I have been observing very closely the dialogue between AB Sulaiman ( Limiting realm of Islamic thinking ) and Dr Rafidah H Mokhtar ( Heaven, hell a psychological relief ) on the issue of Islam and science.

I have to say there are a lot of good points forwarded by Sulaiman. At the same time, I cannot help but affirm Rafidah's assertion that Islam is of paramount importance not only among the Muslims, but also for the world at large. The only problem is that she did not prove why this is so.

If her understanding of Islam is confined to, as Sulaiman mentioned, the purely dogmatic literalist thinking of Islam, then this is where I shall have to disagree with her. If her understanding of Islam refers to its true essence ie, the universality of its message that transcends dogmatic complexities, then I shall speak for it. From this standpoint, let me begin my role as a reconciler of the two.

Sulaiman's assertion that Islam and scientific thinking are poles apart can only be true if he is referring to the first variant of Islam. However, if we move the discourse to a more intellectual and epistemological level, we will find that Islam, unlike the version that we conventionally know it today, is not only parallel to, but constitutes the basis of scientific thinking. I shall explain how.

Before going into the core of the debate, it is crucial for any person involved in this discourse to understand its epistemology. Islam derives its semantic connection from the verb 'aslama' which means to submit. In the context of the Holy Quran, this connotation carries the meaning of submitting to God. Thus, Islam is a noun denoting a domain - physical or metaphysical - where its constituents submit themselves to God. But what does submission entail?

Based on the semantic foundation above, the Holy Qur'an defines Islam as 'ad-deen al-fitrah' (the natural way of life). But what does this exactly mean? It means that Islam denotes a domain in which a natural state of being, a natural system, is already in place. Human beings are born into this pre-existing system. Therefore they are by default part of this system.

Thus, every human being is naturally 'Muslim', they don't become 'Muslims'. This is a very important point. Hence, although today the term 'Islam' carries such a negative connotation all around the world, at an intellectual and epistemological level, it simply denotes the natural order that we all live in.

Every being engages in this system from Day One according to their capacity of being (eg animals, plants or humans). It is when humans violate this natural order, acting in ways that depart from what is natural for himself (eg, indiscriminate killing) that he is outside the fold of Islam. Thus, the grand objective of this 'body of truth' - as Sulaiman coined it - is the preservation of this natural order, to nurture the right social conditions so as to preserve this natural order.

With reference to the debate, the ratification of this natural order involves affirming the oneness of God and His connection to the natural order. It involves every effort in trying to accord recognition to the Creator of its creations. Hence Islam, in sum, involves the preservation of the natural order and the link between the Creator and His creations. It is from this basis, that a plethora of discourse and fields of specialisation have been developed by mankind to serve this main purpose. Such an orientation gave a tremendous impetus for the development of science. And history has not lied to us in this regard.

History is littered with examples of prominent scientists and philosophers of this orientation. Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Avveroes (Ibn Rush), Ibn Khaldun and Ibn-Farabi are good examples of how such an orientation has made remarkable achievement and contributed greatly to the field of philosophy and medicine. It is worth nothing that Avicenna's work has, up till the present, become one of the main references of conventional science, particularly its treatise on animals.

If this is the case, what is its antithesis? Islam is concerned with the accordance of due recognition to the Creator of His creation, which is nature. Thus, Islam's antithesis is the orientation that denies the connection of God with His creation, the severing of the link between them so as to make the latter devoid of Divine substance.

This can be seen in all kinds of attempts today in the field of conventional science to disprove the existence of God. With this orientation, they go to great lengths and spend millions to justify their thesis.

To say that this latter orientation is far more exuberant and sophisticated in producing more discoveries and contributing more towards the field of science is an empirically weak point. The only reason why the former orientation has reached its nadir is because there is a grave lack of understanding of what constitutes Islam and what this 'body of truth' requires from its constituents.

Instead, Islam, as rightfully argued by Sulaiman, has been erroneously given a cultural and ritual form far from what it was meant to be. What aggravates this further is the encroachment of concepts alien to this body of truth, which has up till today caused confusion in the minds of its constituents. This constitutes the main obstacle towards its progress.

If the Islam vs 'science' debate is to proceed, it should proceed within this framework. The proper foundations have been laid. The proper dichotomy has been made. Now choose your side.