Absolutely, we ask questions about every subject in life with skepticism such as History, Economics, Politics, Science then why should religion be left alone?

My extensive study on Islam and all other religions have forced me to believe that all these religions that we know of today are man made. Jesus was no different to Moses and Muhammad was no different to Krishna! All these religions are man made if you ask questions about the authenticity of Quran and Muhammad!

Not sure if I understand this part of your comment:

“… it is ok for scientists to not question rational thinking as a method of inquiry but try alternate methods to see if it works!!!”

There’s probably a typo in there. Perhaps if I understand your point better we can carry on the conversation.

To your question about Islamic texts dealing with the more philosophical subjects, of course much has been written in both classical and modern times. Perhaps, you could start by reading a contemporary philosopher like Seyyed Hossein Nasr and work your way backwards. I’m not well-versed in this domain so I’ll let someone else be more thorough.

But at the risk of being labelled a loser , I would like to say that I have read the Quran and the hadiths and find them to be so badly written and amateurish much like the bible and other religious texts…I’m surprised that this could be the word of god…forget scientific inaccuracies and screw ups , even the matter discussed is very juvenile…unlike Buddhist mahayana or shankara’s advaita or mimamsa traditions (atheist hindu I guess) which discuss reality , self , whole , truth etc…are there any islamic scriptures that are deep and philosophical…please point out since I would like to read them…

thank you all…

If i may, I would like to comment about Your suggestion: “So, I’ll leave you with a simple ‘thought experiment’: Consider yourself an ideal Islamiyat teacher. Would you continuously encourage your students to question the authenticity of the Qur’an and Sunnah?”

You ought to know that Quran itself throws the challenge to any “disbeliever” to disprove its authenticity, of course, acamidically and in fairness. Can you do that without questioning?

Quran advocates open-mindedness, scientific thinking, questioning and learning through life experiences which is the best method of learning.

Quran asks humans to learn by using PEN too. You don’t need pen for rote-learning, do you?

Wonder how could you have missed this.

I agree, and that is quite the point. Skepticism, the attitude of questioning things, is a core facet of science; it just isn’t one of Islam’s core tenets.

So regarding your question, my answer would be yes, absolutely. It would make an excellent introduction to students of science, that nothing is beyond question. It would afford an excellent opportunity to explain the idea system of science.

No, I would not. Not in an Islamiyat class. (That’s a subject for a class on Textual Criticism, if it is worth entertaining at all.) And, here’s the simple reason why: if I did encourage my students to question the very source of authority of the Quran then by the very definition of the belief system that is Islam, I would not be teaching them Islam. I would be teaching them something entirely and demonstrably “not-Islam”. The purpose of Islamiyat instruction is not, and it cannot be, to teach something that is not Islam.

There is also a flip side to your question, and I’d curious to hear your thoughts on this: would an ideal science teacher encourage his students to disregard (or question) empiricism and rationalism in a science class?

You ask: ‘How is that different from Physics?’

Well, for the vast majority, a Muslim who successfully questions and convinces others of error in the fundamental tenets of Islam is considered an atheist and liable for punishment by death. A physicist who successfully questions and convinces others of errors in the fundamental tenets of science is considered great, and is liable to have his (or her) likeness carved in stone.

It is curious that you mention Ibn Hanbal. He was persecuted not because he was bringing new ideas or interpretations into religion, but quite for the opposite reason: the khalifah at the time was sympathetic to the rationalist Mu’tazali school, in contrast to Ibn Hanbal’s more traditional view of things. Imam Ghazali, arguably the most influential Muslim scholar, was also demonstrably conservative in his views, famously denouncing philosophers in his treatise ‘the incoherence of philosophers’. This is not to say that they weren’t analytical in their arguments, but they weren’t questioning the fundamental tenets of Islam. Name me one major Islamic scholar in the last 1000 years who successfully questioned the Qur’an and I’ll concede the argument. I can name more than a dozen scientists who have challenged the fundamental tenets of their fields as I’m sure you can.

In science, the rules of it’s method are clear, and good instruction should teach students how to disprove things, and how to prove things, not matter how established. That’s why thousands of student around the work do experiments in labs.

So, I’ll leave you with a simple ‘thought experiment’: Consider yourself an ideal Islamiyat teacher. Would you continuously encourage your students to question the authenticity of the Qur’an and Sunnah?

I, for one, DON’T think that in the study of Islam, or for that matter any religion, “glory is achieved in learning about and following established fundamentals”. St. Thomas Aquinas isn’t considered one of the greatest teachers in Catholicism because he memorized the most in Catholic tradition or, to take a more modern example, Reinhold Niebuhr isn’t considered influential because he committed to memory the most of everyone else in Protestant tradition. They are considered great teachers and interpreters of knowledge because they provided the most profound and relevant interpretations and applications of the Divine wisdom in their respective traditions. The same has been true in Islamic history as well, from the time of the Companions to our present time. In fact, the history of scholarship in Islam is filled with individuals who went against the established view and were persecuted for it. Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s life is perhaps the best known example of that.

Now, if the argument is that by “fundamentals” you mean, say in the context of Islam, the text, language, grammar, meaning and prior interpretations of the Quran. Then, of course, that’s true. Any scholar who does not understand those things isn’t worthy much. But, how’s that different from Physics? Can a physicist make serious contributions without understanding the established best theories of his time?

I am not saying that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever when it comes to instruction and/or scholarship in science and theology. Or, that the methods of advancing human knowledge in matters of science and matters of theology are the same. They are not. At least, not in the way we’ve done science since Galileo’s time. And, you’re also absolutely right that in science, unlike in matters of religion, NOTHING is ultimately settled.

What I’m saying is that to suggest that one requires a critical, analytical mind while the other doesn’t is not accurate. Whether or not the “truths” at the highest level — say the theory of relativity or the text of a verse in the Quran — are ultimately settled or not doesn’t, or rather shouldn’t, affect how Islamiyat and Physics is taught in schools and colleges.

This is especially true in the specific context that’s the topic of this interview — education in Pakistan. Islamiyat is the instruction not of Islam as faith in general, but of a peculiar state-sanctioned version of the faith. Without applying a critical attitude toward this subject, we cannot hope to rid ourselves of the fanaticism that Dr. Hoodbhoy laments.

Nothing is settled in science and for proper application of scientific thinking one must be skeptical as a principle. The fundamentals are settled in religion, literally by divine revelation, and for proper application of religious thinking one must have faith as a principle. I believe this is an intrinsic difference between the two and this is difference is key in developing modes of instruction.

For instance, there is an intrinsic part of classic Islamic instruction that is rote memorization: hafiz-e-qur’an. The core tenets of Islam are not going to be changed by the discovery of anything new, and therefore it makes sense to teach those fundamentals by rote memorization. In a sense, glory is achieved in learning about and following those established fundamentals.

In science on the other hand, glory is achieved in successfully breaking paradigms and making new discoveries and to teach students to do this, being questioning is a necessity.

There are many intellectually engaging questions relevant to Islam in this day and age, but for school instruction, I don’t think a questioning mind is as necessary for following Islam as it is for doing good science.