Science has nothing to do with religion. I, therefore, do not at all understand calls for Islamizing science. Science, by nature, is not related to religion. Have you heard of, for example, Islamic physics, Christian chemistry, Jewish engineering, Buddhist mathematics, Confucian psychology, Hindu sociology, Druze medicine or Yazidi geology? Science is like ethics. It does not belong to any religion just like courage, generosity, nobility and altruism. These are human characteristics that do not belong to any religion and are not restricted to the followers of a certain religion. We should ponder over this. Calls for Islamizing science were not launched during the Golden Age of Islamic civilization nor were they promoted by Muslim scientists who led the world in science in their time. Though some scientists were jurists, they never mixed the two. Ibn Rushd, better known in the West as Averroes, was a jurist (faqih) and a judge as well as a doctor. He practiced medicine in a scientific fashion. He was also a philosopher who studied logic using the tools prevalent at the time. These calls to Islamize science are similar to the discourse regarding scientific miracles; they have emerged in this era that we live in which is characterized by scientific regression or weak levels of scientific advancement and decadence of civilization. These calls are merely a reaction to the scientific advancements accomplished by other nations. They indicate a feeling of inferiority toward these advancements. Sciences are not related to religion and cannot be ideologized. I am not only talking about practical sciences, but also about humanities. While it is true that some practical sciences as well as humanities can be subjected to a certain philosophy, such philosophy does not mean that the same unified tools for the explanation of a science are different for other sciences. Let me explain. For example, economics as a science and its tools are the same all over the world and its methods are the same ones applied and followed by all humans. The only difference lies in the philosophy of economics as a science. While the philosophy of socialist economy focuses on achieving social justice, creating job opportunities and meeting the basic needs of a society by productivity, the philosophy of the capitalist economy stresses revenue, growth and profits of any investment regardless of its type and whether a society needs it. The same thing holds true for other sciences. Their methods and philosophies are similar in other places. A scientist who studies physics for peaceful purposes will follow the same methods and tools used by another who studies physics to develop weapons to kill. The only difference lies in the philosophy or interpretation each scientist has in his mind. Deducing new rules, methodologies, and tools for a science is impossible because in the world of science only science has power.
