A prize from Dr. Farooq

The part V of Dr. Farooq's essay 'Islam and the History of Science' is a
rare prize to all secularists and rational thinkers. Dr. Farooq made a few
distinct comments here that must be hailed as the triumph of liberal
thoughts over rigid indoctrination.

Dr Farooq wrote "Indeed, the people who made these scientific contributions
were not doctrinaires" which is the most important message that I myself
always wanted to convey and could never do it so boldly. Indeed men of
Science do not belong to any creed, they are merely outstanding examples of
humanity. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that our conflict is with the
narrow creeds and sectarian doctrines, which separate Hindus from Javanas,
Muslims from Kafirs and Christians from Heathens. Remove doctrines and all
religions become the same- a spiritual quest for solving the riddles of
existence, walking hand in hand with all scientific quests. That religion do
not seek political power, do not guarantee Heaven or Hell, do not judge
mankind according to the rituals they follow- that is the Religion of Man.

Dr. Farooq also wrote "If the whole world knows that Muslims made original
contributions in the continuum of the progress of human civilization and the
world of science - and this is inspired by their faith." which is in direct
contradiction with his earlier comment. Muslims did make important
contributions to every fields of human knowledge. But their faith has
nothing to do with it. If Einstein was born as a Muslim he would still be
Einstein. What distinguishes great achievers from common people is their
intellectual superiority, not the difference of their faiths. Faith is an
important personal attribute but nothing in the history of Science ever
indicates that faith played a big role in making of a great scientist. I do
not see why Muslim scientists will be exceptions.

Do I believe that Islam played a detrimental role in the development of
Science and technology? I tried to explore that in my comparison of the
intellectual atmosphere of the Abbasid caliphate (also to some extent the
western Muslim Kingdoms of Spain) with the later development of orthodox
Sunnite views. The answer of the question will be self-evident if we compare
the development of Science in the Muslim world between 800-1400 AD and
1400-2000 AD. I leave it to the reader for guessing.

The next great proclamation by Dr. Farooq widens our view in a truly
liberalized atmosphere of tolerance. He is sympathetic if not accepting to
the fact that Dr. Salaam was indeed a devout Muslim. I regret that the
professor is not alive today to cherish this. Of course throughout his
lifetime he faced excommunication, hatred and rejection from a good section
of his countrymen and co-religionists (some of that garbage is still
available in the web) just because he was a Qadiyani.

To me and all students of Science worth their salt Prof. Salaam's personal
opinion reagrding religion is as good as any one of us. It is only in the
field of Physics where we will bow our heads and listen to his words with
utmost respect. We do not really care where from he drew his inspiration,
Islam or Paganism as it is totally irrelevant to anyone else but himself. To
us he was and will remain a great physicist, irrespective of his faith,
personal life or opinions. And no, if we had the good fortune of meeting him
ever we would not have fought with him regarding those issues. We would
rather discuss physics.

Now if I am mischievous enough to point out that Qadiyani philosophy is
greatly influenced by Hinduism with its Avatar (reincarnation) concept and
our Professor's achievements are also related to those ideas, I wonder what
Dr. Farooq would have to say! Qadiyanis accept Lord Krishna and regarding
religious matters they are way more liberal despite their faith in Quran and
the Prophet. One can argue that it was that liberalism which inspired him
into his greatness. But truly it does not matter.

It is upto the Muslims to decide whether Nazrul became a kafir by writing on
Hindu themes and even worshipping Kali for a while. The fact remains that he
did not adhere to a fixed way of education, lifestyle or pattern of
religious behavior. Many of his more religious writings show a degree of
inconsistency, often fortified with a desire to meet both ends. While he has
his permanent place in the history of Bengali literature, I believe whether
he has been a good enough Muslim or not is the least important criteria for
judging his literary contributions.

Most importantly Dr. Farooq recognizes the fact that validating all aspects
of a creed is not necessary for being a religious man. That means creed and
rituals are separable from the spirituality and the concept of God.. He also
mentioned the prophetic truth that one cannot try to find science in the
Books of faith. This is a modern intellectual epidemic, the worst example of
which is the so-called Creation Science. He made it clear that the Book of
inspiration is not necessarily the Book of knowledge. This is the very thing
we are trying to impress upon people all through our lives. How greater a
prize one can expect from a friend!

Why Islam Dr. Farooq no religion has any conflict with science whatsoever.
Men who wish to grab and retain power with the help of religion create the
conflict. You use uncommon terms like secular fundamentalism so frequently
and yet you do not realize the clandestine role of organized religions that
do not try to organize individual life but mass behavior and power games. Do
I have to explain the meaning of this well-known word with so much role in
human history?

I know your efforts are honest Dr. Farooq that's why you arrived at the
truth. So did Don Quixote after his long journey. The hilarity of his
journey does not revoke its greatness.

Kaushik