Allah’s Signs, Man’s Scalpel: Reframing Islamic Scientific Practice Beyond the Positivist Lens

The modern conception of an Islamic ‘Golden Age’ is a dazzling, yet blinding, construct. In our rush to celebrate a period of immense intellectual output – picturing libraries with a million books, astronomers in Samarkand with instruments of breathtaking precision, and physicians wielding life-saving knowledge – we establish a flawed premise: that their historical value lies only in the most visible, quantifiable achievements. Caught in their shine and glare, we anachronistically project our own utilitarian values onto pre-modern Muslim practitioners, reducing an integrated science to an empirical skeleton. 

While the classical Islamic world hosted a diversity of scientific approaches, the ideal of a science fully integrated with theology and ethics, as exemplified by the Andalusian surgeon Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, represented a distinct civilisational project. This cohesive epistemological and metaphysical framework, rooted in the Oneness of Allah (tawhid), actively resisted a bifurcation between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’.  

Al-Zahrawi’s surgical practice exemplifies this ideal, and his work reveals an inseparable fusion of rigorous inquiry, profound contemplation of Allah’s signs, and an unwavering ethical duty that governed his every action. Rather than the result of a single late rupture, this displacement emerged from a centuries-long unravelling, driven first by internal institutional shifts and later fractured by external pressures.

Judging the Past by the Present

The modern scientific paradigm, though having its roots in the European Renaissance and Enlightenment, was solidified much later in the nineteenth century on a positivist foundation.¹ By restricting valid knowledge to only that which can be measured and verified through sensory data, it shapes a vision of science as an empirical, materialistic, and value-neutral enterprise aimed at prediction and control. However, it is a contingent historical development, not a universal measure for what constitutes ‘science.’² To adopt this positivist lens is to see the world through a deliberately narrowed aperture, one that reduces the knowing subject to a purely mentalistic entity and the object of knowledge to a purely material one – forgetting that man has a heart as well as a mind, a soul as well as a body.

By contrast, the pre-modern Islamic intellectual tradition was animated by an integrated worldview. Far from a vague cultural feeling, it constituted a structured vision of reality, with the principle of tawhid at its core.³ Unlike positivist approaches that restrict knowledge to empirically verifiable claims, this doctrine anchored all inquiry in an unwavering commitment to a foundational reality: that the physical world is inextricably bound to divine will. This fostered a unified and hierarchical model of knowledge, where all sciences were seen as interrelated branches of a single tree, all ultimately leading back to Allah, the All-Knowing. Within this hierarchy, the religious and metaphysical sciences occupied the highest level, guiding the other sciences and giving them purpose.⁴ This structure helps explain why a secular bifurcation did not emerge in the same way, as every field of inquiry found its true meaning in a higher, transcendent reality.

While the framework of a tawhid-centric science provides the essential civilisational ideal, this integrated worldview was not monolithic, but rather a dominant current that coexisted and competed with other intellectual streams. In medicine, which deals directly with the sanctity of human life, the ethical-spiritual dimension was inherent. In contrast, the day-to-day practice of a figure like Ibn al-Haytham in physics might appear to work with a functional empiricism that, on the surface, is indistinguishable from a secular one. The critical difference, which Nasr rightly identifies, lies not in the method but in the ultimate purpose and metaphysical context in which that method was employed. 

The clearest proof of this integrated worldview is found in the very nature of the era’s fiercest intellectual debates. The legendary clash between Imam al-Ghazali and the philosopher Ibn Sina transcended a simple binary between ‘faith’ and ‘science,’ representing instead a profound dispute fought within a shared theological cosmos, over the nature of divine action, causality, and the created world.⁵ That the most pivotal questions of the time were fundamentally theological indicates the extent to which metaphysical concerns remained intellectually central. The danger they wrestled with was not the use of reason itself, but its potential to become philosophically autonomous from its divine source – the ideological isolation that would later come to pass. To see this integrated ideal in practice, we need to look no further than the surgical theatre of al-Zahrawi.

Case Study: The Integrated Worldview of Al-Zahrawi

Al-Zahrawi’s magnum opus, Al-Tasrif li-man ‘ajiza ‘an al-ta’lif, is far more than a technical manual. When read through the lens of the Islamic tasawwur, it reveals itself as a guide to an inherently Islamic practice, where surgical skill was a means to a divine end. While grounded in the same rigorous observation that defines modern science, the spirit of this practice differed. It was not the work of a detached empiricist seeking value-neutral data, but the honing of a sacred craft.

This distinction is evident when he justifies his preference for fire cautery through direct experience rather than abstract theory alone: “That has become clear to us by experience through length of service, devotion to the art, and acquaintance with the facts of the matter.”⁶ This reflects a key feature of al-Zahrawi’s worldview: experiential knowledge (“experience,” “facts”) is inseparable from professional dedication (“length of service”) and a higher calling (“devotion to the art”). For him, this hands-on methodology was the tool through which a physician fulfilled his duty to Allah, Al-Bari‘ (The Maker), by mastering the treatment of the bodies He made.

Consequently, studying anatomy became a profound act of contemplating the signs (ayat) of Allah’s wisdom in His creation. His famous admonition, “For he who is not skilled in as much anatomy as we have mentioned is bound to fall into error that is destructive of life,”⁶ must be understood as an expression of deep reverence, transcending mere practical advice. To cut into the human form – fashioned by Allah “in the finest state” (Qur’an 95:4) – without understanding its intricate design could be understood as an act of arrogant ignorance; a moral and spiritual transgression against the Creator. This approach mirrors the broader civilisational paradigm, in which studying nature is, in the final analysis, studying the signs of God in His creation.

The modern view often sees religious law as a hindrance to scientific progress, predominantly based on aspects of European intellectual history that highlight institutional tensions between church authority and scientific inquiry. The case of al-Zahrawi demonstrates that the Islamic experience with science is different: the Shari’ah itself provided the foundation for his practice by establishing medicine as a moral discipline governed by the principle of sacred trust (amanah). The physician’s skill was a trust from God, and the patient’s body was a trust in his care. This was not a novel idea; al-Zahrawi was part of an established tradition of adab al-tabib (the conduct of the physician). A century earlier, figures like Ishaq ibn Ali al-Ruhawi were already articulating a framework where the physician was a moral agent. As Ghaly notes, al-Ruhawi advocated for professional accountability through meticulous record-keeping, so that if a patient died, the record could be reviewed by authorities to ensure the treatment was appropriate.⁷ This was a real-world system of professional integrity deeply grounded in the concept of amanah.

This ethic of amanah was given force by Islamic law. Al-Zahrawi’s prioritisation of patient safety, as when he advises that in risky procedures “…to let the patient alone is preferable and safer,”⁶ is a direct application of the foundational maxim, ‘La darar wa la dirar.’⁸ Furthermore, his drive to compile and teach his knowledge was framed by the concept of a communal obligation (fard kifayah). He saw it as his duty to preserve the amanah of surgical knowledge, lamenting it to be “totally lacking in our land and time… Therefore I decided to revive this art by expounding… it in this treatise.”⁶

The result was a practitioner whose professional and spiritual lives were completely integrated. Al-Zahrawi dissolves any sacred-secular divide in his warning to students: “Purify yourselves of anything which you fear may cause doubt as to your deen and your dunya; for this will perpetuate your good name and will elevate your fortunes in this world and the next.”⁶ This holistic vision reflects the ideal of the hakim,² whose purpose was not just healing the body but turning the soul towards al-Shafi’, the ultimate Healer.

From Tasawwur to Apologetics

Al-Zahrawi’s world presents a model of integrated scientific practice, raising a critical question: what led to the disintegration of this vision? Rather than a single event, this disintegration was a complex unraveling over centuries, driven first by internal shifts before being shattered by external forces.

A pivotal change began during the Seljuk ‘Sunni Revival’ of the 11th and 12th centuries, which saw the widespread establishment of the madrasah. As Nasr argues, this period saw a gradual but decisive shift in the curriculum, where the “transmitted” religious sciences were increasingly prioritised over the “rational” sciences.² The great sociologist Ibn Khaldun, observing the long-term outcome of this trend, noted that several sciences had “come to the point of being allowed to disappear… a result of a decrease in civilisation.”⁹ This internal recentring suggests that the ecosystem supporting figures like al-Zahrawi was already being altered from within.

However, this was not a simple story of linear ‘decline’. As Saliba argues, significant scientific innovation continued well into the 16th century, complicating any narrative of a sudden collapse.¹⁰ A more accurate picture is that of a tradition whose intellectual and financial priorities were shifting internally. The reconfigured tradition- still active but perhaps more insular- was then confronted by the overwhelming driving force of European colonial expansion, bolstered by funds from the colonisation of the ‘New World.’¹⁰ This was the rupture described by Hallaq: a profound epistemic and political reordering that systematically dismantled the socio-religious framework of Muslim societies. The state university replaced the waqf-funded madrasah, and secular civil codes supplanted the authority of Islamic law. Where the pre-modern state existed to serve the Shari’ah, the new colonial and post-colonial state made itself sovereign, displacing the Shari‘ah from its central role in public governance.¹¹

The colonial project did not act upon a static tradition, but one whose own intellectual priorities had already been shifting for centuries. It was this severing from their intellectual and spiritual roots that led modern Muslims to judge their own history by the secular Western paradigm they had adopted and superimposed, seeking to prove ‘we had it first’ rather than rebuilding the integrated worldview that gave the tradition its original meaning.

Conclusion

To properly honour the legacy of the Islamic scientific tradition, we must first see it for what it was: a complex and contested field in which the ideal of a science fully integrated with the sacred was a powerful ethical force. The true lesson of the ‘Golden Age’ resides in the enduring model of this ideal provided by practitioners like Al-Zahrawi. His surgical theatre was the physical embodiment of a cohesive tasawwur where the scalpel of man was always guided by the signs of Allah. Reclaiming this legacy would demand more than simply “adding an Islamic layer” to philosophically unbudging secular science; it requires the foundational work of rebuilding an epistemology rooted in tawhid – re-conceptualising the purpose of science as a means of contemplation and responsible khilafah. 

Al-Zahrawi’s brief reference to a “deep secret concerning fire… too subtle for your understanding”⁶ challenges the contemporary expectation of unrestricted methodological transparency. By guarding this knowledge, he establishes that technical mastery is a conditional privilege, dangerous if severed from spiritual maturity. Reclaiming this legacy demands rebuilding the institutional framework capable of bearing this weight – restoring a science that understands the power of fire only through the light of Allah.

---

Disclaimer: Material published by Traversing Tradition is meant to foster scholarly inquiry and rich discussion. The views, opinions, beliefs, or strategies represented in published articles and subsequent comments do not necessarily represent the views of Traversing Tradition or any employee thereof.

Photo by Casey Horner on Unsplash

Works Cited:

1. Al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naquib. Islam and Secularism. IBFIM, 2014. [↩]
2. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis in Modern Man. ABC International Group, 1997. [↩] [↩] [↩]
3. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. Science and Civilization in Islam. ABC International Group, 1968. [↩]
4. Bakar, Osman. Classification of Knowledge in Islam: A Study in Islamic Philosophies of Science. Islamic Texts Society, 1998. [↩]
5. Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-Falasifa), translated by Michael E. Marmura. Brigham Young University Press, 2000. [↩]
6. Al-Zahrawi, Abu al-Qasim. On Surgery and Instruments. Translated and edited by M. S. Spink and G. L. Lewis, University of California Press, 1973. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
7. Ghaly, Mohammed. “Adab al-Ṭabīb by Isḥāq b. ʿAlī al-Ruhāwī.” Key Classical Works on Islamic Ethics, edited by Mutaz al-Khatib, Brill, 2024, pp. 54-94. [↩]
8. Malik ibn Anas. Muwatta. Book 36, Hadith 1435. Sunnah.com, https://sunnah.com/urn/514340. Accessed 6 Oct. 2025. [↩]
9. Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated by Franz Rosenthal, Princeton University Press, 1967. [↩]
10. Saliba, George. Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance. MIT Press, 2007. [↩] [↩]
11. Hallaq, Wael B. The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity’s Moral Predicament. Columbia University Press, 2014. [↩]