Freethinkers in history: Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi

[pir_Rokhan]

This is the first of what I hope to be a multipart subject of freethinkers in Islamic History.

What is the sort of stuff that is widely attributed to Islam these days? Close-minded, violent, non-tolerant, jihad etc. So called moderate Muslims have little or no voice or they simply choose not to raise their voices. Imagine how Islam would have been like in the 10th century. Imagine how hard it would have been for free thinkers to exist in those times. Well guess what? It appears it wasn't the case according to Abdel-Rahman Badawi, a free thinker from Eygypt, who details how Muslim philosophers and scholars put reason above tradition, evidence above blind belief. And some of them openly criticized Islam, the prophet and Quran. Surprised? So was I.


Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, a Persian Muslim, who lived during the 9th and 10th century, was a physician, alchemist and chemist, musician, philosopher and scholar. He is regarded as the "perhaps the greatest clinician of all times". He was the first to differentiate smallpox from measles. He discovered alcohol and kerosene. Described as the father of pediatrics and was a pioneer in neurosurgery and ophthalmology.

Razi also wrote three books on religion. “The Prophets' Fraudulent Tricks”, “The Stratagems of Those Who Claim to Be Prophets”, and “On the Refutation of Revealed Religions”. Imagine that! Just the title .... Imagine publishing something even close in these days. Sorry Salman Rushdie my man, your Satanic Verses is nothing compared to these.

He was critical of the idea of prophet hood.
"On what ground do you deem it necessary that God should single out certain individuals [by giving them prophecy], that he should set them up above other people, that he should appoint them to be the people's guides, and make people dependent upon them?"

Headline of today "War on Terror". Looking at the various disagreements between religions and the zeal of their followers he said
"there would be a universal disaster and they would perish in the mutual hostilities and fighting. Indeed, many people have perished in this way, as we can see."

Razi doesn't seem to belong to the 10th century. It seems like he is talking about our time, talking about us. You and me! and here is another one.

"If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed"


He was a brilliant….. brilliant man. You can't imagine this coming from Muslims even today and this guy lived in medieval times.

Razi believed that people had been conned into believing by people in authority. He believed that this trickery had been continuous over time and as a result people got habituated to their religious denomination. After a while these lies and myths deluded the people so much that it came to the tone of “we head from so and so who was told by so and so ”.

He believed that the existence of a large variety of religions was, in itself, evidence that they were all manmade, saying, "Jesus claimed that he is the son of God, while Moses claimed that He had no son, and Muhammad claimed that Jesus was created like the rest of humanity" and "Mani and Zoroaster contradicted Moses, Jesus and Muhammad regarding the Eternal One, the coming into being of the world, and the reasons for the [existence of] good and evil"

In relation to the Hebrew's God asking of sacrifices, he said that
"This sounds like the words of the needy rather than of the Laudable Self-sufficient One."

On the Qur'an, Razi said:

"You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it?""

All those who claimed to be prophets, from the beginning of the human history, in Razis view, were at worst tortuous and devious and at best had psychological problems.

What do you think happened to this guy? Did he have to apply for asylum in another country? Did he have to remain in hiding? Was he jailed? Were fatwas issued for his head? Did some fanatic assassinate him? ... No. He remained in Iran. He was the Director of the Hospital in the city, a respected scientist, a teacher and a philanthropist. If you want to see more of Razi and other freethinkers in Islamic history then read Freethinkers of Medieval Islam: Ibn Al-Rawandi, Abu Bakr Al-Razi and Their Impact on Islamic Thought (Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science)


Source:

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

When Muslims say that once we were a great modern empire of our time and what not, they think that a return to those times of glory would be through a rigorous re-following of Islamic orthodoxy (in principle and in practice). They are so wrong. It's no wonder they are yet to achieve anything.

The greatness of the medieval Muslim empires lied, in great part, in their culture of intellectual tolerance. Which is something the modern outspoken Islamist revivalist detests only just as much as he abhors free thought.

[شمله ور خراساني]

free thinker? Cgheck out the source of the article: its from a murtad paki. Probably a friend of Pir Tarik who likewise works as a slave for Saudis pretending to be Muslim and going online to vent his frustration via forums and blogs.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

al-Razi is beyond just one article. The man contributed more to humanity than all your theologians put together (in one ship and taken to the deepest ocean to be sunk).

Here, this is another source.

It's astonishing to read about the freedom of expression afforded to Muslims in the 10th century, in contrast to our own times

Freethinking is perhaps not one of the strongest suits of modern Islam. For one thing, the list of books that have been banned for challenging prevalent religious orthodoxies and sensibilities during the past hundred years is disconcertingly long.

Modern Islamic clerics and scholars in various Muslim countries are often highly selective of which part of the Islamic heritage to emphasise and bring to light. Out of the countless and varied sources from centuries of vigorous debates, commentaries and controversies, they seem to dig out, and revel in, interpretations that are hopelessly conservative or frustratingly and grotesquely at odds with the life of modern Muslims.

It may therefore come as a surprise to many people that there is a long and vibrant intellectual tradition of dissidence and freethinking going back to the Middle Ages. The Islamic thinkers of the early medieval period expressed ideas and engaged in debates that would appear strangely enlightened in comparison with the attitudes and views adopted by modern Islamic scholarship.

This is the basic argument presented by From the History of Atheism in Islam by the renowned Egyptian thinker Abdel-Rahman Badawi. Published in Arabic in 1945, the book was reprinted only once in 1993. It discusses the work of the Islamic philosopher-scientists of the medieval period and the way they upheld reason, freedom of thought and humanist values, while questioning and often refuting some basic Islamic tenets.

Although many of those thinkers, according to Badawi, did not attempt to disprove the existence of God, they lashed out against the notion of prophethood and argued against the privileged position occupied by the Prophet Muhammad and his followers.

Most prominent among those scholars was Abu Bakr al-Razi (865-925 CE) who believed in the supreme importance of reason. He argued that the mind had an innate capacity to distinguish between good and evil, and between what was useful and what was harmful. According to him, the mind did not need any guidance from outside it, and for this reason the presence of prophets was redundant and superfluous.

Al-Razi directed his most vehement attack against the holy books in general, including the Qur'an, because he saw them as illogical and self-contradictory. He also believed that all human beings were equal in their intellectual capacities as they were in all other things. It made no sense therefore that God should single out one individual from among them in order to reveal to him his divine wisdom and assign him the task of guiding other human beings. Furthermore, he found that prophets' pronouncements and stories often contradicted those of other prophets. If their source was divine revelation as is claimed, their views would have been identical. The idea of a divinely-appointed mediator was therefore a myth.

Al-Razi understood the hold of religious belief on society, which he attributed to several factors. Firstly, systems of beliefs spread mainly through the human propensity for imitating and copying others. Secondly, religion's popularity rested on the close alliance between clerics and political rulers. The clerics often used this alliance to impose their own personal beliefs on people by force whenever the power of persuasion failed. Thirdly, the lavish and imposing character of the attire of religious men contributed to the high regard in which they were held by common people. Lastly, with the passage of time religious ideas became so familiar that they turned almost into deep-seated instincts that were no longer questioned.

In examining this chapter of Islamic history, regardless of the validity or otherwise of the views expressed, one cannot help feel amazed at the fact that the Islamic thinkers of the 10th century had the freedom to discuss and publish their "unorthodox" ideas, while the Islamic world now cannot, or will not, deal with any form of intellectual dissent. It might be reasonable to suggest then that the problem of Islam does not lie in inherited texts and traditions, but in interpretation. The Islamic heritage, like its Christian counterpart, is made up of a huge body of commentaries and interpretations that were produced in various periods of history to address problems specific to their age. We need to remember that the Christian scriptures have not changed since the middle ages. It was in the name of these very texts that innumerable so-called heretics were burnt at the stake.

There is little doubt that Islamic scholars have the task and the responsibility to review tradition and re-emphasise the human values of tolerance and freedom of thought. They do not have to look far for these values. All they are required to do is to reach deep into their own cultural coffers to retrieve the pearls and discard the dregs.

[Baygham]

LZ and Pir saab,

I am very reluctant to accept the presence of these "free thinkers" as a ray of hope for us, that somehow, somewhere in the midst of the islamic doctrine there is space for free thought.

The only reason this guy did not die at the hands of some muslim fanatic was because the fanatics did not know about him, in the 10th century you could have multiple layes of protection, family, community, local amir, etc etc.

These things are no longer available. Even Ghani khan could not say what he said 50 years ago in some of his poetry. To be able to tolerate open dialogue we need complete revamping of our social and religious tolerances. A much needed islamic reformation, an islam practiced under tight control - something like in turkey, or an entirely apolitical personal islam.


For Sangar I will only say one thing from now on: hey dear queen lover sangar how are the preparations for your sermon in honor of Queen Beatrix on Queen's Day, going. Any good quranic verses and hadith to back that up.

[pir_Rokhan]

Baygham

I posted the article to justify one of my earlier claims that the so called muslim thinkers had nothing to do with the contemporary wahabi, sunni, Shia ,Barelvi,Deobandi,Azhari etc interpretations of Islam. They contributed to sciences probably with an open mind and as far as their Islamism is concerned , their views are clear from the ones given in case of Ar Razi. Another example is that of that of Ibn Rushd [Averoes] whose "Manahijul Adilla fi Aqaidul milla" and "Tahafatul Tahafa" are examples of 180 degress deviation from the orthodox teachings of organised religion. There are other examples too and their account is given in detail in Mohammad Lutfi Jumma's "Tarekh Filasafatul Islam" .

[3.14159265...]

Pir, if anyone claims that the Islamic Golden Age of Science was due to Islam, ask them to explain any of the scientific progress as they were caused to occur by Islam.

I have heard the argument that the Islamic Golden Age occured not due to Islam but despite it.

I think the middle ground is more apt. There are parts of the Islamic empire which set the stage for Scientific progress, and there are parts of it that worked against Scientific progress.

Consider for example modern Western world. To claim that Islam caused the Islamic Golden Age of Science, is analgous to claiming that Christianity caused the current American-European led age of Science.

[Toramana]

What a liberating discussion!

What happened then (mostly in the Abbasid Era) was solely because the time and resources were just well-fitting.

Very well said, Roshina. I find myself in agreement with what you've said here...that it were liesure and time coming with resourcefulness that gave impetus to free-thought. Someone said here, Islam might have partially played a role not as a rationalising-enlightening ideology but as a political-militant movement that helped Muslims amass wealth and develop an elite calss approving of free-thought/intellectual pursuit.

[Toramana]

But what Baygham said also makes sense...Somewhere I read but am forgetting now, there were two attempts made on the life of Al-Varis for his un-orthodox beliefs. One question I have though is, what are the chances of any enlightening influence in Islam e.g., like that of church in Western countries that co-exists with modernity and free-thought.

When I think about it, I see little chances of that until the Muslim world plunges into a state of inertia and goes through upheavals.

[Wrayun]

Whether Islam as a belief system was directly responsible for the scientific, mathematical, and technological advances made in the 13th century by the Muslim empire is debatable, but what is a fact is that science and technology goes hand in hand with the economical and material advancement of a people or a nation.

Someone naively stated that the scientific advances and contributions made by medieval Muslims was probably due to the aristocratic elites of the yesterdays out of “leisure”. That is one lame attempt to degrade the intelligence of a society to the point where they will not realize the importance of technology or science as it is necessitated by their needs and wants, instead the only time they can even THINK science, technology etc. would have to be if they are wealthy and bored. Absurdity!

Funny how the above logic is not applied to other advanced nations...It is usually thought that these nations acquired all their technology because of their natural EVOLUTION, racial makeup, and understanding and love for Free Though, Exchange of Ideas, Freedom and love for education (although not for negros for quite some time).....none of it had to do anything with their global pillaging campaigns driven by the Cross acquiring stolen wealth and knowledge....oh no sir e bob...the rest of the world was just inherently retarded.

We can look at the history and background of many of these intellectuals and deduce whether they were the elite of their societies, or just the concerned thinkers (theologians and philosophers) that were driven by the dictations of their national needs. Their empire had acquired wealth, knowledge… at the same time their empire and people had many issues that required new ways and methods that demanded learned men to innovate. Necessity is the mother of invention?

The question now is does Islam, as a belief system, hinder scientific thought and progress? The skeptics and critics point to the status of present day Muslims, but any economist and scholar with a balanced perspective of history and geo-political affairs will either confirm in the negative, or remark that there isn’t enough data to adequately conclude such a hypothesis. BECAUSE… the chaos and turmoil within Muslim societies, whether driven by sects within Islam, or disdain for the INFIDELS, much of it can be attributed to politics, where the scripture has been used to further these ambitions, not the other way around.

We see that when Saudis make deals with INFIDELS, enjoy wealth from Western consumerism, yet from the same state political Islam prohibits other Muslim states from doing the same begs the question are we dealing with two different Islams/Qurans? If Islam is good enough for the Saudis and other Gulf states to allow them trade, exchange of information, and military/political ties with INFIDELS, why not the rest? If it is not hindering their scientific and technological progress, why shouldn’t it be the same for others? Why is it that in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia (I would add Iran too), and even the West, where Muslims seek higher education and professions, are not prohibited by their religion?

Maybe it has to do something with having a sovereign political establishment, where they leadership is not in servitude to vested interests that uses religion to subjugate a people of a nation and region to further their own agendas. If the decriers and bemoaners were to remove religion, the scapegoat, they would require a new one to explain their short comings, and what would that be, the language and heritage of the people? Probably so. primitive culture, primitive language, stopping us from thinking freely!

-Oh the mention of the Christian Church, and how it has allowed modern concepts and ideas..and something similar in the Muslim world etc.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Why would anyone want to centralize Islam? That is the beauty of Islam, it is left for interpretation, without a centralized NOT SO FREE THINKING atmosphere. Compared to Judiasm i.e. chosen race screw the gentiles and Christianity i.e. worship the white anglo saxon overlord, Islam is DEMOCRACY i.e. everyone is equal, God has no race or gender! Granted with some issues to work with, Islam is far more liberating. You can attribute that to why 13th century Muslims were busy inventing and not burning WITCHES, JEWS or PAGANS!

You can accomplish far more greater things within Islam when it comes to science and technology, than the stupid Church! If anything, the Church is holding much of the Western civilization back in many terms due to it's singular approach. The only reason why the Church is so modern, is because of politics and economics. The pressure comes from politicians, not theologians.

[Toramana]

Whether Islam as a belief system was directly responsible for the scientific, mathematical, and technological advances made in the 13th century by the Muslim empire is debatable, but what is a fact is that science and technology goes hand in hand with the economical and material advancement of a people or a nation....

Bacha what an incredible writer you are. Appreciate your skills to convey your point lucidly and eloquently.

[Toramana]

Wrayun, you misunderstood my point. I meant, elite usually tend to be more cosmopoliton, tolerant of diversity, etc, for pragamtic and aesthetic reasons if not ethical reasons. So they provide a conducive environment for free enquiry. Also, they can provide resources for more resource-intensive intellectual works. Usually, philosophers, sientists, etc. are/were poor people in need of financial/material support. This is more true of the past when no formal institutions existed for intellecual work.

In medieval Europe, many philosophers, scientists, etc. would go to Neitherland, etc. for philosophical/scientific pursuits because they faced persecution in their home countries and Neitherland was more tolerant to free thought.

[Baygham]

Baygham

I posted the article to justify one of my earlier claims that the so called muslim thinkers had nothing to do with the contemporary wahabi, sunni, Shia ,Barelvi,Deobandi,Azhari etc interpretations of Islam. They contributed to sciences probably with an open mind and as far as their Islamism is concerned , their views are clear from the ones given in case of Ar Razi. Another example is that of that of Ibn Rushd [Averoes] whose "Manahijul Adilla fi Aqaidul milla" and "Tahafatul Tahafa" are examples of 180 degress deviation from the orthodox teachings of organised religion. There are other examples too and their account is given in detail in Mohammad Lutfi Jumma's "Tarekh Filasafatul Islam" .

I agree pir saab, there are many interpretations of faith. We should adopt the one that remains in touch with our heritage both pashto and islam yet allows growth and progress of our nation. I was very impressed by your notion of technological innovation as a key criteria for a prosperous natiion. Our core ideologies must allow such growth of intellect and not abolish it.

For that to occur the first and foremost step is to abolish the concept of blasphemy as something punishable by man. Actually to prosper properly we must take the opposite stance and any such activity (killing under the pretext of blasphemy and religious sentiment) should be punished. A few years of such tolerance and you will see millions of ideas coming in all directions, in religion in science and bussiness.

[Baygham]

Wrayun, you misunderstood my point. I meant, elite usually tend to be more cosmopoliton, tolerant of diversity, etc, for pragamtic and aesthetic reasons if not ethical reasons. So they provide a conducive environment for free enquiry. Also, they can provide resources for more resource-intensive intellectual works. Usually, philosophers, sientists, etc. are/were poor people in need of financial/material support. This is more true of the past when no formal institutions existed for intellecual work.

In medieval Europe, many philosophers, scientists, etc. would go to Neitherland, etc. for philosophical/scientific pursuits because they faced persecution in their home countries and Neitherland was more tolerant to free thought.

That is not always the case, if your elite status comes from a certain dogma and refuting that will delete your elite status, no free thought is tolerated let alone advocated (saudi system, paki system). There was plenty of prosperity in europe under the catholic system (amply evident in the decadence of the vatican), yet local prosperity say in the netherlands and germany for local barons etc was only possible outside the catholic yoke, and when rome weakened they found a system outside. Luckily it was one of freedom of thought for the common man as such ideas did not pose a threat to them ( could have been another form of dictator ship if it did). Now you see some regression of these ideas (patriot act, recent hijab law in france, attitude towards roma people etc) as it is felt as a game changer for the elite.

Even in science ideas felt threatening are cut short, others with minimal evidence but bigger socio economic benefit for the elite get pushed forward/ funded and dessiminated. Hitler is a good example, even now the ideas of bigbang etc with the more recent string theories are some scientific attempts to make the judeo christen dogma of the elite intact.

Coming back to islam, if a king / elite felt threatened from sunni islam he converted the whole nation to shia (iran circa 1502, or islam mohammad arabia circa 8 hijri)

For us in pakhtunkhwa, with an elite (who must have affiliation with outsiders) the pervailing dogma is whatever is the wishes of these outsiders (like the catholic yoke on german barons prior to protestant ideology which provided a firm platform to sever these chains).
For us to not only form an independent nation/social group and to have a elite with internal connections and aligned with group prosperity will require a lot of fortitude and if designed a lot of hard work. In my view it is possible as global currents are aligned for that to happen (unlike previous winds to the contrary)

[3.14159265...]

I like this discussion

I think what is more important than having modern jurists to consider modern issues and give out modern rulings, is that there be modern jurists who have debates.

See, the act of debating has two results. The first is that you may or may not reach a conclusion. The more important result is that a debate occurs.

Whenever I find myself in a group of Muslims, who seem hostile to my Atheism. I find the person in the group who knows the most about Islam. I then begin a conversation with them.

Since the person is knowledgeable, we share the same methodology for debate and conversation, namely we are gentle. Generally neither me nor the other person gain any insight into the world from that first conversation. However we both establish, that we respect each other, and that the terms of debate are civil.

From that moment onward, I find very few of the other more obnoxious people attacking me, since precedent has been set. I find Muslims defending my right to be an Atheist, and at the worst, the knowledgeable person ends up asking the obnoxious to quit it. Any further attacks on me are then an attack on that person's authority as well.

The same applies the other way around. Anytime I find a religious person, whether obnoxious or knowledgeable in the midst of Atheists/rationalists. I get into a conversation with them, a gentle one, about a topic that is not controversial. Precedent is set. When (and this does occur) an obnoxious Atheist comes along, I will defend the religious person's right to say what they want.

This opening of a conversation, and the continuation of it, between jurists of different sects, scholars of different traditions, gentlemen of varying ideas, has precisely this effect.