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.

1
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).
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 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.

3
See Wan Mohd. Nor Wan Daud (1998), pp. 291, 305-311.

2
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).

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 1978-1996, 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.

3
 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 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.

4
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

5
 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.

4
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.

6
Wan Mohd Nor (1997) in his work on al-Attas cautions that one may find those
who are ‘feeble-minded’ 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.

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

7
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’.

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

8
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 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.

9
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. To master the modern disciplines

2. To master the Islamic legacy
3. To establish the specific relevance of Islam to each area of modern
knowledge
4. To seek ways for creative synthesis between the legacy and
modern knowledge.
5. 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. 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
 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

11
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, 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 al-Alwani, 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
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

12
 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 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
desired results in the form of textbooks.
6
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.

13
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 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 12-point 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)

14
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 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’.

15
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

16
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 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

17
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 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.
7
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.

18
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-Attas 8 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.

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

8
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 al-Attas, including
his views on Islamization. It is also interesting to note that in this sense, this book becomes an
intellectual biography of al-Attas rather than being a commemorative work on a scholar as available
for some other scholars.
9
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).

19
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 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

20
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'.

21
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 work-plan 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

22
can say that Yasien disagrees with Faruqi’s work-plan 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 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.

10
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 12-point work-plan.

23
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 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.

24
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.

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.

25
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 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.

26
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 neoclassical-keynesian 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

11
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.

27
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.

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.

28
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.

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.

29
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.

__________. “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.

30