Hoodbhoy replies: Toufic Hakim would have preferred that I discuss “the teachings of Islam in relation to science.” But I could have added little to that age-old issue. Also, those teachings are nowhere near as complex or difficult to explain as he seems to think. According to Islam, and Christianity and Judaism, the world is governed by a god who responds to prayers and intervenes in physical processes. If science is understood as a search for the causes underlying natural phenomena, then for the faithful of any religion, although some knowledge of the physical world can be gleaned from using the tools of science, the ultimate cause for something’s occurrence can be found only in the mind of God. Predictions are possible but only in a limited sense because he is not obligated to abide by the laws of physics. When angry, he may choose to send floods or drought, set mountains quaking, or rain pestilence from the skies—even if any of these involve physical principles being overruled. Although science considers geological phenomena to lie within its domain, Islamic authorities across the world held that the 2004 tsunami and 2005 Pakistani earthquake were expressions of divine wrath.
Hakim suggests that I have used the wrong metric to assess the scientific productivity of Muslim countries. Perhaps. There is certainly no right measure in such matters, so opinions will always differ. In my opinion it is not possible, as he suggests, to consider the impressive technology projects in the Persian Gulf or the Middle East as valid indicators. For example, the “miracle” of Dubai’s present economic boom has scarcely any indigenous technical component—it was executed exclusively by multinational corporations and paid for with oil money.
Hakim thinks I should have explained how the industrialized West can be of assistance. Indeed, the West can contribute significantly in material terms in some areas. Laboratory equipment, chemicals, computers, and so forth are important and transferable accessories to science. But they are not science. The crucial and still-missing step toward achieving scientific progress is acceptance of free questioning. Without that, one cannot have forays into the unknown, so genuine science is unattainable. We who live in Muslim societies and who wish for scientific progress must understand that one cannot really fly while in chains. We cannot ache for the enormous power that free inquiry confers while we ban free inquiry itself.
Ismail Demirkan and Aksar Beketov, quoting Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, attribute the decline of Islamic civilization after the 13th century to a materialistic philosophy that brought identity crisis and to a “weakening of genuine faith among Muslims.” I would be interested to know of historical evidence suggesting that Muslims had become less observant of their faith after that time. I am also unaware of the concomitant emergence of any “materialist philosophy.” How do the authors explain that the most brilliant work of Muslim scientists was performed under the patronage of khalifs such as Harun al-Rashid and Al-Maa’moun, who even today are openly excoriated by the orthodoxy for their pluralistic liberalism and a casual regard for Islamic rituals? Far from marking the end of strong faith, the 13th century was when the rout of the Islamic rationalists (Mutazilites) had been completed and Islamic orthodoxy, inspired by the famous Imam Al-Ghazzali, had achieved ascendancy in all parts of the Muslim world except perhaps Spain. And why did the lessening of faith in Christianity after the European Enlightenment spur science, while the alleged lessening of faith in Islam in the 13th century led to scientific decline?
David Klepper comments on the story of the red heifer. I do not see the breeding of red heifers as having the slightest effect on a conflict wherein two historically constituted peoples have staked their claim to the same piece of land. The end of that conflict cannot come from a better understanding of each other’s religion but from a just division of the land in a way that recognizes the inherent rights of both parties.
As for the letter from Anand Saxena and Rajiv Tyagi, I stand by my contention that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is an extremist Hindu organization that has been responsible for large-scale murders of Muslims and Christians in India. The Gujarat pogrom of 2002, in which more than 2000 Muslims were massacred, occurred with the agreement and active assistance of the Gujarat state government, of which the VHP was a part. The authors’ statement that “no authority of the VHP has made derogatory statements toward Muslims or Christians” can be refuted by any number of examples. The first leader of the VHP, Shivram S. Apte, propagated a paranoid Hitlerian vision of a world that is set to devour the helpless Hindu: “The world has been divided to Christian, Islam, and Communist. All of them view Hindu society as very fine rich food on which to feast and fatten themselves.” 1 If that is not derogatory, I do not know what is.
