud fashioned in shape. And
the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire.
And of course all the apparent
contradictions of various accounts which one invariably bound to
encounter throughout the text in any serious study of the Book.
The point I am
trying to make through this exercise is as follows. Firstly, sacred
texts are not books of science or literal expression of truth. Any
attempt to fathom their truth in the literal sense is bound to fail and
if we insist to pursue that course, we are bound to look foolish or
worst, Bin Ladians. We must understand nature and role of the language
in the expression of reality or experience. We must also be acutely
aware of nature of thought itself. We must distinguish between our mind
and our being, our rational thought and our existential nature. We must
admit that there are experiences available to mankind, which can make
them transcendent the material reality. Even listening to Beethoven’s
music can bring us close to the core of the universe. (Why a religious
text cannot do the same?) Secondly, a scientific theory can be
disproved only and only by a scientific theory and not by theology. Yes,
a scientific theory can develop, evolve, or it can be discarded but only
based on the scientific data, observation and logical structure
developed with mathematical rigor. No scientific theory ever claims to
be a comprehensive account of all reality. It always limit to the
conclusions drawn from the observed data in that particular field of
observation. No scientist worth its salt ever claimed otherwise. To
reiterate, a scientific theory cannot be disproved by any other methods
than the methods of scientific inquiry.
The realms of
science and religion (or spirituality) are different realms of human
experience, one of knowing through rational thought and senses and other
of seeking by the heart and soul. By religion I do not mean the
organized religion or the religion of popes, pundits and mullahs – I
mean the inner seeking which directly experience the realms of reality
in a dimension where logic’s wings are burned in thin air and reason is
humbled to the dust. The religion which knocks at my heart and to which
my heart devotedly says ‘yes’ is the religion where we are partners with
the Creator in our creativity; where we are partners with the spiritual
guides such as Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Krishna and Zoroastra in
our seeking; where we do not seek ‘theories of theology’, rather we
experience the Divine, through the five senses as well as through the
sixth or seventh or tenth. There all we need is one ‘Alif’ (Alpha) as
Bullayh Shah said. There, we see the light, not as an electromagnetic
phenomenon, but as epistemological reality. And the clay, and the fire,
and the days, and the Adam, and shihab and burj are within. Where there
is no deity worth worshipping but the one which has no name and is my
Lord. Praised be my Lord, Allah … (I can call IT by the name I love) …
the creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them,
besides whose Will nothing Is, nothing Was and nothing Will be. And IT
manifested on Mohammad’s heart, as IT manifested on Moses and others …
!
Abdul Mutaal
Mooquin
February 16, 2005
|