A Critical Survey of
Islamization of Knowledge
By Mohamed Aslam Haneef1
Section 1- Introduction
This article attempts to provide an analysis and evaluation of what the present writer considers one of
the more important intellectual movements of the 20th century, namely the Islamization of Knowledge
(IOK) project. It can certainly be considered one of the most credible and long-standing contemporary
Muslim intellectual responses to modernity, if we take the late 1960s as its starting point. It is also
important to mention at the outset that like many of the scholars discussed in this paper, the IOK is,
and has to be seen primarily as an epistemological and methodological concern. Being almost 30 years
old, there have been numerous studies that have attempted to discuss and analyze the IOK project.
However, the works have usually been limited to the ideas of certain individuals or institutions and if
comparisons are made, these are rather limited in scope and number.
The proponents of IOK also see the root cause of all problems as that of knowledge, not as against
ignorance, but knowledge that has been interpreted through the western worldview and developed
through methodologies that are not in-line with the Islamic worldview and its epistemological
foundations. It is important at this juncture to state that all scholars who claim to be promoting the
IOK agenda, have to be by definition, supporting interaction with modern knowledge rather than
adopting a rejectionist stance. By definition, IOK implies supporting the position that solutions to
contemporary problems require the synthesis of both Islamic heritage and contemporary knowledge2.
However, as will become clear in the paragraphs that follow, the emphasis on these inputs, what
exactly needs to be done to these two inputs and how to go about creating this synthesis, are points of
contention.
Notwithstanding the numerous contributions made by scholars writing on IOK, this study attempts to
provide a thorough analysis of the IOK agenda over the last twenty odd years. Those following the
agenda may agree with our preliminary observation that while the 1980s can be viewed as a decade of
‘enthusiasm’ and ‘active pronouncements’, by the 1990s, many were beginning to question the
‘Islamized products’ being put forward, and even called the whole project to question. Can the IOK
project survive another decade? This, among other questions is what the present study hopes to
discuss.
Section 2 discusses why IOK is necessary or the rationale for IOK. Section 3 presents and analyses
what the IOK is or attempts at defining IOK. Section 4, which is probably the most debated area,
looks at the different opinions on how to go about Islamizing contemporary knowledge or what the
process involves. Section 5 discusses and analyzes the views of reviewers and critics who have also
contributed to the development of the IOK project. Section 6 provides some thoughts on what the
future direction of the IOK project may be and concludes.
Section 2- The Rationale for IOK- The Why
When trying to discuss the rationale for IOK, there are a few background factors that must be kept in
mind. Firstly, most of the Muslim world had achieved political independence from their colonial
Currently Professor, Department of Economics, International Islamic University Malaysia. This article is extracted from A Critical Survey of
Islamization of Knowledge, Kuala Lumpur: International Islamic University Press, 2005.
2 Therefore, this article leaves out works of contemporary scholars who either reject all modern knowledge or those who accept modern
knowledge due to its ‘neutrality’. For references to those in these two categories, see Rosnani/Imron (2000).
1
powers after the Second World War. With political independence came the increasing pressure from
the Muslim peoples on their governments for greater ‘indigenous solutions’ to their political, social
and economic problems. Secondly, the perceived failures of both the capitalist and socialist systems
for Muslims, coupled with the new found wealth in Muslim countries rich in oil deposits also led to
greater calls for Islamic solutions and alternatives. Numerous national and international organizations
were established in the Muslim world to address the developmental problems of Muslim countries.
Besides the Organization of Islamic Conference, one can also cite the Islamic Development Bank
based in Jeddah as examples of the efforts made by Muslim nations.
On the intellectual front, Islamic economics was the first beneficiary of the newfound wealth and
intellectual revival resulting in the First International Conference on Islamic Economics held in
Makkah in 1976. The following year, the First World Conference on Muslim Education was held also
in Makkah, and discussed among other things the need for reforms in the education system of Muslim
countries as well as the idea of IOK. Although this conference led to the establishment of specific
‘Islamic Universities’, one in Islamabad (1981) and the other in Kuala Lumpur (1983), the IOK idea
can possibly be traced back to the mid-sixties.3
There are two main reasons that one can cite in the writings that provide the rationale for IOK. The
two main proponents of IOK, namely al-Attas and al-Faruqi/IIIT mention both reasons, although with
varying emphasis and prominence. The first reason that can be considered to be the ‘external’ reason
is the political, social and economic conditions of the Muslims. Faruqi in particular mentions in the
section entitled ‘the problem’ in his 1982 work-plan, the ‘malaise of the ummah’, the backward and
lowly contemporary position of the ummah in all fields (pp. 1-6), political (divided, disunited, military
rule), economic (undeveloped, dependent on the west, illiteracy despite huge new found oil wealth)
and religio-cultural (westernized, alienated from Islam and its culture).
While all these manifestations may be actual facts in the Muslim world, Umar Hassan (1988) in his
short response to the IOK project cautions Faruqi’s overemphasis on these external causes and what
he sees as constant benchmarking to the west, fearing that it may lead to entrapment in the western
framework, a theme that many critics like Sardar, Butt and Yasien take up as well.
The root causes of the malaise is seen to lie in the ‘present state of education in the Muslim world’ and
the ‘lack of vision’ on the part of Muslims. To be fair to Faruqi, these are internal causes and are
acknowledged by him. The former is a problem because it is plagued by a ‘dual’ system, one secular
and modern, the other religious and traditional. The latter is not given enough attention by Faruqi.
Referring to the education system, he laments this lack of Islamic vision has not allowed the education
system to truly reflect Islamic ideals and hence created mediocrity among teachers and students who
are unable to confront the alien ideologies faced in universities. Unfortunately, Faruqi did not
elaborate sufficiently on what the Islamic vision was and how it differed from the western vision and
how it can be elaborated in a positive way.
Abu Sulayman (1994, p. 2) sees the root cause of the malaise to be the ‘ummah’s (mis)conception of
knowledge and that this crisis of thought has led Muslims to be not only mere imitators of the west,
but bad even at that. Both Abu Sulayman and Al-Alwani (1989) add what they call the ‘historical
split’ in knowledge into shari’ah sciences and ‘other’ sciences, which led to over concentration and
narrow specialization in the former and a neglect of the latter. The other sciences that included the
social sciences and humanities, were left to the modern/secular system modeled after the west. To Abu
Sulayman there is a dire need to rectify this ‘revelation-reason’ relationship, redefine the scope of
knowledge and establish an Islamic infrastructure of education (including the system).
3
See Wan Mohd. Nor Wan Daud (1998), pp. 291, 305-311.
2
On the other hand, the other major contributor to the IOK discourse, i.e. Al-Attas, while
acknowledging that the problems faced by Muslim societies cannot be separated from the ‘external
factors’ i.e. of the historical confrontation with western culture and civilization and the consequences
of colonization, locates the primary reason for this backwardness as being due to internal causes, more
specifically to what he terms the ‘loss of adab’ within the Muslims themselves. By adab, al-Attas is
referring to the discipline of the body, mind and soul that have resulted in loss of justice, which
betrays an internal confusion in knowledge. This confusion of knowledge is due the inability of
Muslims to distinguish ‘true knowledge’ from knowledge that has been infused with the western
vision. The internal dimension or reason for the call for IOK stems from the basic premise that
contemporary knowledge is not neutral. This requires some clarification, as there are different
opinions on this, although one could see this issue as a problem of definition and scope of what is
being referred to when IOK is mentioned. In the works of al-Attas used in this article spanning 19781996, he focuses primarily on the connection of the Islamic worldview/vision to knowledge and
makes relatively profound comparisons to western (mainly Christian) philosophical and theological
positions.
Both al-Attas and Faruqi refer to the worldview/framework in which contemporary knowledge is
interpreted and presented in. While Faruqi and the IIIT (1982, 1989) do mention the ‘dual education
system’, one religious and the other modern, as being the ‘target’ for reform and unification, there is
not sufficient deliberation on the issue of knowledge. Their focus is more on the various disciplines
found in modern universities. Al-Attas, however is very clear in what he sees the problem to be.
Our real challenge is the problem of the corruption of knowledge. This has come about
due to our own state of confusion as well as influences coming from the philosophy,
science, and ideology of modern Western culture and civilization (1995, p. 15)
I venture to maintain that the greatest challenge that surreptitiously arisen in our age is
the challenge of knowledge, indeed, not as against ignorance; but knowledge as
conceived and disseminated throughout the world by Western civilization… It seems to
me important to emphasize that knowledge is not neutral….but its interpretation
through the prism, as it were, the worldview, the intellectual vision and psychological
perception of the civilization that now plays the key role in its formulation and
dissemination (1978, p. 127).
As mentioned earlier, Al-Faruqi (1981, 1982) also discusses the ‘internal’ factors but not as detailed as
al-Attas. He sees western social sciences as ‘incomplete’ since it overlooks revelation as a source of
knowledge; ‘necessarily western’ or to be more precise, eurocentric, since it developed within the
experience of western Europe during the last 3 centuries; and finally, the rejection of revelation
‘violates a crucial requirement of Islamic methodology, hence the need for IOK. Al-Alwani (1995)
supports this by his view that modern knowledge has become a ‘positivistic’, ‘one-book’ reading
(universe only), hence inadequate from an Islamic perpective that requires a ‘two book reading’
(revelation and universe). In an earlier paper (1989), he acknowledges that contemporary social
sciences and humanities are products of the western mind and have methodologies, subject matter,
results, aims, explanations of human behavior and outlook of life and the universe that are in conflict
with the Islamic perspective. Only a ‘two-book reading’ will provide a balanced understanding of
reality. Failure to do so will not produce truly educated people, but mere ‘clerks and officials’ (1989,
p. 233).
Other writers have also mentioned briefly the rationale for IOK, but mainly taking the cue from the
two main proponents. Brohi (1993) for example sees the need for IOK because modern knowledge is
based on a framework that is inconsistent with the Islamic worldview as does Khalil (1991) who
views all humanities as operating within value-bounded intellectual and moral frameworks; Ali (1989)
confers with this view stating that ‘every system of social and behavioral science needs a conceptual
framework or Grand Theory of society’ and that the conceptual framework of modern science is not
3
applicable to Islamization of knowledge; Ragab (1995) while accepting the important role to be
played by social sciences in modern societies, sees the underlying assumptions of modern social
sciences as being unacceptable from an Islamic perspective; Idris (1987) views modern knowledge as
being based on ‘false assumptions of materialistic atheistic philosophy’; Hadi (1984), while agreeing
to the need for modern knowledge, sees its philosophical basis as being profane and secular, hence
unacceptable for Muslims; Kazi (1993) sees modern knowledge as not being equally effective in an
Islamic framework since the basic assumptions of the two systems are different; Abu Fadl (1988) sees
the need for IOK due to the anomalies created by modernity (and modern sciences) that abandoned
God/religion; Ashraf (1984, 1988) and Sardar (1988) also cite the different worldview reason as the
core of our problem with modern science, although differences as to what IOK is and what it entails
are clearly seen from these writers’ papers.
As far as critics are concerned, while writers such as Rahman, Sardar, Yasien, Butt and Nasr agree
with the need to create alternatives to modern knowledge/ science, they do not, in varying degrees,
support the IOK project. In should be mentioned here that all of these writers are usually referring to
Faruqi’s work-plan in their criticisms, a point we will take up later in this paper.
Section 3- The Meaning of IOK- The What
Before we even discuss the meaning of IOK it is important to differentiate the varied uses of the term
Islamization. Ragab (1995) rightly points out that the term has been used in many ‘confusing ways’
and that conceptual clarity is a sine qua non for efficient communication and better collaboration
among those interested in contributing to the Islamization effort (pp. 113-114). Besides Islamization
of knowledge, one can readily find terms such as Islamization of (social) sciences (i.e. one area or
category of knowledge), Islamization of specific disciplines (e.g. economics, which is one discipline
in the social sciences), Islamization of curriculum (the content of programs in universities dedicated to
promoting Islamic perspectives of disciplines), Islamization of education (which includes not only
curriculum/knowledge but the entire system and institutions involved) as well as Islamization of
societies (which includes a scope that is much wider than knowledge and includes social and political
dimensions as well).
This paper deals specifically with the first, i.e. knowledge. There is a necessity to Islamize
contemporary knowledge since the knowledge and sciences that are taught, learnt and later, applied in
contemporary universities and other higher learning institutions are representations of the western
experience and are based on, and imbued with the western worldview. Since this western worldview
differs fundamentally on some very important foundational concepts, the knowledge
structures/systems or disciplines built on them cannot be accepted as they are and need to be subject to
a process of evaluation, sifting and modification. This in essence is what the IOK is all about.
A further clarification is made by Khalil (1991, p.1) when he states that the IOK process takes place at
two levels. Firstly, we have the theoretical level that explains the dimensions, motives, aims, stages
and ways of IOK. Secondly, the actual Islamization of the various disciplines which is to be done by
specialists of those disciplines. One could say that the first level theorizes about the rationale,
justification, definition and process involved, while the second requires the application of the process
to various bodies of knowledge that have been organized into ‘disciplines’ or sciences, utilizing those
specific methodologies of the first level. As we will see later, many scholars are of the view that the
first level is still not sufficiently understood and addressed by the proponents of the IOK and hence,
any move to the second level will not produce the desired results.
In order to deliberate and analyze the various opinions on IOK, proper definitions of the phrase need
to be presented. Some scholars give more attention to the need for a definition, others are satisfied
with a ‘working definition’ while many others have either not seen it as important or have just
assumed one of the definitions given by other scholars. The IIIT seem to have taken the latter view as
stated by al-Alwani (1995, p. 83) that
4
The scholars of our school of thought do not seek to provide a strictly inclusive and
exclusive definition in the classical manner.
He adds (p. 84) that the IOK agenda should not be limited to the confines of a hard and fast definition.
This paper takes the position that at least a working definition is needed so that efforts at Islamization
will have direction and focus. Having a definition also identifies the scope of Islamization and allows
prioritization of efforts. In this respect, Al-Attas stands out from the others for his insistence on proper
definitions of terms and concepts used in scholarship. Generally, Islamization is defined by al-Attas
(1978) as the
…..liberation of man first from magical, mythological, animistic, national-cultural
tradition (opposed to Islam), and then from secular control over his reason and
language.
With regards knowledge, specifically contemporary or modern-day knowledge, as mentioned in the
previous section, is not value-free. It necessarily reflects the interpretation and framework of the
civilization in which it developed. Hence, Islamization in this context means
The deliverance of knowledge from its interpretations based on secular ideology; and
from meaning and expressions of the secular.
A very important part of this liberation and deliverance is the concept of worldview which al-Attas
(1995) defines as ‘the vision of reality and truth that appears before our mind’s eye revealing what
existence is all about’, represented by the phrase ru’yat al-islam li al-wujud4. This Islamic vision of
reality and truth, which is a metaphysical survey of the visible and invisible worlds and life as a
whole, needs to be understood by the ‘Islamizer’ first because the process of Islamization cannot
occur unless the one who is undertaking it knows what needs to be ‘isolated’ and what needs to be
‘infused’, what are acceptable or not and what alternatives are acceptable or not and why this is so.
While the human/social sciences are the primary branches of knowledge that are the focus of
Islamization, the natural, physical and applied sciences are also involved in terms of their underlying
philosophical foundations, the interpretations as well as the formulation of theories. In fact, according
to al-Attas (1995) the task of Islamization of knowledge must involve
A critical examination of the methods of modern science; its concepts, presuppositions, and symbols;
its empirical and rational aspects, and those impinging on values and ethics; its interpretations of
origins; its theory of knowledge; its pre-suppositions on the existence of an external world, of the
uniformity of nature, and of the rationality of the natural processes; its theory of the universe; its
classifications of the sciences; its limitations and inter-relations with one another of the sciences and
its social relations.
Wan Mohd Nor (1997) in his work on al-Attas cautions that one may find those who are ‘feebleminded’ who mistakenly suppose that the process of Islamization is a mechanical process working
outside the mind or soul. Quoting al-Attas, he reminds readers that the process of IOK is ‘conceptual’
in nature, hence they are ‘present to the intellect, and hence referred to as being in the mind’. It is
these feeble minded individuals who then start talking about ‘Islamic bicycles, Islamic trains and
Islamic bombs’ or give higher priority to the creation of physical institutions, without realizing that
IOK requires first and foremost, great intellects.
He criticizes other Muslim scholars especially from the IIIT for promoting the phrase al-nazaratul Islam li’l kawn to represent the Islamic
worldview as according to him nazarat denotes ‘seeing primarily with the physical eye’ and ‘al-kawn’ represented the created /physical
world. Hence this phrase is modeled after the idea of worldview as developed in the secular west rather than of Islam.
4
5
Faruqi (1982) also sees IOK as the process of ‘recasting knowledge as Islam relates to it’. It involves a
wide scope of activities including ultimately, to overcome the dichotomy between modern secular and
traditional Islamic systems of education. IOK also aims to ‘produce university level textbooks
recasting some twenty disciplines in accordance to the Islamic vision’ and while mastering modern
knowledge is a ‘first prerequisite’ for IOK, this must be followed by ‘integrating the new knowledge
into the corpus of the Islamic legacy by eliminating, amending, reinterpreting and adapting its
components as the worldview of Islam and its values dictate’.
While many have criticized the IOK project, using its ‘failure’ to produce these textbooks as proof of
the futility of the project, it is felt that the more fundamental issues involved relate to the
methodological issues raised by al-Attas and Faruqi although in the case of the latter, it was the
textbook goal that was unfortunately given too much attention without much thought about the
Islamizers themselves and issues concerning methodology. Even by looking at the writings of Faruqi,
this becomes very clear when one asks how to ‘integrate’ modern knowledge into the corpus of
Islamic legacy unless one is equipped with the necessary requirements which requires the Islamizer to
redefine, reorder the data, to rethink the reasoning and relating of the data, to reevaluate the
conclusions, to re-project the goals and to do so in such a way as to make the disciplines enrich the
vision and serve the cause of Islam. To this end, the methodological categories of Islam, namely, the
unity of truth, unity of knowledge, unity of humanity, unity of life, the telic character of creation, the
subservience of creation to man and of man to God must replace western categories and determine the
perception and ordering of reality (Faruqi, 1981).
From the definition and scope presented by al-Attas and to a lesser degree al-Faruqi, it is quite clear
that IOK is as mentioned by Ragab (1995), primarily an epistemological and methodological concern
and involves ‘some sort of integration of knowledge based on Islamic sources and that generated by
modern social science methods’; it is a research and theory building effort, meant to restore scientific
enterprise in general and the social sciences in particular, to the correct path of integration of
revelation and observation of the real world; it cannot be a simple-minded addition and subtraction
process but is a serious process of ‘creative engagement’ with modern social sciences (Ragab, 1997).
Elsewhere, Ragab (1999, p. 35) brings in the importance of the underlying worldview in any attempt
at Islamization.
The essence of the "Islamization" process is the systematic movement from the other-than-Islamic
ontology and epistemology to the Islamic ontology and epistemology. That essential change is the
foundation upon which the methodological shift is based. Therefore, it is essential for the Islamizers-before undertaking any actual substantive attempt at Islamization--to take stock of the Islamic
ontological and epistemological assumptions. Of special importance to the Islamic worldview are the
Islamic concepts of God, man, society, and cosmic order. This is an absolute prerequisite for any
attempt to "Islamize" a social science discipline, a subject, or even one social science concept.
This central point has repeatedly been stressed by al-Attas in his writings since the late 1960s and to a
lesser degree by al-Faruqi. The above view is also shared by Khalil (1991, p.3) who sees IOK as
practicing (i.e. discovering, compiling, piecing together, communicating and
publishing) intellectual activity based on the Islamic concept of the universe, life and
man.
He agrees that IOK is more readily applicable to the humanities and does not mean ‘making rules
about mathematical or chemical equations or interfering with laws of physics or biology or amending
atomic theory’. While he says that the pure and natural sciences would ‘escape the scope of
Islamization’, it should be seen with the qualification made by al-Attas regarding the natural sciences,
i.e. the philosophical foundations and interpretations of these sciences are subject to ‘Islamization’.
6
Davies (1991, p. 231), although not a major proponent of the IOK project, would like to see it as a
‘civilizational project of rethinking, taking the Qur’an as the frame of reference’. Modernity itself
could, and probably should, be questioned and seen as part of the problem facing Muslims, but from
an Islamic frame of reference (pp. 232-235). As with Sardar, she sees the need for a conceptual
approach derived from our frame of reference that questions existing bodies of knowledge. In this
process, evaluation, interaction and synthesis take place but always with reference to our benchmarks.
Abu Fadl (1988) sees IOK as a force of cultural renewal and direction not only for Muslims, but for
humanity at large. She identifies the epistemological weaknesses of modernity and sees the ‘tawhidi
episteme’, promoted by the IOK project, as having great universal potential. Kazi (1993) sees the
Islamization of modern empirical knowledge as an effort to assimilate what is ‘good’ in this
knowledge in an Islamic framework, and to use this knowledge for the greater good of Muslim
society. This is not a new phenomenon as it had already been done in our past when Islamic
civilization came into contact with Greek, Persian, Chinese and Hindu literature, and the product of
that IOK became part of the Islamic framework/heritage we inherited from our scholars of the past.
Abu Sulayman sees the present crisis in Islamic thought to be more alarming than in the past because
it is not just a question of incompetence or superficiality of thought. To him, it is the inability of our
thinkers to measure the extent of the change that has taken place in the realm of knowledge, culture
and civilization in the modern world as well as a parallel inability to locate points of strength in the
sources of Islamic knowledge and to learn from past experience. While he sees the solution in
restoring ijtihad, i.e. intellectual assertion, due to the inabilities mentioned above, there is a need for a
radical change in our attitude toward knowledge. IOK can only take place if we have reforms in the
following three areas: rectifying the revelation-reason reason; redefinition of knowledge and clarifying
the role of ijtihad and the ifta’; reorganizing and reorienting the methodology of Islamic education in
order to end the existing dualism between secular and religious education.
Brohi (1993) agrees with this general position and sees IOK as a process to ‘reorganize the elements
of modern knowledge and to purge it of deleterious elements, which are currently at war with the
sanctity of our religious beliefs and practices’. Working within Faruqi’s workplan, he accepts that the
end product of IOK would be to ‘rewrite standard textbooks on principal branches of human learning
to make them consistent with the basic principles that are discernable in the Qur’an regarding the
nature of human life, mind and its social behavior’.
If undue and unrealistic attention was given to the production of textbooks, this may have been due to
the ‘practical needs’ of institutions of higher learning dealing with IOK. It would be unfair to
condemn the entire IOK agenda due to perceived failures to achieve goals in time periods that are not
achievable. Ragab (1999) also rightly observes that textbooks are the product of serious research and
theory building in the various fields and is of the opinion that this has not been done satisfactorily.
Prolific publishing of a sundry collection of booklets and articles or even of large tonnes do not an
“Islamized” textbook produce. Only serious, well-planned, institutional and individual coordinated
efforts, based on sound methodologies will be capable of doing the job.
Although the individual researcher's eye-view has been adopted in this paper, it should be clear by
now that the Islamization of the social sciences is not an individual effort (although creative work is
basically an individual undertaking). It should be always remembered that the “infrastructure” needed
for even the beginnings of an effort to Islamize a limited subject within the social sciences should
indeed be an institutional or at least organized team effort.
From the lengthy elaboration above, it should be clear that IOK is all about providing meaning and
presenting knowledge based upon an Islamic ontological framework and through an Islamic
7
epistemological framework utilizing methodologies derived from these. This leads us to the discussion
on how actually the IOK process will be carried out or the procedures involved in IOK.
Section 4- What Does IOK Involve- The How
Discussions on the ‘how’ of IOK are the most diverse and debatable. Most criticisms of IOK center
around interpretations of what IOK involves. Proponents argue that following the steps prescribed will
provide the solutions for Muslims to meet the challenges of modern times while opponents and critics
see it as intellectually misguided at the least. It should also be stated at this juncture that most of the
material written on this part of the IOK project and the debates ensuing are based on Faruqi’s 1982
IOK work-plan which was the more popular version of IOK as well as revisions put forward by IIIT
proponents. This part of the paper will present Faruqi’s 12-point work-plan, revisions made on it, the
criticisms leveled against it, followed by some of the alternative views on IOK.
With the ultimate aim of ‘integrating’ the two education streams found in Muslim countries by
producing University level textbooks, Faruqi’s IOK work-plan identifies the following steps (p. 49)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To master the modern disciplines
To master the Islamic legacy
To establish the specific relevance of Islam to each area of modern knowledge
To seek ways for creative synthesis between the legacy and modern knowledge.
To launch Islamic thought on the trajectory with leads it to fulfillment of the divine pattern of
Allah (s.w.t.).
Not many would object to steps 1, 2, 4 and 5. What is a point of contention for some like Yasien,
Sardar and Butt is the ‘priority’ being given to step one. Making mastery of modern disciplines as step
one could possibly be interpreted as making modern disciplines and the principles, categories etc as
the point of reference or category base. Step three is more sensitive. Sardar for example argues that
instead of trying to establish the relevance of Islam to the modern disciplines, genuine efforts at
creating Islamic alternative should work to identify the relevance of the modern disciplines to Islam.
Islam (and its worldview) should be the reference point, not the modern discipline. These five steps
are expanded to his 12-point work-plan (pp. 50-62).
1. Mastery of the modern disciplines: Categories breakdown reflecting the ‘table of contents’ of
modern textbooks in a particular area
2. Discipline survey that presents the history, methodology and main contributors of that discipline,
including a bibliography
3. Mastering the Islamic legacy: The Anthology. Here, the products or efforts in steps 1-2 will
provide the basis for creating anthologies from the legacy arranged according to the categories of
that discipline.
4. Mastery of the Islamic legacy: The Analysis. This is a more in-depth, prioritized mainly historical
analysis of how the Islamic legacy contributed and was translated into prescriptions for action
5. Establishment of the specific relevance of lslam to the disciplines covering what the legacy has
contributed to the range of issues envisaged by the discipline, the legacies achievements and
shortcomings vis-à-vis the ‘vision and scope of the discipline’, why it is so and what can be done.
6. Critical assessment of the modern discipline: The State of the Art involves a critical assessment of
the discipline from the standpoint of Islam and is seen by Faruqi as a major step in IOK as it
involves an evaluation of the discipline based on Islamic criteria, but with knowledge of the
modern discipline, its history and development etc thereby producing genuine state of the art
reports on the disciplines in question.
7. Critical assessment of the Islamic legacy: The State of the Art which involves a critical evaluation
of the interpretation of Muslim scholars of the sources of knowledge in Islam vis-à-vis the sources
themselves, identifying strengths, shortcomings and possible ways forward.
8
8. Survey of the Ummah's major problems requiring insight, good judgment and knowledge of both
the legacy and modern knowledge.
9. Survey of the problems of humankind as IOK is seen to not only be for Muslims but for all
humanity.
10. Creative analysis and synthesis between the Islamic legacy and modern disciplines taking into
consideration both the need to be faithful to the Islamic vision and to ensure its relevance to the
problems of today.
11. Recasting the disciplines under the framework of Islam: The University Textbook as a
replacement or at least a complement to the standard textbook used in a particular discipline.
12. Dissemination of Islamized Knowledge where ideas and thought of Muslims involved in IOK
must be available to all.
Steps 1-3 are clearly points of contention that are seriously criticized. The fact that the ‘standard tables
of contents of modern textbooks’ are made the topics of reference for which the Islamic legacy will be
analyzed, is seen to be a major weakness of Faruqi’s workplan. This fundamental criticism has been
addressed in later modifications to the work-plan but within the IIIT School, this general scheme is
agreed upon.
For example, IIIT’s 1989 revised and expanded version of the IOK, sees it as having ‘two elementary
stages’, the mastery of knowledge (both branches) and defining the main issues through Islamic
creativity and initiative. While agreeing with the need to master both branches of knowledge and their
methodologies and using both branches in the process of IOK, as mentioned above, some have
criticized among others, the sequencing of the 12 point plan, the over dominance of modern
disciplines in the work-plan and the over reliance on the modern scholar. Furthermore, Sardar (1988,
p. 100), one of the most vocal critics of the 12 point plan argues that if, as pointed out by Faruqi,
modern social sciences is necessarily western, then
‘what purpose is served by breathing Islamic spirit into disciplines that are shaped by
other people’s perceptions, concepts, ideologies, languages and paradigms? Does that
constitute Islamization of knowledge or the westernization of Islam?’
The 1989 revised edition is also interesting in terms of it being a good indicator of the development of
debate and ideas regarding IOK. While it maintains the 1982 version’s explanation of the ‘malaise, its
causes, the task of integrating the two systems of education and instilling the Islamic vision (via a
compulsory study of Islamic civilization and the Islamization of knowledge), discussion of traditional
methodology, especially its shortcomings, the first principles of Islamic methodology’, Faruqi’s 12
point plan which was the center of nearly all debates and discussions on IOK, is no longer presented in
its original form. As mentioned in the Introduction to the 1989 version, this new edition ‘reflects the
interaction between increased knowledge and increased involvement of the scholars in the process of
thinking and writing in the field- the process of “learning through doing” (p. xv) and affirms that IOK
is a continuing process and that its major goals are achieved through the accumulation and
development of ideas in the various fields of knowledge’.
Besides the views of the critics of IOK like Rahman (1988), Sardar (1988, 1989), Nasr (1991) and
Yasien Mohamed (1993, 1994) that certainly had an impact in the development of the IOK agenda,
this change can also be attributed to the writings of three main IIIT proponents. Abu Sulayman (1989,
1994), who took over as President of IIIT after Faruqi’s assassination; Al-Alwani (1989, 1995) who
became President after Abu Sulayman and Louay Safi (1993) who can be considered as one of the
main ‘modifiers’ of Faruqi’s workplan. Abu Sulayman, being one of the founders of IIIT was a
contemporary of Faruqi and shared the ideas of the initial work-plan. However, by the late 1980s,
reflection on the problems of implementing the IOK agenda and producing the results (i.e. university
level textbooks) as well as the views of the critics, led the IIIT to significantly revise the 12 point plan,
9
put in a new chapter, Chapter V ‘Agenda of the Institute’, Chapter VI ‘Indispensable Clarifications’
followed by Chapter VII Financial Requirements.
Under the heading ‘Stages of the Agenda’, the 1989 edition of the IOK work-plan revises the steps
‘towards rectifying Islamic thought, methodology, and knowledge’ as follows:
1. Creation of Understanding and Awareness- this point was discussed in the original work-plan
after the 12 point plan under the headings ‘other necessary aids to IOK’ and ‘further rules of
implementation’. It becomes the first stage of IOK probably reflecting on the activities of the IIIT
over the years as no IOK can occur without efforts made to promote it seriously via active
participation, including financing of activities related to IOK both at the individual/institutional
and government/national/ international levels.
2. Crystallization of Islamic Thought, Concepts and Methodology- this is a new explicit addition to
the IOK agenda, probably as a result of the realization that some prerequisites are needed before
dealing with the branches of knowledge. It is focused on methodological and epistemological
issues dealing with the heritage and includes knowledge of the Qur’an, the sunnah as well as
sciences related to the shari’ah, the Arabic language and the early history of Islam, to provide an
‘overall philosophical and methodological vision’ (or what we have term the Islamic worldview)
to scholars who will undertake IOK efforts.
3. and 4. Mastery of the Legacy and Mastery of Contemporary Knowledge- A detailed list of
projects including the publication of encyclopedias of both branches of knowledge to serve in the
IOK process is put forward. Again no one would disagree with these goals, although some may
query about the expertise available to produce these encyclopedias. What is significantly different
in the revised edition is the ‘switching of places’ between which mastery is to come first. While
stage number 2 reflects the need for the Islamizers to have a proper Islamic worldview, putting the
legacy as stage 3 before contemporary knowledge (stage 4) is probably due to the influence of alAlwani, whose views clearly indicate a preference for the mastery of the Islamic legacy and also
the more significant role of the traditional Islamic scholar in the IOK process. Also we have to
keep in mind the criticisms of people like Sardar (1988), who viewed Faruqi’s 12 point plan as
‘putting the cart before the horse’ and that it was not Islam that needed to be made relevant to
modern knowledge but modern knowledge that needed to be made relevant to Islam.
4. Textbooks in Disciplines- In addition to the works on the vision of Islam, on our legacy and
assessments of contemporary western civilization, textbooks in the various disciplines need to be
produced.5
5. and 6 Priorities of Scientific Research and preparation of academic cadres.
Another interesting change in the emphasis of this revised edition is the priority given to the area of
methodology. While methodology is recognized in the original work-plan as one of the areas/types of
knowledge needed for IOK (the other being substantive knowledge of the discipline), this revised
edition, probably benefiting from the experience of (failed) efforts at producing textbooks, realized
that without sufficient attention in the area of methodology (in both traditions), there would not be
genuine ‘Islamic’ alternatives. For this purpose, human resources ‘instilled with the Islamic vision’
and understanding the methodological issues of both traditions are needed. Safi’s (1993) paper quite
boldly admitted that after 10 years, the IOK agenda was still in its ‘pre-methodological’ stage. The
changes in this revised edition are made even clearer when we look at Al-Alwani’s 1995 paper
‘Islamization of Knowledge: Yesterday and Today’. He states clearly in the first few pages of his
paper that
‘the idea of IOK has always been understood as an intellectual and methodological
outlook rather than as an academic field of specialization, an ideology or a new
This task has proven to be much more difficult that initially envisioned by Faruqi and probablt his colleagues at the IIIT. The experience at
the IIUM, especially during the rectorship of Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman,, which saw the IOK agenda being implemented rigorously, failed
to produce the desired results in the form of textbooks.
5
10
sect…..some people however, were unable to discern the essential methodological
issues in the IOK, perhaps due to the pragmatic manner in which Islamization was
first articulated……the IOK school is not blind to the fact that it may take decades
before the methodological and epistemological issues involved in this proposition are
clarified in a definitive manner’.
In this context, the IOK (1989, p. 89) requires the combination of ‘two readings’, that of revelation
and the natural universe in order to attain a balanced understanding of reality where ‘the Qur’an is the
guide to the real-existential, and the real existential is the guide to the Qur’an’. He then adds that the
‘IOK undertaking may be pursued only by those endowed with a vast knowledge of the Qur’an and a
firm grounding in the social sciences and humanities’. The IOK agenda is then presented as consisting
of ‘six discourses’ :
Discourse 1 and 2- Articulating the Islamic paradigm of knowledge and developing a Qur’anic
Methodology
The first discourse is concerned with establishing a tawhidi episteme that represents two bases: one
that activates and transforms the articles of faith into a conceptual framework and, secondly, that
elaborates the paradigms of knowledge that guided historical Islam with all its schools of thought. In
order to help develop the Islamic paradigm of knowledge, a Qur’anic methodology that can help the
Muslim mind deal effectively with historical and contemporary problems by ‘rooting’ the paradigm to
the book of God, is important.6
Discourse 3- A Methodology of Dealing with the Qur’an
This may require a review and reorganization of the Qur’anic sciences to move away from
concentrating overly on lexical and rhetorical perspectives culminating in interpretive discourse
(tafsir). There is also a need to be wary of attempts to try and ‘relativise’ the Qur’an with the aim of
linking the social and natural sciences to the higher purposes of creation.
Discourse 4- A Methodology for Dealing with the Sunnah
As the best interpreter of the Qur’an, the Prophet’s deeds and words played the role of narrowing the
distance between revelation and the real existential. However, the Prophet sunnah is bound by space
and time constraints. Hence the need for us to be able to understand the sunnah and how it can be
applicable to the present context.
Discourse 5- Reexamining the Islamic Intellectual Heritage
There is a need to be able to distinguish between what should be totally rejected, totally accepted and
piecemeal grafting/modification. Since this heritage is a product of the human mind, a thorough
evaluation of the heritage is needed to ensure that we do not confuse interpretations that are of a
historical context and reality that may be very different from ours today, with the primary source of
revelation.
Discourse 6- Dealing with the Western Intellectual Heritage
It is interesting to note that al-Alwani brings dealing with modern knowledge here, after the legacy is
first understood. If we are to truly liberate ourselves from the dominant paradigms developed in the
west, there is a need to develop a methodology for dealing with western thought. Outright rejection, or
acceptance or cosmetic grafting without reference to a ‘proper’ framework, will not constitute IOK.
Certainly from the sequencing of these six discourses, al-Alwani is almost ‘reversing’ Faruqi’s 12
point plan. Benefiting from the debate on the IOK, as well as probably learning from experience, i.e.
the difficulty and almost inability to produce ‘authentic’ textbooks representing ‘Islamized
The presentation of these two discourses are somewhat confusing. If al-Alwani is referring to the need to elaborate an Islamic worldview
that forms the pre-analytical basis of Islamic methodology, this can be understood. However this is not very clear and the way discourse 2
and 3 are worded adds to the confusion.
6
11
knowledge’ and subject matter from genuine Islamic perspectives, al-Alwani stresses the importance
of creating what Rahman (1988) calls scholars who ‘are imbued with the attitude that the Qur’an
wants to inculcate in us’ and also agrees with Rahman that we need to first examine our own heritage
in the light of Qur’anic/Islamic criteria before moving on to critically studying modern knowledge.
Again, al-Alwani is also putting greater emphasis on the methodological issues involved in the IOK.
In this light, Safi (1993) carries out an evaluation of the IOK project and argues that it is still in ‘its
pre-methodological’ stage. Sharing Abu Sulayman and al-Alwani’s view that the IOK must be seen as
an epistemological and methodological concern. He is of the view that Faruqi’s 12 point plan can be
perceived as psychologically (and intellectually) overwhelming as well as logistically difficult to
achieve. Hence, he proposes a modified strategy, highlighting the possibility of reorganizing the 12point work-plan into parallel tracks: one dealing with modern knowledge and its methodologies and
another dealing with the Islamic legacy and its methodologies. His important contribution in the
development of the IOK agenda is his explicit mention, perhaps for the first time, that within each
track, two types of knowledge are to be mastered by modern Muslim scholars:
i. substantive knowledge (mastery of modern knowledge, mastery of Islamic legacy: anthology and
analysis, steps 1, 3 and 4)
ii. and secondly, technical (methodological) knowledge (critical assessment of the modern
discipline, critical assessment of the Islamic legacy and the creative analysis and synthesis, steps
6, 7 and 10).
The discipline survey, establishment of relevance of Islam to the modern discipline, survey of the
ummah’s and humanity’s problems, steps 2, 5, 8 and 9 cannot be considered as separate from the
process of thinking itself. Only when this is done can we produce the textbook (step 11) and
disseminate it (step 12).
While he does see the production of Islamized knowledge as contingent upon the application of
methods that are rooted in the Islamic worldview, he does not think it necessary for the articulation of
an Islamic methodology to precede a substantive contribution to the IOK process. Safi does not give
reasons for his view, although it may be that since there two types of knowledge to be mastered, either
one can come before the other, hence making partial contribution to the IOK. However this is not clear
from his article and judging from the evolution of the IOK agenda, I would not think it possible to
undertake the ‘creative analysis and synthesis’ step without this Islamic methodological framework.
Finally, one more unique contribution of Safi is that he viewed any product of these various steps as
only ‘Islamic tentatively’. Acceptability of Islamized knowledge can only be substantiated through
‘verification’, i.e. the process of scrutiny by other scholars, hence undergoing the process of ijma’
(consensus).
Besides Safi, Ragab (1995, 1997 and especially 1999) can be considered the other main commentator
of the IOK agenda and has presented a variation of Faruqi’s work-plan, but still retains the general
sequencing of Faruqi and the emphasis placed on modern knowledge. In his 1997 paper, Ragab (p. 35)
calls for ‘creative engagement’ that he defines as
The process of approaching the social sciences in a spirit of confident search for the truth; of digesting
and assimilating their research findings, their hypotheses and their theories; of rigorously evaluating
them in the light of revealed knowledge; and most importantly, it refers to the ability to transcend
them wherever appropriate, in search of a bold and unhesitant synthesis.
He sees the IOK going through two phases. The first is what he calls ‘integral theorizing’ that involves
three steps (1997, pp. 45-48). In step 1, modern knowledge is systematically and critically reviewed
and then ‘sifted’; in step 2, the Islamic heritage (Qur’an, hadith and works of scholars) is used to
‘develop a conceptual framework’; and in step 3, ‘a unified integral theoretical framework’ is
developed through cataloguing, organizing, rearrangement and reinterpretation. He clarifies the above
12
three steps by stating that this first stage requires not only understanding and mastery of the
substantive knowledge in the modern sciences but has to involve an understanding of the Islamic
worldview, a critical evaluation and modification of modern social sciences from an Islamic
viewpoint. Only then can it lead to step 3, which will involve ‘reconstruction, validation and
realignment’. While step 2 provides the check and balance to step 1, it is still unclear why he does not
reverse the order since step 3 can only be truly ‘Islamic’ if the Islamizers are ‘qualified’.
The second phase he calls ‘validation through research and practice’ where hypotheses are tested. If
they are confirmed, we can be more confident with our framework; but if not, either our understanding
and interpretation of our heritage in our framework was incorrect or our research methods/procedures
were deficient. Unfortunately, Ragab does not explain what needs to happen if both the above are
‘correct’ and our observed facts still does not tally with our tentative theory.
An early commentator of the IOK, Ja’afar Sheikh Idris (1987) also discusses the process involved and
places the sequencing of steps closer to the position of al-Alwani, i.e. on ‘resting it on the solid
foundation of Islam’. He then presents his ‘11 point plan’ which although not as clear as Faruqi’s
work-plan, does try to integrate empirical findings with revelation. Although accepting both the
‘world and wahy (revelation)’ as sources of knowledge, and since there should not be conflict between
the two (ideally but never in practice), he still maintains that ‘we should not expect our Islamized
sciences to consist of absolutely true statements’. He also welcomes the possibility of different Islamic
points of view and different Islamic scientific theories, to be judged on its supporting evidence. I
assume that he also accepts the possibility that there could be different opinions on the criteria of
supporting evidence.
Imad al-Din Khalil (1991, pp. 8-13) also supports al-Alwani’s position (and that of critics like
Rahman and Sardar) of starting with the Islamic legacy. After thoroughly examining this legacy and
undergoing some process of ‘sifting’ using an Islamic framework, we then turn to the modern and
contemporary material, again going through a ‘sifting’ process. Nasr (1991) also sees the need for
Muslim scholars to understand both the ‘philosophical underpinnings of scientific thought and praxis
in Islam’ as well as ‘the basic premises of modern and social sciences, identifying the key assumptions
and theorems upon which the structures of the sciences and social sciences rest’, then undertaking
some sort of sifting or Islamization process.
Ali (1989, pp. 52-55) also argues for the need to establish an Islamic ‘Grand Theory’ that is made up
of key concepts forming conceptual schemes from which the various behavioral sciences will follow.
This grand theory, or worldview as others have called it, will include theological, eschatological,
philosophical, anthropological and societal concepts that are all geared to solving societal goals that
are determined by the framework itself.
Having looked at the view of Faruqi, one of the two main proponents of the IOK project, followed by
the modifications to his original work-plan as well as the views of some other writers and
commentators, we now look at the views of the other main proponent of IOK, i.e. al-Attas. The first
thing that strikes one who reads al-Attas and is looking for his views on ‘how’ to do IOK, is the
absence of ‘work-plans’, despite his long contribution to this area. In this, al-Attas does not open his
views to the criticisms of scholars like Rahman and Sardar who have taken Faruqi to task for trying to
chart out maps and plans to Islamize knowledge.
To al-Attas, the IOK process has to begin with the articulation and understanding of the Islamic
worldview. Since language is the communicator of this worldview, Islamization necessarily begins
with language. Hence he argues that wherever Islam spread, certain key Islamic concepts that
represent this worldview can be found either in the existing language or in many cases, new languages
were created by Islam. Examples of these new languages are Malay, Urdu and Swahili, since the
original languages of the people were too immersed in alien worldviews. This is also why al-Attas
13
stresses throughout his works the importance of correct definitions of terms and concepts. He has also
talked about the common ‘Islamic language’ i.e. Islamic concepts in Qur’anic arabic that project the
Islamic worldview that are found in all Muslim languages, whose purpose is to convey the correct
Islamic worldview. The corruption of knowledge through the changing of meanings of concepts is
taken very seriously by al-Attas to be one of the main reasons for the ‘Muslim dilemma’ and condition
today.
As far as education/curriculum was concerned, Wan Mohd. Nor (1998) mentions al-Attas’ efforts in
the early 1970s at the National University of Malaysia (which was suggested by him to be an Islamic
University) to require all students at its Institute of Malay Language, Literature and Culture (that he
was founder-Director of) to take at least one course on Islamic thought, history and culture every year
throughout their study to convey aspects of Islam and its worldview, hence enabling students to
receive the fard ‘ayn knowledge in addition to their other fard kifayah subjects, thus assisting in the
‘gradual and subtle process of islamization in these fields of study’. This idea is very similar to the
idea promoted by Faruqi in his 1982 work-plan that requires students to take courses in Islamic
civilization throughout their study as a way to expose them to the Islamic perspective of things. This
was also the experience in the initial years at the International Islamic University Malaysia, where
students were obliged to take eleven courses in various areas of Islam and its civilization as part of
their undergraduate programs.
While for al-Attas, contemporary/present day knowledge is the focus of Islamization, we agree with
Wan Mohd Nor’s observation (1997, p.4) that al-Attas also called, albeit not as strongly as scholars
like Fazlur Rahman, for the reformation of traditional learning, hence his call for a ‘new’ Islamic
university since the late 1960s.
As for modern/contemporary knowledge, al-Attas sees it as being founded on, interpreted and
projected through the western philosophical outlook or worldview, and has caused the ‘deislamization
of the Muslim mind’. What is needed is to Islamize modern knowledge via a two-step process:
i.
isolation of key elements that make-up Western culture and civilization from every branch of
knowledge (dewesternization/desecularization)
ii. infusion of Islamic elements and key concepts into all branches of knowledge
In total, these two steps are part of the Islamization process. However, this can only be done by those
who have a ‘profound grasp of the nature, spirit and attributes of Islam as a religion, culture and
civilization as well as western culture and civilization’ (Wan Mohd. Nor, 1998). Unless the Islamizer
clearly understands the Islamic worldview as defined earlier, he/she may not know what needs to be
isolated and what needs to be infused, what are acceptable, what are not and what the Islamic
alternatives are. Certainly for al-Attas, IOK is an ‘epistemological and methodological’ concern,
dealing with how ‘Islamically creative minds can evaluate modern knowledge using Islamic
benchmarks’. At the end of the process is the ‘reconstruction’ or ‘reformulation’ of contemporary
knowledge and disciplines, either those existing or the creation of new disciplines if necessary.7
Ali Ashraf, another pioneer of contemporary Islamic education agreed fully with al-Attas that
Islamization of knowledge cannot be merely adding new or modern knowledge to the old or
traditional knowledge found in Muslim countries. Like al-Attas, Safi, Ragab and many others who
have ‘learnt from the experience of Islamization’, Ali Ashraf also is of the opinion that no real
creative synthesis is possible till we Islamize the approach to all branches of knowledge (which is a
methodological concern) and thus fulfill the real aim of education as enunciated in the First World
Conference on Islamic Education held in Makkah in 1977. The vision of Islam (or its worldview) will
Refer to unpublished paper of Muhammad Kamal Hassan, now Rector of the IIUM, presented at the Kulliyyah of Economics and
Management Sciences’ Islamic Orientation Program, June 1997.
7
14
provide the Islamic Frame of Reference that is the pre-requisite for Islamization. This frame of
reference consists of spiritual, intellectual and educational dimensions.
While agreeing with Sardar that it is not the Qur’an that has to be adjusted to society but society that
has to be reformed to the path of the Qur’an and sunnah (1989, p. 2), one could see his reservation to
Faruqi’s 12 point plan, especially the step that states ‘finding the relevance of Islam to the discipline’.
However, he also criticizes Sardar and the Ijmali school for what he considers to be ‘overly rational’
at the expense of the ‘intellect’, similar to his and Hadi’s criticism of Faruqi.
Ashraf goes on to explain that Islamization efforts have actually suffered a setback since the 1977
Conference. This is because Islamization is disliked as it focuses on modern knowledge and its
system. Instead, ‘modernization’ of the traditional system is preferred since this effort focuses on the
religious school system that is seen to be backward. Rather controversially, he lays blame on this state
of affairs on the officials in Muslim countries whose nationalistic sentiments prove to be the greatest
obstacle towards a unified system of education.
Section 5- Reviewers and Critics
In addition to the main proponents and those who have developed the IOK agenda, no survey on the
IOK project would be complete without discussing the views of two other categories of writings: those
who have attempted ‘reviews’, either of individuals, comparisons between scholars or of institutions
and those who have been critical of the IOK project as a whole or of certain ideas and/or ‘steps’
founds in the writings of some proponents. The latter category is always left out of studies on the IOK
as they are seen to be ‘outside’ the IOK project. This article breaks with this tradition as it considers
these critics as making an important contribution to the IOK debate since many of the developments,
modifications and improvements to the IOK agenda have come about, among others, in response to
these criticisms.
In this section, we will try to present the main comments found in these two categories of writings. In
should however be noted that there is no total mutual exclusivity in writings that are ‘reviews’ and
‘critiques’. Most if not all the works that are surveyed in this article are either supportive of the IOK
agenda, or if not, are proponents of alternative views on contemporary Islamic scholarship and its
reformation in the 20th century.
Some reviews like that of Safi (1993) given in the previous section, while generally supportive of the
IOK agenda, are also critical of some points in the IOK agenda given by Faruqi. Some reviews like
that of Sardar (1988) are more dismissive of the IOK agenda, although again it is based on the views
of Faruqi’s work-plan. Most comparative studies have also by definition, reviews. Some of these
studies are critical of the ideas of one or more of those compared. Yasien’s (1993) comparative work
of Rahman and Faruqi is supportive of the former and while not totally dismissive of the Islamization
agenda is critical of the sequencing of Faruqi’s workplan.
Wan Mohd. Nor’s (1997) comparison of Fazlur Rahman and Al-Attas clearly supports the position of
Al-Attas, while his 1998 survey of ‘contemporary responses’ to the IOK agenda laid out by Al-Attas8
gives probably the most comprehensive review/critique of the various views of scholars who have
discussed not only the IOK, but who have talked about Islamic intellectual development in the second
half of the 20th century. Finally one finds studies that attempt to ‘bridge’ differences between
proponents. Moten’s (2000) work looks exclusively at the IIIT’s evolution via the writings of its three
presidents (Faruqi, Al-Alwani and Abu Sulayman) and Rosnani/Rossidy’s (1999) comparison between
Faruqi and Al-Attas tries to develop the common themes and ideas between the two main proponents.
The sub-title of his book indicates explicitly his view that Al-Attas’ views are the ‘original exposition’ of the IOK agenda. While Chapter 7
discusses the views of other contemporary scholars, the earlier chapters elaborate in detail the intellectual life and ideas/thoughts of alAttas, including his views on Islamization. It is also interesting to note that in this sense, this book becomes an intellectual biography of alAttas rather than being a commemorative work on a scholar as available for some other scholars.
8
15
For purposes of this article, we will divide the works surveyed in this section into works that are
generally critical of the IOK project as a whole like that of Rahman (1988) and Sardar (1988, 1989);
works that are critical of aspects of the IOK agenda like that of Yasien (1994) and Safi (1993); finally,
works that compare views of scholars and in the process review the views of those compared like that
of Yasien (1993,1994), Wan Mohd. Nor (1997) and Rosnani/Rossidy (1999).
1. Critique of IOK- 'Opponents'
As mentioned earlier, most critiques of the IOK project are based on Faruqi's work-plan, and
implicitly that of IIIT, although the IIIT position has itself evolved over the years. Although in
terms of writings, one would place Sardar's criticism as the earliest comprehensive critique of
Faruqi's IOK work-plan, other scholars such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Fazlur Rahman were already
presenting alternative ways to develop contemporary Islamic scholarship with their writings in the
1960s.9 Rahman (1988) criticizes Faruqi's work-plan for being too 'enamoured over making maps and
charts of how to go about creating Islamic knowledge' (p. 10) when what is more needed are greater
efforts in the ‘creation not of propositions, but minds' (p. 4).
According to Rahman, while 'ilm (knowledge) by itself is good, the problem is its misuse that occurs
due to man's lacking the responsibility that comes together with the power of having knowledge.
Hence, it is the human being and his moral priorities that should be the focus of Islamization not
knowledge. Rahman calls for the creation of thinkers who when they are 'imbued with the attitude
that the Qur'an wants to inculcate in us', are able to first examine our own tradition in the light of
the Qur'an and only then critically study the body of knowledge created by modernity (emphasis
added). In many ways this criticism has been accommodated in the views of the IIIT via Taha Jabir
al-Alwani's 'reversal' of the work-plan sequence when he talks about his six discourses that clearly
begin with the heritage. More importantly and not directly mentioned by Rahman, al-Alwani's views
on the IOK project also lay primary stress on epistemological and methodological issues.
This is exactly the reason why Sardar (1988) is dismissive of Faruqi's workplan. While
acknowledging Rahman's ideas and prioritization, Sardar is more comprehensive in his critique.
In his article, which was written originally in the mid-1980s, he criticizes Faruqi's methodology as
consisting of only 'first principles', and hence 'mounting to very little' (p. 9). While agreeing with
Faruqi that western social sciences are Eurocentric, he accuses Faruqi of choosing to ignore the
reality that it is the epistemology of modern science that has created the modern world and that this
is what any IOK agenda has to focus on, rather than the output, i.e. disciplines. He sees as misplaced the
emphasis on disciplines, which to him are born within the matrix of a particular worldview. Hence, it
is also not possible to accept the disciplinary divisions of knowledge as they exist in western epistemology
(p. 101, emphasis added). Taking the examples of our past scholars, Sardar argues that a reclassification of
knowledge is necessary.
'The task before the Muslim intelligentsia, then, is to develop, using the epistemology of Islam, alternative
paradigms of knowledge for both the natural and social sciences and to conceive and mould disciplines
most relevant to the needs of contemporary Muslim societies. Only when distinctive Islamic paradigms
and associated bodies of knowledge have evolved can Muslim scholars contemplate achieving a synthesis
on appropriate footing with knowledge created by western civilization' (p. 104).
Presenting the Ijmali view which sees the need to develop Islamic paradigms of knowledge and
behavior from concepts found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, Sardar (1989) also stresses a very important point
that has not been emphasized concerning the views of critics of Faruqi's work-plan is that they do not call
for a total 'disengagement' with modern knowledge. What is the point of contention is the quality of the
See for example Nasr's early works like Ideals and Realities of Islam (1971), Man and Nature (1976) and Islam and the Plight of Modern
Man (1976). Also Rahman's Islam (1966) and Islam and Modernity' (1982).
9
16
individual that is to Islamize and also the criteria that will be used to Islamize (the Islamic worldview), the
framework that this will take place (within Islamic epistemology) and the way the Islamization will take
place (methodology). One does not see the same criticism leveled against Al-Attas as he is very careful to
point out the above. In this context, Nasim Butt (1989, pp. 96-97) also sees modern disciplines as
manifesting 'post-enlightenment materialistic' worldview and have evolved to solve problems arising from
this intellectual tradition. Hence, trying to Islamize these disciplines is futile and will only ‘only serve to
relegate Islamized disciplines to the derogatory position of minority sub-disciplines and not really Islamic
discipline construction’ (p. 97).
One could readily accept Sardar’s critcism of the IOK by the many failed attempts at producing Islamized
textbooks. However, one must also be willing to accept the possibility that this is due to the wrong way in
which the IOK has been understood and the misunderstanding of the pre-requisites for successful
implementation. In other words, failure to produce textbooks may not be due to a failure of the IOK agenda
in itself as opposed to a failure to understand it.
2. Critique of Aspects of IOK
Most writings on the IOK, even those written by proponents, do contain some critical views, either on the
'what' or definitions (or lack of them) of IOK or on the 'how' to IOK. This group generally supports the
effort of IOK but some have differences with what is proposed. For example, while Yassien (1993a) sees
the IOK project as a 'revivalist response to modernity', he also criticizes the 'sequencing' of Faruqi's 12
steps. Although he understands why Faruqi focused on modern disciplines and the modern Muslim social
scientist, he sees this as acceptable only as a short-term measure or something that can provide
'immediate relief from our problems but one that does not get to the heart of the problem. Quoting Davies
(1986), he laments that Faruqi's work-plan has possibility of 'over-exposure to the disease'.
Genuine Islamization entails the elaboration of earlier Islamic conceptual frameworks to convincingly
meet the challenges of intellectual modernity. These frameworks must emerge, first of all, from the
Islamic legacy before the relevance of the modem discipline in question can be determined for them
(1994, p. 288)
Following the arguments of Rahman and Sardar, he also sees the need to 'disengage' with the west, to
turn to our legacy in order to build Islamic disciplines first, before we try to evaluate modern disciplines.
Safi (1993) a proponent of the IOK project, also takes a critical look at Faruqi's work-plan. He
agrees with earlier writers such as Sardar that Faruqi's work-plan does not really discuss methodology
but only 'identifies some epistemological principles' (p. 25). He also views the 12-point work-plan as
'overwhelming and exceedingly complicated' (p. 27) and suffers from logistical deficiencies. While
much of the (failed) attempts at IOK have been concentrated in the 'substantive knowledge areas'
i.e. in the relevant disciplines, not sufficient attention has been given to the other type of knowledge
needed, i.e. that of methodology. He rightly argues that we cannot have the emergence of
'substantive Islamized knowledge' without the emergence and application of Islamic methods first (p.
28). In addition to this issue of methodology, he also adds that the Islamized knowledge that is
produced after the twelve steps is only 'tentative', subject to confirmation by the Islamic scientific
community, thus creating some sort of ijma' or consensus.
His paper than critically evaluates the views of several proponents as well as opponents of the IOK
project (ala Faruqi). Some deny the need to have IOK, seeing all solutions already within our heritage
while some tend to overdo the use of reason and overlook the rich heritage of our past scholars.
Relying on only one source, either our heritage or modern knowledge is inadequate although he is
quick to point out that the substantive knowledge and methodology of the two sources is not
necessarily 'invalid' but 'less than adequate', hence requiring 'dialogue and interaction'.
17
An Islamic methodology has to emerge, at least partially, by appropriating elements of both classical
Islamic and modern western methods. A wholesale and a priori rejection of either the two traditions is
unscientific (1993, p.41)
Other writers such as Syed Ali Ashraf (1984) and Hadi Sharifi (1984) who were both present at the
first international conference on Muslim education in Makkah in 1977 have some reservations about
Faruqi's work-plan. The former sees too much emphasis on the modern discipline in Faruqi's workplan while too much emphasis on 'modernizing Islamic education' in Muslim countries without the
right pre-requisites, while the latter sees Faruqi's work-plan as too 'this worldly', neglecting to
handle the philosophical foundations of modern science. This makes the work -plan overly
‘external’ and hence superficial and lacking the spiritual dimension of any true Islamic reform
agenda. Added to this is the worry that Faruqi’s (mis)translation of important terms such as ‘aql as
‘rational’ rather than intellect and his emphasis on this kind of ‘rationality’ can lead to an overly
'secular' approach to life and thought.
3. Comparative Studies
The last group of writings are those who have attempted comparative studies between proponents of
IOK or between intellectual responses of Muslims to modern knowledge. Yasien's (1993) study
that compares Faruqi's intellectual contribution to IOK with that of Rahman who is a critic of the
IOK project actually falls under the latter category although Yasien's paper discusses IOK. As
mentioned earlier, Yasien is supportive of Rahman's view and while not totally dismissive of the
IOK agenda, is clearly critical of aspects of the IOK agenda.
For example, he criticizes Faruqi for not paying enough attention to defining secularism, hence creating
ambiguity on what are the ‘alien’ elements that need to be ‘eliminated, amended reinterpreted and
adapted according to the Islamic worldview’ as stated in his work-plan. As with Ashraf, Hadi, Sardar
and other scholars, Yasien also concurs that the secular foundations of modern sciences have not been
addressed adequately by Faruqi. He also thinks that Faruqi has presented Islam as a monolithic system,
without sufficient critique of the Islamic legacy (p. 33). Finally, he also criticizes the overemphasis on
the modern disciplines, seeing that this could divert attention away from the Qur’an as the ultimate
reference point (1993, p. 34; 1994, p. 286). He does however credit Faruqi’s work-plan as potentially
providing ‘immediate relief’ from the anguish experienced by western trained Muslim graduates but
does not see this work-plan as providing long-term solutions to intellectual modernity.
Here he shows his preference for Rahman’s call in the latter’s Islam and Modernity (1982) that Muslim
scholarship has to first ‘disengage from the west and cultivate an independent but understanding
attitude toward it’ by going back to our legacy so that Islamic disciplines can be developed first (1994,
p. 287). Reading Faruqi as above is not so simple as Faruqi did make reference to ‘critical’ evaluations
of both the legacy and modern sciences, although we would agree that not enough was probably said
about the methodological requirements of these steps. Similarly, one could argue that Rahman, while
mentioning the need to ‘evaluate modern knowledge’ (1988, p. 36), did not really give much attention
to this. It both cases, these major contributors to contemporary Islamic scholarship died before they
could address these issues. Hence, like Rahman, we can say that Yasien disagrees with Faruqi’s workplan but not to Islamization of knowledge in principle.
Wan Mohd Nor's (1997) comparison of al-Attas and Rahman is an interesting article as the writer
has been associated with both scholars. He rightly points out that Rahman was a 'late and indirect
participant' of the IOK agenda (through his 1988 article). Instead, according to Wan, Rahman in his
Islam and Modernity (1982) presented his own views on how education of Muslims needed to be
undertaken but concentrated more on the socio-legal dimension of the community (p. 16). Wan is
of the opinion that many of Rahman's later criticism on Faruqi's IOK work-plan do not apply to al-Attas'
views on IOK as the latter has always stressed the importance of beginning with the Islamic worldview and
18
basing all Islamization efforts on this worldview and utilizing methods that are products of the
epistemological foundations of this worldview.
Finally, one finds the work of Rosnani/Rossidy, which is based on the latter's Master's thesis where
they look at the views of al-Attas and Faruqi, both major proponents of the IOK project. As mentioned in
their introduction, one of the aims of their comparison is to actually 'create understanding and tolerance
among the adherents of al-Attas and al-Faruqi and for possible reconciliation' between the two groups.10
After elaborating on the philosophical framework, definitions of IOK and methodologies or more precisely
the IOK process as mentioned by the two scholars, they conclude that there are actually many fundamental
similarities between the two. Their paper generally sees al-Attas as having a more profound view of the
IOK agenda as he bases his IOK views on a stronger philosophical position and stresses the
methodological emphasis in his agenda (pp. 21-23).
They also view al-Attas' concern for definitional clarity as a strength for the IOK agenda as a whole.
Faruqi is seen to have taken one step further than al-Attas, by concretizing his ideas on 'how to Islamize'
by developing his 12-point work-plan (p. 31). It is probably here that the writers find the greatest
differences between the two. Al-Attas, they rightly state, does not spell out in ‘steps’ how to go about
Islamizing knowledge, preferring instead to talk about the ‘pre-requisites’ needed (i.e. understanding the
Islamic worldview and its metaphysics). Faruqi on the other hand, seems to have concentrated more on
‘downstream’ activities, represented by his 12 point plan (or at least this part of his work-plan received
greatest attention from others). They also see Faruqi as a ‘salafiyyah-reformist’ emphasizing society and the
ummah, while al-Attas emphasizes the immense contribution of tassawuf in the formulation of a philosophy
of education/science (p. 36). However, they are of the opinion that these differences, while significant,
must be seen vis-a-vis the similar philosophical framework shared by both al-Attas and Faruqi (p.
38), hence reconciliation is possible.
Section 6- Future Direction and Concluding Remarks
It is now time to take stock of the discussion thus far, to restate some of the main issues raised and to
provide some suggestions as to what the future holds for the IOK project.
Without doubt, whether one is a proponent or an opponent or even a neutral bystander, it cannot be
denied that the IOK project has played a prominent role in contemporary scholarship and literature,
both in theory and in practice, the latter manifested in attempts to provide ‘Islamized’ curricula and
textbooks in undergraduate programs in various universities both in the Muslim and non-Muslim
world. This presence has been consistent for the last two decades, although at the time this article is
being written (end of 2003), the IOK project is facing a relatively low ebb in its existence. While
partly due to external events such as post 9-11 effects that include pressure on many Islamic
institutions and organizations and Islamists, the main reason according to the present writer is an
internal one, i.e. the over emphasis and unprepared human resources capable of producing ‘Islamized
textbooks.
Certainly in an institution like the IIUM, where the practical aspects of the IOK were to bear fruit, it is
very clear that the results have been far from what was hoped for. The problem was not a lack of
financial resources nor a resistance from the leadership (if anything, there was full support) to
achieving the aims of the IOK project. The fault lay in the neglect and inability to develop coherent
epistemological and methodological bases upon which the Islamization of ‘disciplines’ or knowledge
While Faruqi's views became the more popular version of the IOK project with the institutional support of the International Institute of Islamic
Thought (HIT) based in Herndon, Virginia, it also has borne the brunt of criticism. Al-Attas on the other hand, while writing in the areas of educational
reform and Islamization since the late 1960s/early 1970s, was not as widely read by scholars outside Malaysia. However, with the establishment of the
International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC) in 1988, via the International Islamic University Malaysia, his ideas have gained
prominence and are seen by some as having greater vitality and rigor than Faruqi. However, it must also be noted that Faruqi was assassinated in
1986 in the US and since then, the IIIT has continued to expand and modify Faruqi's initial ideas, partially in response to the criticisms leveled at the 12point work-plan.
10
19
can take place and for these to be understood and utilized by the academics at the IIUM. In many
ways, we are still in the ‘pre-methodological’ stage of IOK as mentioned by Safi ten years ago.
Realization of this ‘mistake’ is now setting in. Even within those proponents of IOK, the articles by
Safi (1993) and Ragab (1995, 1997 and 1997), who were both academic staff at the IIUM, very clearly
stated their views on the need to first get these methodological concerns sorted out.
Despite its current ‘stagnation’, the IOK as envisaged by its main proponents, is nevertheless still a
necessity for the Muslim ummah. The rationale of the IOK is still valid, probably even more important
now when the ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis of Huntingdon is being realized by its proponents under
the various contemporary agendas of the post 9-11 world. Against this ‘clash’ mentality, the IOK is in
actuality calling for engagement, discourse and dialogue. All are generally in agreement that the
Muslim ummah cannot afford to ‘live in the past’. All would agree that lessons can be learnt, although
different scholars may treat the past differently and hence take different lessons from it.
What may seem to be worrying some is that the call for engagement in IOK is a call that sees dialogue
and interaction between parties that must be accepted as equals. This means something very different
from mere blind acceptance of concepts (and their foundations) in modern sciences or the emotive
rejection of concepts, theories and views just because it comes from the west. Rather, it implies a
thorough ‘evaluation’ of the foundations of western science, its methodologies and its resulting bodies
of knowledge from Islamic perspectives. It may also be for this reason that the IOK project may be
targeted by its opponents since any success in ‘creating equals in the domain of intellectual pursuit’
will certainly have tremendous political, economic and social impact.
The terms and scope of engagement according to scholars such as Al-Attas and Sardar are very clearly
defined as being those that are developed from our own worldview and utilizing our own
epistemological base from which our own methodologies would create modified disciplines and
possibly, even
‘new’ disciplines. Some, like Sardar even call for a reclassification of
knowledge/sciences based on our Islamic epistemological base. Ragab and Safi, would also generally
agree with this position, although they, especially the former, would accept the existing disciplines
after a process of sifting based on the Islamic worldview takes place. The modified versions of the
IIIT work-plan and Al-Alwani’s focus on the heritage and on Islamic methodology also moves in this
direction of the need to develop genuine Islamic scholarship before interaction/dialogue takes place.
All are in agreement that it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, but the IOK is not, and cannot
become a process to do patchwork or cosmetic surgery on existing bodies of knowledge or to
graft/transplant existing bodies into Islamic frameworks. There is a need for serious evaluation
(implying criteria, standards) before accepting, rejecting, assimilating or synthesizing can be done in
developing contemporary Islamic knowledge. However, as stated by Safi (1993), these criteria and
standards for dealing with our heritage and modern science have not been elaborated on sufficiently,
hence the shortcomings and criticisms.
While the need for a genuine contemporary philosophy of knowledge- one that is firmly rooted in the
heritage, one that is aware of the strengths and shortcomings of aspects of this heritage, one that is
aware of the western heritage with its strengths and shortcomings, one that is able to be faithful to the
core of Islam but able to address contemporary issues- is acknowledged by all, contemporary writers
differ as to the best way to achieve the results sought. Some like al-Attas and Sardar and to a lesser
extent, Safi and Ragab would argue that more work has to be done in the areas of clarifying the
Islamic worldview, philosophy of science including methodological issues before jumping into
disciplines. In this regard, Sardar (and Nasr, in his article that looks at economics as a case in point), is
actually against the idea of trying to Islamize existing disciplines since he sees these disciplines as
infected by the worldview of the west. The other three would probably be more willing to interact
with existing bodies of knowledge, provided we did it from Islamic perspectives.
20
Ragab, Safi and even the IIIT school, while acknowledging the importance of a genuine contemporary
Islamic philosophy of knowledge, also look at ‘practical’ needs, i.e. the immediate requirement to
teach Muslim youth from Islamic perspectives. In this, the IIIT has stressed the importance of creating
and publishing Islamized knowledge in the form of textbooks, despite all shortcomings provided we
are clear about what we want to do. In fact, Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman, the former Rector of the
International Islamic University Malaysia, an institution promoting ‘Integration and Islamization’ of
knowledge as its objective, was known to have viewed Islamization as a process of ‘moving towards a
moving target’, implying both means and ends could and most probably would, change. He preferred
‘doing something’, even if it meant that we could be wrong, provided we were willing to learn from
mistakes.
In this sense, and by analyzing the revised IOK workplan, Abu Sulayman (1989) has clarified many
areas that were criticized by writers such as Sardar. In another writing (1994) he attempted to redefine,
recategorize and re-evaluate concepts in political science from an Islamic perspective, hence taking
Sardar’s criticisms to heart and clarifying what he thinks the IOK would imply (1994, p. 36).
Admittedly, the effort needed can be exacting, because it requires the comprehensive and systematic
analysis of the legacy of Islam in all its primary and secondary sources. A great deal of editing will be
needed. Subjects will have to be categorized; terms will have to be coined, modified, or defined anew.
A total renovation will be required. Armed with deep insight, critical understanding, and systematic
analysis, we would not refrain from investigating knowledge discovered by non-Muslims or adopting
new experimental methods, provided that we remain conscious of the differences in background,
motivation, and purpose.
Therefore the worry that somehow the IOK project does mere ‘patch work’ is certainly not justified
based on the intentions of the scholars promoting IOK. While modern knowledge is the prime focus of
the IOK proponents, other scholars like Fazlur Rahman would instead focus on Islamizing the human
intellect rather than knowledge. This would be done by going to the heritage (especially the Qur’an)
and deriving a Qur’anic methodology that would be first used to evaluate our heritage first. Here the
emphasis is to relook at our legacy first and to ‘sift’ it so that we do not mistake cultural inputs as that
of the main sources of knowledge in Islam, i.e. the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). Only
then would we attempt to address the western/modern knowledge. This is also what Al-Alwani
suggests in the first five of his six discourses.
It must be borne in mind that no Islamizing of disciplines or even of minds can take place without a
basis or worldview that forms the criteria of evaluation and methodology that will be used in
Islamization. In this respect, al-Attas’ emphasis and often repeated lesson that scholars (and later
Muslims in general) must first understand their worldview and the components within, is now almost
an accepted fact among all. However, the present writer is still not convinced that the implications of
this statement on the curricula has been fully understood by academics, especially those in
administrative positions. It is not easy to change curricula to include more philosophy and
methodology when what is being sought after, especially by the ‘market’, are solutions to ‘practical
problems.
We would strongly urge scholars and administrators to stand firm and insist that greater elaboration of
an Islamic worldview or metaphysics needs to be included in curricula. We should not succumb to the
temptation of rushing to come up with instant ‘solutions’ without first preparing ourselves sufficiently.
We should not take too seriously calls to move away from discussing ‘philosophy and methodology’,
which are only ‘abstract’ areas that do not really have any ‘practical use’. The deliberation of the
scholars reviewed in this article should help convince skeptics that epistemological and
methodological concerns are very practical and have practical implications on curricula and its output,
i.e. Islamized knowledge. The main lesson gained from 30 years of the IOK project is that we have not
21
really discussed and understood the philosophical and methodological issues of the modern disciplines
we have been trying to Islamize. Also we have not sufficiently dealt with our own legacy.
However, there is also an urgent need to be able to connect this philosophy and methodology to the
disciplines and maybe more importantly to the scholars who are involved in those disciplines. As
Ragab (1999, p. 35) rightly points out
There is no shortage of materials written about different aspects of Islam as a religion
or way of life. However, most of the reference material on Islam and the Islamic
worldview. Encyclopedic or monographic, do not lend themselves readily for use by
Muslim social scientists embarking on the Islamization of their disciplines
No creative synthesis or Islamized knowledge in the form of textbooks can be produced unless this
gap is bridged. Unfortunately, modern western trained Muslim social scientists are not able to
appreciate these philosophical and methodological issues underlying their own disciplines, let alone
having any meaningful exposure to the Islamic legacy. Their training has created, in many cases,
‘second class’ western scientists, who some times even fail to grasp the essence of their disciplines,
not to mention any ambition of ‘mastering’ their disciplines.
For example, most economics programs in western universities today hardly discuss philosophical and
methodological issues in economics. The underlying assumptions of mainstream neoclassicalkeynesian economics is accepted as ‘truth’, while most if not all attention is placed on mastering the
latest quantitative techniques (now available in software packages) and applying these to ‘analyse
data’.11 In addition, western methodology and its ‘scientific methods’ are accepted as objective and
correct, with an overwhelming attention paid to technical procedures and application of quantitative
techniques to solve mathematical equations, without ever questioning the foundations of these
methods and techniques and the theories they are used to promote. Certainly, this is what the IOK
agenda is all about and it would seem the logical area to allocate resources, both financial and human.
If nothing more, we should at least learn from the developments in the west where an increasing
number of economists and philosophers of science are questioning the entire framework on which
conventional neoclassical economics rests.
Bibliography
A.K Brohi. “Islamization of Knowledge: A First Step to Integrate and Develop The Muslim
Personality and Outlook.” in Islam: Source and Purpose of Knowledge. Herndon: International
Institute of Islamic Thought, (1993), 5-12.
_________. “Islamization of Knowledge.” Islamic Thought and Scientific Creativity 4, no. 4 (1993).
31-37.
In this regard, it is very interesting to note that there has been a credible reaction to this in France, the UK and the US with the
establishment of a ‘post-autistic economics’ movement. Beginning as a graduate student protest towards the ‘narrow’ scope and approach
to the teaching of economics, this movement has gained momentum and now has a credible following worldwide calling for a pluralist
approach to teaching and learning economics. The movement has a quarterly on-line journal (now in its 24th issue) from economists and
other scholars who have taken the very challenging task of critically analysing the philosophical and methodological issues of the discipline.
The reason that the scholarship in this journal is worthy of reading is its common critique of ‘modern disciplines’ (in this case neoclassical
economics). Scholars keen on IOK would certainly benefit from reading the material coming out from scholars and graduate students in
western universities. See www.paecon.net.
11
22
AbdulHamid Abū Sulaymān (ed.), Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Workplan. 2nd
revised and expanded edition, chapter 5-7. Herndon: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1989.
_________. Islamization: Reforming Contemporary Knowledge. International Institute of Islamic
Thought, Herndon, 1994.
Abdul Rashid Moten. “Approaches to Islamization of Knowledge: A Review.” International
Conference on Islamization of Human Sciences. Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and
Human Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia: (2000). 1-20.
Aliyu. U. Tilde. “A Critique of the Islamization of the Sciences: Its Philosophy and Methodology.”
The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 6, no. 1 (1989): 201-208.
Ausaf Ali. “An Approach to the Islamization of Social and Behavioral Sciences.” The American
Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 6, no.1 (1989): 37-45.
Fazlur Rahman. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Response.” The American Journal of Islamic Social
Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 1 (1988): 3-11.
Hadi Sharifi. “Review of Islamization of Knowledge by Ismail Raji Al Faruqi.” Muslim Education
Quarterly (MEQ) 1, no. 3 (1984): 88-93.
Ibrahim A. Ragab. “On the Nature and Scope of the Islamization Process: Toward Conceptual
Clarification.” Intellectual Discourse 3, no. 2 (1995): 113-122.
_________. “Creative Engagement of Modern Social Science Scholarship: A Significant Component
of the Islamization of Knowledge Effort.” Intellectual Discourse 5, no. 1 (1997): 35-49.
_________. “On the Methodology of Islamizing Social Science.” Intellectual Discourse 7, no. 1
(1999): 27-52.
Ilyas Ba-Yunus. “Al-Faruqi and Beyond: Future Directions in Islamization of Knowledge.” The
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 1 (1998): 13-28.
Imad al-Din Khalil. Islamization of Knowledge: A Methodology. Herndon: International Institute of
Islamic Thought, 1991.
Ismail Raji al Faruqi. “Islamizing the Social Sciences.” Islamika, 1 (1981): 1-8.
_________________. Islamization of Knowledge: The Problem, Principles and the Workplan.
Herndon: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1982.
Ja’afar Sheikh Idris. “The Islamization of Science: Its Philosophy and Methodology.” The American
Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 4, no. 2 (1987): 201-208.
Louay Safi. “The Quest for an Islamic Methodology: The Islamization of Knowledge Project in Its
Second Decade.” The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 10, no. 1 (1993): 23-48.
M. A. Kazi. “Islamization of Modern Sciences and Technology.” In Islam: Source and Purpose of
Knowledge. Herndon: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1993, 177-186.
Merryl Wyn-Davies. “Rethingking knowledge: Islamization and the future.” Journal of Forecasting,
Planning and Policy 23 (1991): 231-247.
23
Mona Abul-Fadl.. “Islamization as A Force of Global Renewal.” The American Journal of Islamic
Social Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 2 (1988): 163-179.
Nasim Butt. “Al-Faruqi and Ziauddin Sardar: Islamization of Knowledge or the Social Construction of
new disciplines.” MAAS Journal of Islamic Science 5, no. 2 (1989): 79-98.
Rosnani Hashim and Imran Rossidy. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of the
Conception of Al-Attas and Al-Faruqi.” Intellectual Discourse 8, no. 1 (2000): 19-44.
Seyyed Vali Nasr. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Critical Overview.” Islamic Studies 30, no. 3
(1991): 387-400.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Approach to Knowledge or Modernization of Traditional System.”
Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 1, no. 2 (1984): 1-5.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Planning for the Islamization of Education: Pre-Requisites for a Model.” Muslim
Education Quarterly (MEQ) 6, no. 1 (1988): 1-3.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Planning for the Islamization of Education: Contribution of Private Bodies.”
Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 6, no. 2 (1989): 1-3.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Education: Need for the Islamic Frame of Reference.” Muslim
Education Quarterly (MEQ) 6, no. 3 (1989): 1-6.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “Islamization of Education: The Islamic Frame of Reference (Part Two)”, Muslim
Education Quarterly (MEQ), 6(4) (1989): 1-6.
Syed Ali Ashraf. “The Islamic Frame of Reference: (B) The Intellectual Dimension.” Muslim
Education Quarterly (MEQ) 7, no. 1 (1989): 1-8.
Syed Ali Ashraf.
“The Islamic Frame of Reference: The Intellectual Dimension II-The
Methodology.” Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 7, no. 3 (1990): 1-7.
Syed Muhammad Naquib Al Attas. “The Dewesternization of Knowledge.” Chapter 4 in Islam and
Secularism. Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM), 1978, 133-150.
_________. The Concept of Education in Islam: A Framework of an Islamic Philosophy of Education.
Kuala Lumpur: Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM), 1980.
Taha Jabir Al Alwani. “Islamization of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences.” The American Journal
of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS) 6, no. 2 (1989): 227-238.
__________. “Islamization of Knowledge: Yesterday and Today.” The American Journal of Islamic
Social Sciences (AJISS) 12, no. 1 (1995): 81-101.
Umar A. Hassan. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Response.” The American Journal of Islamic Social
Sciences (AJISS) 5, no. 2 (1988): 327-333.
Wan Mohd. Nor Wan Daud. “Islamization of Contemporary: A Brief Comparison Between al-Attas
and Fazlur Rahman.” al-Shajarah, Journal of International Institute of Islamic Thought and
Civilization 2, no. 1 (1997): 1-19.
24
__________. “Islamization of Contemporary Knowledge: Theoretical Dimensions and Practical
Contributions, Chapter 6.” In The Educational Philosophy and Practice of Syed Muhammad Naquib
Al-Attas. Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 1998, 291- 369.
Yasien Mohamed. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of Faruqi and Rahman”,
Muslim Education Quarterly (MEQ) 2, no. 1 (1993): 27-40.
__________. “Islamization: A Revivalist Response to Modernity.” Muslim Education Quarterly
(MEQ) 10, no. 2 (1993): 12-23.
__________. “Islamization of Knowledge: A Critique.” The American Journal of Islamic Social
Sciences (AJISS) 11, no. 2 (1994): 282-293.
Ziauddin Sardar. “Islamization of Knowledge: A State of the Art Report.” In An Early Crescent: The
Future of Knowledge and the Environment in Islam, edited by Ziauddin Sardar. London: Mansell
Publishing Limited, 1989, 27-56.
__________. “Rediscovery of Islamic Epistemology.” Chapter 4 in Islamic Futures: The Shape of
Ideas to Come. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publication, 1988.
25