From: ahmad@ra.cs.umb.edu (Ahmad Hashem)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Arabic Names
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:02:36 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

In article <11245@crackers.clearpoint.com> martillo@nero.clearpoint.com (Joachim Martillo) writes:

>because people like you have driven out most of the people like us who are
>mathematical and who understand modern political, social and economic
>organization

It is in fact unfortunate that some people who are supposedly "mathematical 
and who understand modern political, social and economic organization" 
are only good at disowning their own people and patronizing the "civilized
West."  If they do have an understanding that is superior to that of the others
then this only means they have more responsibility to work on straightening
things up in their original countries.

>Big deal.  They are also insignificant.  Newton and Leibniz laid the
>foundations for real mathematics.  The really important people in the
>development of math are people like Gauss, Riemann, Hilbert, Bernays
>and Go"del who created a logical analytical foundation for mathematics
>completely beyond the ken of people whose minds have been rotted by
>traditional eduction (including traditional Islamic education).

Unfortunaltely, it is the culture of the enlightened "civilized West", that
of Newton, Leibniz and Gauss, that managed to use its enlightenment to 
the destruction and ugly abuse of the rest of mankind.  In no way am I 
trying to belittle the scientific and philosophical achievements of the West.
I think they are truly fascinating.  But several remarks are in order:

The sphere of science in the West is bitterly isolated from the sphere
of morality.  Science is but a tool; and a tool needs wisdom to be properly
applied.  The following is taken from THE SCIENTIFIC OUTLOOK by Bertrand 
Russell (London: George Allen & Unwin ltd.,  4th ed., 1962), p.10:
"In so far as he [man] is wise this new power [science] is beneficient; in so
far as he is foolish it is quite the reverse.  If, therefore, a scientific 
civilization is to be a good civilization it is necessary that increase in 
knowledge should be accompanied by increase in wisdom."

It is interesting to see how Bertrand Russell, the arch-atheist, defines
"wisdom": 
"I mean by wisdom a right conception of the ends of life.  This is something
which science in itself does not provide.  Increase of science by itself,
therefore, is not enough to guarantee any genuine progress, though it provides
one of the ingredients which progress requires."

A right conception of the "ends of life"?  I love it, coming from an atheist!
Isn't this precisely what Islam provides?

And in fact, science thrived in the Muslim world hand in hand with Islam's
being the major social and political power, and it deteriorated when Islam
ceased to be the major social and political power in society.

Science thrived in the West when society revolted against the authority
of the Church, when the Church was relegated to a very marginal area of
life, and the EXACT OPPOSITE happened in the case of Islam.  It remains in
Islam's record that it is the only religion that thrived hand in hand with
science and philosophy, because, in fact, science and philosophy confirm
the message of Islam, not contradict it.

It is this severance of science from morality that resulted in the West's
using its might to horror the other peoples (need I remind you of the
colonial atrocities in Algeria, Libya, South America, etc?).  And it is the
unity of science and morality in the case of Islam that resulted in a most
just treatment to other peoples in all history.

Give me one reason for the "civilized West" to treat others justly.  Keep in 
mind that the West never did treat others justly.  On the other hand, the
Quran keeps asking its followers to be just:

"O ye who believe!  Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as
against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against)
rich or poor; for God can best protect both." (4:135)

>I am just dazzled by a moral system whose only basis is alleged
>reports of what Allah considers good and evil.  Somehow the logical
>analytical systems of great thinkers like Kant or Fichte are a wee bit
>more impressive intellectual structures.

And I am just dazzled by a moral system who has no basis whatever other
than the speculations of fallible men.  Personally I am a fan of Kant; I
have studied him and admire him greatly.  If you have really studied him
(i.e., if you are not merely throwing his name and others in an attempt
to make a point) I can show you that at least 95% of his philosophy is 
compatible with Islam.  After all, Islam is a call for humankind to use their 
reasoning.  "Say: 'I exhort you unto one thing only: that you awake, 
for Allah's sake, by twos and singly, and then reflect'" (36:44)

>Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami

Ahmad Hashem