go go gadget go

I’m finding this semester’s paradigm shift away from western ideology, towards particularly Islamic thought, an interesting route of inquiry. Of particular interests are the apparent emotions and energies invested in this debate of science and religion in Islamic societies. That is, to justify resistance or allowances of certain technologies, depends entirely on the ethics of the Qu’ran. Factors of human affect rather than technological effect seems to be of latent concern in western societies, but is central to Muslim praxis.

It sounds almost idealistic, that Islamic rationalist theology provides an encompassing yet diversified ideology to what westerns would call interdisciplinary. And according to our speaker yesterday, and Nasr’s article, “there are no categories” that house science and religion into two different spheres of thought; they are contingent on one another.

Yet, we can not deny that culture is not a static entity unsusceptible to change. As our speaker articulated with her five Muslim students of different sects, Muslim orthopraxy is diverse since ambiguity of the Qu’ran verses allow for varied interpretations. Thus, over time and space, the meaning and understanding of these verses change, and in turn instigate cultural changes.

Having said that, we also can not deny the global influences on Muslin societies. Coming from an outsider, in a contemporary context, the claim of a borderless relationship between Islam and science, seems like a nostalgic negation of globalization.
Looking back to Muslin civilization, particularly the library of Baghdad, a religio-science is apparent in the history of Islam. But after yesterday’s film which attempted to legitimize Islam via “scientific proof”, viewers can not but ignore the intent to overcome western pressures and criticism against Islamic strategic essentialism.

Attempting to address this concern in the language of western ideology, the film demonstrates that such ideology is not absent in Islamic thought. In other words, if science is used as “proof” for the Qu’ran, scientific empericalism becomes the point of reference for validation, rather than the Qu’ran. Thus, if the Qu’ran needs to be “proven” via science, rather than having science stem from Qu’ran as it did in the days of Baghdad library, then divisions of science and religion become apparent.

Thus, my concern around Nasr’s article, or rather rant, is that she fails to recognize the necessity of cultural change and the potential that may follow. One must address these factors, not deny them.