The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. 1. 1989 201 

Views and Comments 

A Critique of lslamization of the Sciences: 
Its Philosophy and Methodology 

Aliyu Usman Tilde 

I agree that all efforts shouJd be made to deprive Science as much as 
possible of its present materialistic philosophy because we Muslims today 
are only dragged into sharing the evils of the struggle between Science and 
Religion which took place in Europe and in which we never participated. 
But in so doing we must make sure that we have not committed the same 
blunder as the Christians did when they sat down to write .. Christian 
Geography" in the Middle Ages, which precipitated that harsh experience 
of conflict between Science and Religion and which resulted only in creating 
a false but sharp dichotomy between the two. It is in view of this that I hereby 
forward a critique of an article titled "The lslamization of the Sciences: Its 
Philosophy and Methodology" by Ja'far Shaykh Idris. 1 

It is important to realize that most of what Ja'far has written has been 
said earlier by other scholars. But the eleven-step methodology for Islamiza-
tion of the Sciences he presented are articulated on certain points or concepts 
which others have earlier debated and cautioned us against. 

On "Philosophical Questions" 

Most of what has been said under this topic in the article seems correct 
concernjng the components of knowledge-source, capacity. and method; 
acquired and inborn knowledge and their relationship, and the five listed 
sources of knowledge. All the statements are theoretical. so the extent to 
which they could be qualified as "correct" depends largely on how they were 
used by the author to outline the "procedure for Islamization of the Sciences" 
to which the second part of the article was dedicated. 

Aliyu Usman Tilde is a research scholar at Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria, Nigeria. 
1This article appeared in 11,e American Joumal of Islamic Social Sciences. (Herndon, 

VA: International lnstitute of Islamic Thought and the Association of Muslim Social Scien-
tists. Vol. 4, No. 2) . pp. 201-208. 



202 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. I, 1989 

On "Procedure of the Islamization of the Sciences" 

I absolutely agree with Dr. Idris on steps (5), (8), (10) and (11). But 
propositions under steps (1) , (2) , (3), (4), (6), and (7) need to be closely 
re-examined and reviewed if not discarded. Moreover, they directly contradict 
step (9). They read thus: 

1 . . "Accept as true all empirically or rationally discovered facts 
whether they be natural, physical, psychological, social, 
mathematical or otherwise irrespective of who discovered 
them. 

2 . "Add to this, in respective fields and relevant places, facts 
stated in the Qur'an and authentic traditions. 

3. "Research the Qur'an and Sunnah laws under which these 
facts can be subsumed and explained. 

4 . "Discover or develop theories which explain these laws and 
facts. 

6 . "Put all these facts, laws and theories in an Islamic framework. 
7. "Since we have two sources of knowledge, the world and 

wa~y (Divine revelation) we must be very clear about the 
relationship between them." This point has been elaborated 
upon much further. 

It could be clearly read from the above statements by the author that: 

1 . A tight association is sought between science and Islam. 
2 . That "truth" is the same no matter the source be it the "World" 

or Revelation. 
3. That verses or traditions could be used to support scientific 

theories and the resultant is put in an "Islamic framework". 
And so on. 

What I consider as important here to clarify are two respective 
characteristics of science and Islam which makes it impossible or not even 
advisable to forge a tight relationship between the two. These pertain to (1) 
Relativity of.,ruth"in science which to me differs sharply from the categorical 
truth in the Qur'an. (2) The relationship between reason and revelation (the 
former is described by the author as "World"). 



The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. I, 1989 203 

"Truth" in Science is Relative and Unstable 

There is nothing like "truth" in science and it is not even possible to 
qualify even the most ascertained theories and observations as true. There 
are only "facts." But facts could be subjective and relative. This may sound 
exclusivist, but let us offer a close examination. 

Science is a product of human effort to understand what surrounds us 
in the world. But in so doing, as Dr. Idris has also pointed out, man makes 
use of his senses, which aids his reasoning to arrive at a conclusion logical 
to him. In many cases, he could even convince others of the logic in his 
conclusion by demonstrating repeatedly his experiment to others who may 
also try it on their own later to confirm it further. If it is confirmed beyond 
"doubt;' it becomes a theory. 2 But their observation, confirmation, and 
theory may hold only for that period in human history or even geography 
due to the limitations within which human reasoning operates. In fact this 
may be what Ja'far refers to as "the human capacity to kn(MI." The term "capaci-
ty" in my understanding is abstract and relative as much as it is dictated 
by factors like age, level of development in technology, abundance of resources, 
communication efficiency, etc. 

What has been accepted as "true" yesterday may totally be rejected today 
as "false." It was "true" yesterday because man did not then acquire the 
knowledge and skill he has today. 

Students of History of Science know very well the vicissitudes imposed 
on scientific development by technique. (2) For example, prior to the telescope 
of Galileo, the discovery of the compass, etc., no one in Europe could believe 
that the earth was round. In this particular example, consider the verse (51:48) 
that talks about God "spreading" the earth like a carpet or mat. What do 
you think was the conception of the ~aJ:,iibah about the shape of the earth 
to whom this verse was revealed? Of course nothing other than "flat ." The 
Christians, even up to the 16th century, still believed the earth was flat and 
clearly expressed this idea in what the church published as "Christian 
Geography." 

At that time there was nothing more "true" than this theory, because 
everybody could see that the earth was flat . The same thing applies to the 
static position of the earth, of which some even quoted supporting verses 
from the Qur'an. If the "truth" in science means empirical observation and 
scientific theory means a logic based on demonstrated and verified observa-
tions then the whole Western world before the discoveries of the telescope 

2It should be noted that most contemporary theories are not arrived at from verified 
observatio.ns but from inferences derived from no n-observable supposed occurrences. 



204 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. I. 1989 

and the compass was scientific in believing that the earth was flat and static. 
But who is foolish enough today to accept that the earth is flat? Even 

the dogmatic church bas dropped the idea. The spherical and revolutionary 
nature of the earth has today been proven by astronomy, navigation , and other 
sciences as the "truth," and what was accepted as "true" yesterday (the earth 
as a static and flat planet) is today regarded by all as absolutely "false." 

Before the middle of this century was the atom not considered the smallest 
indivisible portion of matter as described in Bohr's theory? Wasn't the entire 
atheistic materialistic philosophy of the West and communism built on mat-
ter as the sole source of life? But do scientists themselves accept Bohr's theory 
as "true" today? Has our conception about matter not changed sharply after 
the fragmentation of the atom? Life itself does not exist in the atom and we 
stand today bewildered and confused. What therefore makes the "truth" so 
mutable in science? Of course nothing other than time, which offers oppor-
tunities of development of technique. It is possible that with progress in tech-
nique development, tomorrow we may term as false the helical nature of 
ONA discovered by Watson and Crick of which we were so sufficiently con-
vinced to honor them with a Nobel award and on which the entire field of 
genetic engineering is based? It is possible that someone will convince the 
world that our assumption today of the cell as the structural and functional 
unit of life is false. 

Certainly, 'Abbas al 'Aqqad was right in asserting that "human sciences 
change with time in a progressive form . They are between something awaiting 
completion, or comprehension, or convergence of divergents, or mistakes 
awaiting correction , or a guess developing into reality. It is not rare for scien-
tific foundation to collapse after being solid, or to shake vigorously after 
affinnation. Researchers may question their validity after regarding them 
as "real" for many centuries. . ;'3 

Glyn Ford once asserted: "Developments within science and technology 
emerge from an adversary process in which hypotheses compete for intellec-
tual dominance. But the judging is rigged."4 This is the "truth" in science 
if it ever exists. It keeps on changing. 

"Truth" in Revelation is Firm 

Truth in science changes, as we have seen above, owing to the shortcom-
ings and weaknesses of man. But when considering anything whose Divine 

l<Abbas Mal)rnud al ';6.qqad , Islamiyyat, Vol. 3 (Beirut: Dar al Kitab al Lubnani, 1975), 
pp. 19. 

4 Glyn Ford , kLiberating Science With Is lamic Values", Inquiry Vol. I (2) pp, 50. 



The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6. No. l. 1989 205 

source is affirmed, the question of contemplating its truth or otherwise does 
not even arise. It is true to the core. It is the truth, firm and unflinching, 
whether on earth or on the moon . It has come from Allah who has no scholastic 
shortcomings. He does not need the telescopes of Galileo nor the lenses of 
Leuvenhook. He has the key to the unseen and knows what transcends human 
perception or observation. Above all He is the Creator: .. Should He not know 
He that created? And He is the One that understands the finest mysteries 
(and) is well-acquainted (with them)" (Qur'an, 67:14). 

So if the Qur'an tells us that the function of the mountains is to provide 
topographical stability to the earth. we do not have to wait for the Russians 
to demolish their mountains by atomic bomb and see the topographical ef-
fect. That is why matters raised by the Qur'an are considered on the basis 
of belief not as something whose authenticity requires verification. The Qur'an 
is different from the Bible in this respect. 

The only thing that matters here is our interpretation of the Qur'an. Our 
understanding of any verse largely depends on the level of our knowledge 
of physical and natural sciences as well as scientific technique. The best ex-
ample we can cite here is the verse in ;.J.nkabut which commands mankind 
to travel on earth to see how life was started. Here, though the wisdom behind 
the command is clear, the method of seeing "how Allah started creation" 
is left to the dictates of technique. Does it mean mere study of morphological 
characters of organisms or the vestiges of past civilizations or a palaentological 
study of fossils? This particular ex.ample has been elaborated by Sayyid Qutb 
in Ft zilal. 

The "truth" in the Qur'an therefore varies sharply from the ~ruth" in 
science. Oddly put, while there is one truth in the Qur'an, there are many 
"truths" in science. 

Reconciliation Between Science and the Qur'an or 
Reason and Revelation 

Does it then mean that the two, Science and the Qur'an , or Reason and 
Revelation are irreconcilable or mutually exclusive? As Dr. Idris said, much 
has been written on this issue. But surprisingly, instead of highJighting the 
most recent developments in the field and proposing a methodology of Islamiza-
tion based on these developments, what he has presented is an approach reflec-
tive of the approaches of ancient writers, like Ibo Taymiyah. 

Though he laboriously tried to show the superiority of wahy, it is clear 
that his perception of the relationship between it and reason is J\.bduhist (in 
line with the thought of Mubanunad )\bduh). The understanding is that the 



206 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6. No. 1, 1989 

two are not exclusive but compatible, "since the world" as he stated, "is the 
creation of God , and religion is the word of God, genuine empirical statements 
describing the world, and authentic religious statements must necessarily be 
true and cannot therefore contradict one another." 

The above statement is similar to what Shaykh Muammad ~bduh said: 
"Revelation by way of divine message is a trace among the traces of Allah . 
And human reasoning is also a trace from the traces of Allah in the universe. 
The traces of Allah should harmonize among themselves, not contradict one 
another."5 

But where Dr. Idris is mistaken, as was his predecessor i\bduh, (names 
like Taha f:lusayn could also be added to the queue), is where he showed 
equality or even preference of Reason over Revelation. He said: "Give priori-
ty to what is known to be absolutely true, (the qat') irrespective of whether 
it is the religious or the rational or empirical." 

In his critique of ~bduh's stand on the relationship between Revelation 
and Reason, Sayyid Qutb said: "One of them (i.e., Revelation) is more en-
compassing than the other; the former has come to be the basis which the 
latter can be referred to, and a yardstick for judging the other (reason) as 
it relates to its decisions, understanding and conception. It corrects the lat-
ter's deviations. There is, therefore, undoubtedly harmony between them but 
only on this basis not on the basis that they are equal opposites ... moreover 
a reason devoid of shortcoming and whim does not really exist, it is only 
'abstract"'. 6 

Sayyid Qutb even rejected interpreting the Qur'an in a way that will con-
form to human reasoning, which at least is less risky than using the Qur'an 
to support reasoning or using reasoning to dispute a possible Divine source. 
After giving examples of the reflection of this methodology in the commen-
taries of ~bduh's students (Ri<:la and al Maghribi), Qutb said, " ... the inter-
pretation of Qur'anic texts was given to conform to reason. This is the basis 
of the error. Mentioning the word "Reason" returns the issue to something 
unreal . ... There is my reason, and the reasons of so and so person. There 
is no reason which is not imbued with shortcomings, whims, desires and 
ignorance. If we therefore subject the interpretation to make the text conform 
to many 'reasons', we are then going to end up in anarchy."' 

Imam I:Jasan al Banna has been reported as saying to Taha Husayn: "You 
call for religion to be in the service of science. It is an opinion based on 
the present civilization in the West . This is a wrong opinion because it means 
that if there is a conflict between science and religion on a particular issue, 

5In Sayyid Qutb, Kha~izYs al T~awwur al /sl.ami wa MuqawwamatilJ. (Beirnt: Dar a l 
Shuruq), p. 19. 

6Ibid. 
7Ibid . 



The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989 2ITT 

religion is discarded and science takes its position. It is necessary to dif-
ferentiate between science and religion. Religion is firm reality whereas science 
is comprised of theories which undergo change. If we clothe science with 
the garment of religion, we make it static; and if we make religion subser-
vient to science we then philosophize it and, by so doing, deny its nature 
such that it is no longer religion."8 

Conclusion 

From the foregoing discussion, the relationship between Revelation and 
Reason remains important and should be given all the attention it requires 
by students.of Tslamization of knowledge. I am glad to state that al Faruqi 
has made the stand clear by saying: "The separation of wal].y and 'aql is utter-
ly unacceptable. It is inimical to the whole spirit of Islam, opposed to the 
central appeal of the Qur'an to reason, to weigh rationally all matters, to 
favour the more reasonable, the more median course."9 The views of Dr. 
Idris upon which he proposed his steps toward lslamization of Sciences need 
to be strongly reviewed in light of what has been said above about the in-
stability of science and its relationship to religion. 

This is necessary if we intend to save Islam from the embarrassment 
incurred by Christianity in the last four hundred years. 

Remember the precarious situation in which the Church found itself in 
the mid-sixteenth century. Russell said: "When Galileo's telescope revealed 
Jupiter's moons, the orthodox refused to look through it, because they knew 
there could not be such bodies and therefore the telescope must be decep-
tive."K> That was the implication of rushing to forge a bond between religion 
and reason. 

I do not at all agree that we separate science from Islam as it is practiced 
today in the world. But we have to be cautious about the dynamics of their 
co-existence. We must accept revelation in the Qur'an as truth to the core 
but consider its interpretations as opinions of jurists. We must regard science 
as a human endeavor to understand the creation of Allah and find a means 
of exploiting better His bounties which He put at our disposal. We may even 
consider scientific research as 1badah because the Qur'an has always urged 
us to use our reasoning and energy in this direction. We can even seek direc-

8Malµniid 'Abd al J:Ialim, al lkhwan al Muslimim , Ru.~-oh min al DakhU (Dar al Da'wah, 
Vol. I), p. 232. 

91sma'il Raji al Firiiqi, lslamiw1io1t of Knowledge: General Principles a11d Uorkplan 
(Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1982) pp. 18-19. 

'°Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science 011 Society, (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1953) 
p. 19. 



208 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences Vol. 6, No. I, 1989 

tion and priorities of scientific research from the Qur'an. But we should not 
consider our findings as "absolute truth'' because the power of our judgment 
is restricted by our development in knowledge and the technological resources 
available. 

Thus al J\qqad said: "The Qur'an is sufficient for the Islamic community 
from the perspective of belief. It does not prevent them from the path of 
knowledge and progress. By this virtue it has fulfilled the necessity of belief 
and prevents the evil which afflicted those whose beliefs blocked them from 
freedom of thought and conscience. . . . It is not becoming for both scien-
tists and philosophers to seek from religion anything other than this." 11 

11 'Abbas Ma):i.miid al ~qad, lslamiyyat, Vol. 3. p. 14. 

The PAKISTAN 
DEVELDPMENT 
REVIEW 

"5H ODJO t1'71 

,_ 
1"1'1DM ........... .......,. 

-·--·-........ ,.. .. ---,._ --·--
__ 
... _ 
..... a..a-... -·-...,.,HW/flll. 
OM.f'( ............ ". ..... -.... ,._.~ . ..,,. .... ,. ..... ..,..,.. 
..._.. ........ Tl ..... _ 
ic-a.,,..,. .. 
4C.UUWl:U 
...u,1.('0I.U 
... COtC• ··--... _..,. -·-aoe,tJIID,111,t.anl-....,.,_ ,....,..,-.... 
M4MQeoou•" 
m,..-w•tcJiUlift.l.9 n.,...,.,,. .... 
411.c:-.. ..... --.. . 
........... MIit -·--CAIIOI. I ....«t MIIIO..•fl'UIGIII' 
...... u-a.t• 
.-.a.-U.OIII 
........ d 
9WfA1'f ....... lt ........... """' .. 
~1.-.MtnOII ........... _..... . ..,.,,,,,. 
NMll'TTA C.IC• ---, .. ....., ...... UIClfA'l'\09 -.1. ... c.n••-.......,.11 ,..,...,..c..t 
c.. .. ,.."-· t..W"flllfALlllt1"9 

_.__ 
........ 1, 

£dl0<ill by Sy<4 N1w1b H11d<t N,q•I 

Tiw Tw~ Cf3 ......... Ion,_. ... (o, IM Mlffllf1<1fl1rt&S<ao, .,,,._ 
Asllfaqw H Klun / 

Tu 1--byl_C-. ... P-., 
Muh--d H....Jn Malll 11111 N.- m S.q,b /J 

An Aft..,.. of l',oductl .. ltflal'°"' lo th< l.atp..olr Tu1U. ..._ 
roctv,t,,1 Sccc:c .. orhklol., 

Sollaff / M1111t, Molwnmod Mvslnoq ind Hina Nadl 17 

......,uct .. ofw,c, .... l•tMvtio.lCfflllt•tlll~-o..,,._... .. ,__ 
llohlb A Z.vbal '1 

IOOlt R£VIIWS 

S a.-11arU.r \Ill.I F- 1..a, 10 C.-0. A lrl,f Httl/1#7 ,,,, 
i.,.,.,,.,10,1: hH-ofO-.A--A--
- o..-...... l<rtmod ~- ,.,.,.. C.-t<. y..,. 
I.MIiiry. J- Lqoro .... f.......,. N..i1 N,,_ ,._ ,-,,.,.,io,, ,...,,,, _ _. .. ,,,.c-..xn, . ...., 
Art - _, AfttllowJ 0 ... "5nolth 1•1 I•-.,, /11,.,_lu _ ,,__,,,,_,,, "",.,,,. ... ""'Ill-.,-.,,'""' 
11.wu Zlo- ad - Iii. T- 1.i..1 1,,u,-1olllll N,.,..loft 11-.. Mt-,.. 1,,,,-,loM/Jll#Wllo• ,...,,. __ ltt 

Karol J Krdtkl S7 
0 a-.FH4-',__J1: l..&~H_,f_ .. ,i, 

l(hwoja S11ffl>d 6.! 

£$CAP, , _,__ ta- Ni,,.tlu-' llmrllt_.,. kf...,.., t/1< 
o,wi,,,.,. £SCA, a.-,,., - ,,.. """" £• r..-.. ,_-' -f1l11klq-=• 67 

-t,el 

Annuol S..t>ralptlDn U.S. $ 75.00, Pak At 250..00 by •url- ,n .. and U.S. S II0.00 . 
... k A• ffl.00 by alt rnoR. , ...... U .S. S 20.00. , ... At 65.00 by_,_ .... n and U.S. S 
ZS.DO. Pak A1 70.00 by air rnol for 1989 only, Sut,,c,lptlont "' v,r,rtd on a c:alandtt y-
- ,.,_,,. tflould ~ mode dnctly tlvough a cro- c!>eo110/demand draft. lstued In 
1/w .._ of tho Paki.on ,,..,MUia of O..olopmenl Eco-. Pon 8oJc 1091, 1~........i 
"4000 lhkh,.nl.