‘Scholars of Islam’... dilemma
the issue of the ‘scholars of islam’ baffles an intellectual, confuses the cleric, and there is no hope that this confusion will soon disappear.
the title ‘arab scholars’ or ‘scholars of islam’ is used for a group of the likes of al-razi, ibn rushd, al-farabi, ibn sina, alk h w a r i z m i , ibn al-haytham, al-biruni, jabir ibn hayyan, and others.
there are those who consider themselves a symbol of what the islamic c i v i l i z a t i o n gave to mankind, while others see the opposite and do not believe in them. the latter group is the dominant one and the evidence of this is the scarcity of medical, engineering, educational or cultural landmarks or edifices, or even streets and squares bearing the names of any of these. if it is found, it usually goes back to several years and is not recent.
the hardliners believe these ‘scholars’ should not be attributed to islam. all of them or a majority of them were not muslim except by name, and they were not even arabs, rather, they were brought up and educated in the abode of islam, but they were corrupt and rogue about religion, and so the end of most of them was tragic.
it is reported that most of them lived and excelled in the era of the abbasid state, and its aftermath, and in the period from 850 ad to 1200 ad.
the saudi researcher and thinker ibrahim al-blaihi has a point of view that deserves to be presented, related to his position or opinion about these scholars. in an interview with turki al-dakhil, before he became ambassador, he stated that he had a library that housed the works and biographies of these scholars. he read a lot about them. he was a fan of them, but he discovered years later after careful scrutiny and deep research that all that we attribute to these men and their contribution to the western civilization is imprecise and a kind of anesthesia.
ibn rushd, who is the most influential in western civilization, was originally influenced by aristotle and became famous through his explanation of his books, which were forgotten by the west, and therefore his work recycled western ideas, represented by aristotle’s ideas, and not something new.
he also found out from his studies that none of the ‘arab or muslim scholars’ learned arab or islamic culture. all of them were students of greek thought, so it is their commodity and returned it to them.
he also said that our insistence on being proud of people we have shunned for centuries and warned us against reading their books is ridiculous.
he added, however, that these scholars are isolated stars and they are not from their society, but from outside the cultural and scientific order of their surroundings, and they have subsequently become a rejected lot.
he also added there is a difference between the arabs as individuals and the arabs as a dominant culture, and therefore these scholars are not an extension of existing schools, and no one came before them, nor after them a scientific or cultural current that continues their march, rather they remained as individuals, that is to say, they appeared and disappeared.
