Islamic Environmental Stewardship: Nature and Science in the Light of Islamic Philosophy

An Islamic Perspective on the Trouble with Modern Science

Science is defined today as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”34 This definition provides a basis for great compatibility between modern science and the Islamic pursuit of knowledge, but with a few caveats. The physical and natural world to which this definition refers is Islamically known to embody sacred meanings; their studies are therefore welcomed in Islamic circles, but integral as well is the ability to interpret them on higher ground.

Modern science’s denial of metaphysics serves as the basis for much disparity between Islam and modern science. This disparity boils down to the great difference between Islam’s recognition of a sacredness in nature and modern science’s denial of it. The secular approach of modern science to nature has removed virtually all understanding of the sacred qualities behind it. Unlike modern scientists, the traditional scientists of old integrated theological ontology into their holistic approach to studying nature and thus regarded the study of such sacred qualities as the backbone of their work. Before this desacralization of nature, a “vision of God in nature” seemed the norm of viewing the world.35 The grave ramifications of this change in approach are evident in the world today, and especially so in the environmental crisis.

Since the divorce of science and sacred tradition, the need to know God no longer served as the impetus behind scientific studies. Before this divorce, the philosophy of science was that of oneness (tawḥīd).36 The traditional sciences of all sacred traditions were unified on certain fundamental principles, and one such principle was the recognition of a hierarchy of reality.37 All such levels of hierarchy alluded to the reality of God as the Real, as well as His supreme and ultimate oneness as the One (al-Wāḥid ). In the separation of science and sacred tradition, there was a transformation of ideology from the assertion of oneness to the making of many (takthīr)-the very antithesis of tawḥīd.38 Everything that was seen for its reference to the supreme oneness of God became a separate entity and a “god” of its own. Rather than journeying towards the One God of mercy, justice and sustenance, these very features of God became individualized and regarded as entities of their own. No longer was there a single center, orientation, goal or purpose, nor was there recognition of just a single “god”; people worshipped whatever “gods” appealed to them.39

Worry has also been expressed regarding the “neutrality” of science. Although modern science can be neutral in its study of facts, it nonetheless sets the stage and plants the seeds for havoc when in the hands of the ignorant. The issue today is that most people lack sufficient knowledge of the underlying nature of existence to be able to integrate the facts of science into a proper view of reality.40

Thus, through modern science, humans lavishly and greedily exploit the world’s resources for materialistic purposes. Had there instead been an appropriate understanding of the underlying reality within nature, people

could have better used science for purposes more harmonious with their environments and contributive to their relationship with God.

Moreover, it is not just modern science’s narrow view of the material and physical world that Muslim philosophers have protested, but more so its dominant claim for recognition as the only acceptable science of nature.41 The enactment of such a bold statement has had radical and grave results. It has reduced other sciences, primarily those dealing with the studies of metaphysics and the sacred, to a seemingly inadequate view of the world and something along the lines of superstition-or at least in the eyes of the public and scientific world at large.42

In effect, there has been a loss of sacred symbolism linked to natural phenomena.

This worries Islamic scholars because they recognize that without symbolic intelligibility science itself becomes vain and harmful.43 The current environmental crisis bears enough evidence to justify such concern. Muslim philosophers such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Titus Burckhardt have expressed great unease with the movement from the traditional sciences to modern science alone. Through this move, modern science’s vulgarized presentation of nature-as an entity void of any symbolic or spiritual meaning-has become the axiom through which the public and scientific communities at large see nature.

Through the secularization of nature, symbols within it became mere facts and were thus divorced from other orders of reality. The cosmos remained interestingly mysterious, but was regarded spiritually meaningless. A traditional science such as alchemy was “reduced to a chemistry in which the substances had lost all their sacramental character.”44 Hence, traditional science’s study of relatively high orders of reality was exchanged for the mere study of the manipulation of matter in its own plane.45 In other words, science regressed into a strictly empirical and moral-free study of only the superficial aspects of the physical. Thus, the symbolism used by Native-Americans in their understanding of their natural environment, the symbolism used by Babylonians in their studies of the cosmos, the symbolism used by alchemists in their experiments of alchemical substance, were all substituted for a shallow perception that now helps fuel the superficial materialist mentality prevalent in the world today. The natural environment lost its symbolic significance in the eyes of the prevailing majority in science; it became simply regarded as physical property available for exploitation and consumption.

Even though modern science has the ability to provide certain kinds of information, it denies itself the interpretation of that information on any level other than that of the physical.46 This strictly logical positivist approach may not have been an issue had there not been obstacles placed against the interpretations of others. In consequence to such obstacles, the world is provided with superficial facts regarding the many uses of the environment, but not the symbolic significances of such facts. Such symbolism had multiple interpretations from varied perspectives, but are now all forgone. Humanity therefore loses a great esoteric cosmological understanding in substitute for a virtually never-ending attempt to satiate

worldly desires. The practical significance of this is that a tree today can be used for the production of paper, pancake syrup, and other consumer goods, but it is generally no longer a studied entity of harmonious purity-let alone an instrument of enlightenment and transcendence.

Despite Islamic philosophy’s criticisms of modern science, Muslim governments of the East have openly welcomed it into their countries with great expectations. Given certain factors within this reception, regardless of such high expectations, these countries can ultimately only achieve bittersweet-and mostly bitter-results. This is so because Eastern governments have accepted modern science with a mentality dangerously shaped by neocolonialism.47 More specifically, due to the technological advancements of the West, all that is produced from the East is considered-by both those in East and West-as inferior to anything Western. It is evident in the Western developer’s approach to third-world countries.

Traditional or practical knowledge is substituted for technological knowledge that is considered far superior, albeit results that say differently.48 Thus, Western products, such as modern science, are welcomed to the East without question, replacing whatever was there previously.

The issue is not only in the loss of traditional knowledge, but also the latent negative impact of such an implementation. Since the science itself is implemented without question, its potential negative impact also goes unquestioned. Thus, the East suffers from the negative aspects of modern science without having taken the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the West and hence having acted accordingly. This is all evident in the environmental problems of Muslim countries today. From the air pollution in Cairo to the infrastructural over-development of Dubai to the deforestation of many areas in Indonesia, the Muslim world today seems far from reflecting the harmonious and peaceful spirit of Islam that can be found in traditional Islamic gardens and architecture. In fact, the Muslim world’s current approach to the environment seems far from Islamic.

In summary, modern science’s empirical approach is compatible with aspects of the Islamic approach to knowledge, since the study of the physical world alone is a legitimate one. However, other orders of reality are not ignored within Islamic circles. While modern science views natural phenomena as facts alone, the traditional Islamic approach is to understand them as alluding to greater orders of reality, and ultimately to God. Per Islamic philosophy, every object and all phenomena, the extraordinary and the mundane, encompass metaphysical qualities and meanings, as well as sacred references. Hence, Islamic philosophers take issue with modern science’s claim for recognition as the only science of nature, for there is immensely more to study than just the physical. This dominant claim by science has fueled today’s environmental crisis by stripping away the spiritual aspect of nature. When stripped of the metaphysical, all that is left is the physical, and thus a tree is viewed as nothing more than a resource for physical use and study alone; that is the issue with the environmental crisis today.

A Solution

The solution to the environmental crisis does not lie in the use of environmental engineering alone. Even if humanity successfully reduces its carbon footprint through various kinds of eco-friendly technology, such a crisis shall continue until the environment is given back its sacredness in the eyes of its abusers.49 Such a feat is only possible through humanity’s making of peace with its surroundings, inner being and most importantly God.

Of great importance to note regarding this “making of peace with God” is that He is the God of all sacred traditions, despite differences in understanding the nature of divinity. Both the environmental crisis and the spiritual crisis are issues that not only affect those of all sacred traditions, but that can also be resolved with help from any of these sacred traditions. Thus, establishment of the proper mindset and performance of the proper practice are key steps to take regardless of one’s religious affiliation. Such mindset and practice can be catered and customized to the thought and observance of that specific religion, since the principles behind them are universal.