Book Review

Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the

Battle of Rationality
Pervez Hoodbhoy. London: Zed Books Ltd, 1991, xii + 157 pp

Dr. Hoodbhoy has indeed succeeded in provoking me to read the whole book in one go.
The purpose of this book is to show that there is no such thing as Islamic science; to
explain why science decline in the Muslim world; and to argue for the liberation of
science from religious influences so that it could flourish in the Muslim world. He
asserts that “secular and religious knowledge which have been closely intermingled in
Islam” is to be blamed for the decline of science in the Muslim world. Therefore to
reinstate science, there should be “a clear demarcation line between the sphere of spiritual
and worldly” because “science is equally consistent with religion and atheism” (p. 137).
The methods used to defend this thesis are; 1) conceptual analysis to clarify the meaning
of science; 2) deductive reasoning to present his analysis of the factors for the decline of
science in the Muslim world using; 3) presenting counter examples to rebut claims that
there is Islamic science; and 4) substantiating his reasoning with views mostly from
Western scholars such as Weber, Descartes, etc. He also quotes a lot of views from
Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Syed Ameer Ali to strengthen his arguments. In addition, he
presents a brief history of science in the Golden Age to analyze reasons for its
development; and a brief bibliography of five great Muslim scientists during that time.
The tone of the writer is sometimes sarcastic especially when he makes examples to
ridicule Sardar and Nasr.

Dr. Hoodbhoy organizes his arguments into twelve short chapters with a foreword by
Professor Abdus Salam, the Nobel Prize winner for Physics. Since the foreword by the
Professor is equally interesting, I will discuss one of his views before exposing the
organization of this book. Professor Abdus Salam lauds this work and adds that the

1
ulama are responsible for the decline of science in the Muslim world because they
meddle in “all subjects – politics, economics, law – something that the Holy Prophet
never did” (p. xi). To say that the Prophet never done anything in these areas is an out
right lie. It is common knowledge that the Prophet was a political leader who executed
Islamic Law and laid out principles of economics in Islam. To ensure the growth of
scientific knowledge, says the good Professor, the ulama should stick to leading prayers,
officiating marriage, death and circumcision ceremonies and manage the mosques.
Professor Abdus Salam obviously looks at the problem of science in the Muslim world
through the lens of secularism where religion has no say in worldly matters.

After the foreword by the Prof. Abdus Salam, Dr. Hoodbhoy presents a preface where he
thanks those who had helped him and accuses some Muslim scholars as “charlatans and
sycophants” who responded to the rhetoric of Islamicization and “set for themselves to
the task of Islamizing everything in sight, including science” (p. 1). Even though this
remark is targeted at those in Pakistan, other proponents of Islamicization of knowledge
were also affected by the mockery.

From the preface, one can safely assumes that each chapter is equally intriguing and
provocative; therefore, should not be skipped when reading this book. Dr. Hoodbhoy
organizes his exposition is a coherent manner. After he poses the problem, he explains
the meaning of science and the condition within which science could flourish i.e. when
science is separated from religion. He argues that science in the West developed after it
is separated from Christianity. Therefore, it must be true to the Muslim too. He
continues his exposition by showing the grave state of science in the Muslim world today
which he blames the orthodox Muslim scholars and the exponents of Islamic science who
pull down science into deeper abyss. He then explains that there is no such thing as
Islamic science. Scientific research will yield the same result whether it is done by
Muslim or non-Muslim, moral or immoral scientist. Therefore, he concludes that science
is neutral. He attributes the rise of science in the Golden Age to the “patronage of
enlightened caliphs and princes” and concludes that “how individuals could have
sustained science for this immense period is indeed something that no one understands”.

2
He further explains that the decline of science in Islam was due to ossified religiosity
which hampered the development of secular pursuits and sciences. He also made an
unsubstantiated claim that the theologians were jealous of the scientists who had easier
access to the courts of the caliphs; therefore, put certain constraints on nature of scientific
activity which made the dissemination of science to the masses difficult which lead to the
decline of science in the Muslim world. In fact, he claims that the five great Muslim
scientists were called ‘heretics’ by some orthodox ulama.

Before he concludes this book, he presents five factors which contribute to the decline of
science in the Muslim world. The factors are: the attitude and philosophy of the society
which oriented towards fatalism championed by Asharite doctrines; the incapability of
traditional education, which emphasizes rote learning and authoritarianism, to react to the
changing world; the nature of Islamic law hinders the development of capitalism which is
the environment necessary for the progress of science; and political factors. Finally, Dr.
Hoodbhoy recommends that Muslims should relinquish the ideas that solution to all
problems can be found in tradition; change the system of education to produce
individuals “capable of critical thought, who believe in the power of reason, and who
have internalized concepts and values crucial to the functioning of organized society”;
draw the line between religion and science because it is “unfortunate and contrary to true
Islam” to intermingle religion and science; and Muslim should recognize that they also
has the right and the capability to progress in science and technology i.e. it is not
confined to the West alone given that there is a clear “separation between the worldly and
the other-worldly”.

Even though, from the perspective of staunch opponent of secularism, this book contains
many views that are controversial, I must admit that there are a few good points that
should be highlighted. It is a reality that the state of science in the Muslim world is
pitiable and the author has presented some good factors for the decline. Although I find
it difficult to pin point orthodox ulama who is against science nowadays, I agree that one
of the factors that contribute to the decline of scientific activity in the Muslim world is
the philosophy that there is no cause and effect; therefore, no need to study because what

3
comes next is unpredictable. However, this reason is quite weak because al-Ghazzali
(Asharite ulama) believes that one should study the nature of all realities in order to
obtain happiness. Perhaps this factor holds true to the masses. Another factor for the
decline is the state of education in the Muslim world. The author blames traditional
education, but this also holds true to modern education. Education system, modern or
traditional, prevalent in the Muslim world is examination oriented which encourages
students to rote learn. Moreover, political and economics conditions in the Muslim world
too contribute to the underdevelopment of science in the Muslim world.

Besides his analysis of the factors for the decline of science, the author makes a couple of
good recommendations. One is to dismiss the belief that all answers to today’s problems
can be found in the Qur’an. The other is to change the education system to secular
education which I definitely disagree. Education in the Muslim world must be holistic
education. Another interesting exposition by Dr. Hoodbhoy is the discussion about
scientific researches done by a few Muslims which are quite ridiculous; such as the
mathematical equation to calculate the amount of reward given by God to persons who
perform congregational prayer, the research of the possibility to use jinns as power
supply because they are made of fire, etc.

In addition to the interesting points forwarded by the author, there are many controversial
and questionable statements through out this book. The purpose of any research is to find
out the truth. The author has to present his case and make his evidences speak for
themselves in order to convince readers of his thesis. In academic exercise, there is no
need to name call your opponents because it shows that you are emotional and incapable
of rational thinking. Dr. Hoodbhoy, in fact, starts his exposition by calling academicians
who are into Islamicization of knowledge as “charlatans and sycophants”. He also makes
ridiculous and sarcastic examples (on page 73 and 74) about proponents of Islamic
science with the assumption that the scientists are so stupid that they depend on Supreme
Religious Council to test their hypothesis instead of doing research. Moreover, he adds
his own interpretation to Asharite doctrines about anthropomorphic representations of
God. The author implies that Majid Fakhry has reported the doctrines (he says that

4
Ashari says that God has two hands, two eyes, two ears) in his book. When we refer to
Majid Fakhry, we did not find such words. I, therefore, believe that there is the
possibility that he might misquote others also in order to support his arguments.
Furthermore, he states that the belief in interventionist God hampers scientific progress
because it makes the believers rely on prayers instead of getting the knowledge about
how things work. “A society in which an interventionist deity forms part of the matrix of
casual connections, is bound to produce fewer individuals incline to probe the unknown
with the tools of science” (p. 120).

Dr. Hoodbhoy also makes several contradictory remarks when he says that values and
justice are outside the domain of science (p. 84) but asserts that “science can enhance the
moral values of life because it insists upon searching for the truth” (p.137). What’s more,
he says that sober and drunkard scientists will produce the same result i.e. science
obviously does not affect the behavior of scientists; but science can be used to inculcate
values. Moreover, he claims that Islam is compatible with science but it can only be
made compatible if the hereafter is separated from the here. What he is saying is that
Islam is incompatible with science unless some alteration is made. To justify his point,
he asserts that “changes in religion do not amount to a denial of religion” (p. 137) which I
agree to some degrees only because major changes in religion surely amount to disbelief
in religion.

There are many more “unconventional” ideas in this book, but I can only highlight one
more analysis by Dr. Hoodbhoy. From his investigation on the rise of Muslim science in
the Golden Age, he does not find any connection between scientific activity and religious
belief. He, therefore, concludes that the development of science during that period is not
motivated by faith or commanded by the Qur’an. He attributes the immense scientific
activities at the time to unknown reasons which no one can understand. This is certainly
not a convincing argument to substantiate his analysis. This view is really the opposite of
the view of most Muslim scholars such as Qadir, Kazmi, Sharif, Manzoor, Abu
Sulayman, and others.

5
In conclusion, the author ventures into this study to prove that Islamic science does not
exist. I do not share Edward Said and Irfan Husain’s enthusiasm on the power of the
author’s arguments. Instead, he has failed to give convincing arguments to support his
thesis. He weakens his power to convince when he permits his emotion to show in this
book. He has made a good analysis of the problem and presented factors for the decline
of science in Islam, but the solution to separate science from religion is following the
footsteps of the Western world; thus, bound to repeat the same mistakes of the Western
world where meaninglessness pervades and destruction prevails.

Reviewed by
Wan Mazwati Wan Yusoff
G 0322746
Center for Education and Human Development
IIUM.