FREEDOM OF ENQUIRY
In his well-known book, The Legacy of Islam (1931), Baron Carra de Vaux acknowledges the achievements of the Arabs, but nevertheless relegates them to the status of pupils of the Greeks. Bertrand Russell, too, in his History of Western Philosophy, sees the Arabs only as transmitters of Greek thought, i.e. that they brought Greek knowledge to Europe through their translations.
But this does not do justice to the academic attainments of the Arabs. It is true that the Arabs studied Greek literature and profited thereby. But what they transmitted to Europe was much more than they themselves had received from Greece. The truth is that the ideas, which sparked off the Renaissance in Europe, had not formed part of Greek thought. Had that been so, Europe’s thinking would have been transformed much earlier. Then Europe would not have had to waste a thousand years before it could have its Renaissance.
It is well known that the progress made by the Greeks was mostly in the fields of art and philosophy. Their contribution to the field of science—with the exception of Archimedes’ hydrostatics—was actually quite negligible.
It is an indisputable fact that for scientific enquiry and scientific progress, an atmosphere of intellectual freedom is absolutely essential. But such an atmosphere did not exist in any of the countries of ancient times, and neither did it exist in Greece. Socrates, for example, was forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock as a punishment for his encouraging free enquiry among the youth of Athens. And Archimedes was struck down by a Roman soldier in 212 B.C. while pondering over geometrical problems in the sand.7 According to Plutarch, in The Ancient Customs of the Spartans, the Spartans learned to read and write for purely practical reasons, and all other educational influences—books and treatises, as well as the discourses of learned men—were banned. The arts and philosophy flourished in democratic Athens, yet many artists and philosophers, among them Aeschylus, Euripides, Phidias, Socrates, and Aristotle were either exiled, imprisoned or executed, or they took flight.
Aeschylus was accused of violating the secrecy of the Eleusinian mysteries (which had become part and parcel of Greek thought), His being put to death on the basis of this accusation is further proof of the fact that the atmosphere for scientific progress did not exist in ancient Greece.
The state of science prior to the modern, scientific age is well illustrated by the fate of Pope Sylvester II. (Gerbert), who was renowned for his erudition. He was born in 945 in France and died in 1003. He was well versed in Greek and Latin and was famous for his scholarly achievements in various fields.
Gerbert was taken to Spain in 967 by Count Borrell of Barcelona and remained there for three years. There he studied the sciences of the Arabs and was greatly impressed by them. When he came back from Spain, he brought with him several translations of these books and an astrolabe. When he began teaching Arab science, logic, mathematics, astronomy, etc., he faced stiff opposition. The Christians attributed his learning to magical arts learned in Spain, some to the devil’s coaching. In such unfavourable circumstances, he finally died on May 12, 1003, in Rome.8
From the beginning of recorded history right up to the time of Islam, there had been no such concept as intellectual freedom. That is why we hear of only isolated instances of individuals who in ancient times, were given to scientific thinking. And scientific thinking could not spread beyond those individuals. For want of intellectual freedom, such thinking was nipped in the bud.
Islam, for the first time in history, separated religious knowledge from physical knowledge. The source of religious knowledge, which came into general acceptance, was divine revelation (the authentic version of which is preserved in the form of the Quran), while full freedom was given to enquiry into physical phenomena, so that individuals could arrive at their own conclusions independently.
The Sahih of Imam Muslim, the second most authentic book on Hadith, dating from the second century Hijrah, contains a chapter headed as follows: “Whatever the Prophet has said in matters of Shariah (religion) must be followed, but this does not apply to worldly affairs.”9
In this chapter, Imam Muslim has recorded a tradition narrated by Musa ibn Talha on the authority of his father who said: “I was with the Prophet when he passed by some people who had climbed up to the top of some date palms. The Prophet enquired as to what they were doing. He was told that they were pollinating the trees in order to fertilize them by touching the male to the female. The Prophet said, ‘I don’t think this will benefit them.’ When people learned of the Prophet’s comment, they stopped the practice of pollination. The yield, however, was very low that year. When the Prophet came to know of this, he said, ‘If they benefit from pollination, they should continue with this practice. I had only made a guess. It was an opinion. There is no need to follow my opinion in such matters. If, on the other hand, I say anything about God, it must be adhered to. Because I never say anything untrue when I am speaking of God.”
The same story is told by ‘Aishah, the Prophet’s wife, and by Thabit and Anas, who were lifelong Companions of the Prophet. The Prophet finally told the date growers to adhere to their own methods, because “you know your world better.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 2363)
According to this hadith, Islam separates religious matters from scientific research. In religious affairs, there has to be strict adherence to divine guidance. But in scientific research, the work must proceed according to human experience. This indeed marks the advent of the greatest revolution in the history of science.
