If man is to be the legislator, as the West asserts, then how does he legislate? How does he derive his human knowledge? What is the criterion to measure reality? The West asked methodological questions, related to the productive way of thinking, after it removed religion from life, both as a source of knowledge and method. The West’s answer was restricted to two doctrines: the Rationalist doctrine and the Empirical doctrine. The Rationalist doctrine asserts that thinking is precedent over reality. So it depends on reason, as a source of knowledge and not the senses. The doctrine views that reason, whether by intuition or deduction or through innate knowledge, is a measure of certainty and reality, not experience or experimentation. As for the Empirical doctrine, it views that sensation is the only source to generate thoughts. It also asserts that all precedent human knowledge was also obtained through experimentation and sensation, “a posteriori” (Latin: “from the latter”) rather than “a priori.” In accordance with Empiricism, a scientific experimental method was formed. The word empiricism is derived from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience,” indicating its dependency on experimentation as a measure of reality and knowledge. From the empirical point of view, several philosophies emerged that influenced the thoughts related to systems of the society in the West. From this empirical view, the philosophies of materialism, utilitarianism, positivism, pragmatism and others emerged.

Considering the achievements and discoveries made by the scientific empirical method, that contributed to the Renaissance of the Western materially, the West adopted this method as a method of thinking. It was revered to the level of sanctity, making it the only basis of thinking and the measure of reality. The West gave scientific thinking dominance in all matters, generalizing for all research to the extent that some of the knowledge related to even man, society and its relations, is carried out according to this empirical scientific method, based on Determinism associated with Newtonian mechanics. With the emergence of the theory of relativity, quantum theory, unconventional discoveries and other matters, questions were raised against the certainty of science, as well as determinism. This paved the way for a counter-revolution against science, empirical method and determinism, from the middle of the twentieth century. So some of the Western thinkers attempted to refute science and its prominent failures, particularly with regards to its view of man as a natural, material phenomenon. Nevertheless, science has remained dominant, retaining dominance over knowledge in the West. The scientific method has remained as a measure of thinking, as a criterion for criticism and as a basis of knowledge. Thus by referring to scientific thinking or critical thinking, the West means the empirical scientific method alone.

In fact, the Western theory of science is invalid in two aspects: it is invalid from the aspect of it being a knowledge in itself. Also it is invalid from the aspect of its consideration as the basis of thinking.

As for the aspect of considering science as knowledge itself, it is found to be in the perception of the West. Science is not just a method but guaranteed knowledge, as an ultimate human comprehension. Auguste Comte (died 1857), the founder of the doctrine of positivism, offered an account of social evolution, proposing that society undergoes three phases in its quest for the truth according to a general law of three stages. Comte’s stages were (1) the theological stage, (2) the metaphysical stage, and (3) the positivity stage, also known as the scientific stage.

During the theological stage, humans used to explain natural phenomena by way of supernatural powers, represented by gods. During the metaphysical stage, the stage of the investigation, humans started reasoning and questioning, questioning authority and religion, regarding natural phenomena. During the positivity stage, the scientific stage, humans learn regarding nature according to the empirical method. They explain nature through this method, formulating the positive knowledge in the scientific and descriptive forms. This enables man to dominate nature, controlling it and utilizing it for his purpose, as Auguste Comte claimed. However, science has failed miserably, regardless of claims and advocacy. Science did not provide man with comprehensive and inclusive knowledge about his existence, his role and objective. Instead, it only provided him materialistic knowledge that generated the industrial and post-industrial civilization. It is distinguished by its in-depth qualitative and quantitative explanation of the world, contributing to human beings utilizing nature.

However, science has kept man away from knowing himself, comprehending the essence of his humanity and distracting him from comprehending his being and his becoming. This is because science considers the search of man for both his objective in existence and the reality of his destiny, as mere philosophical research. Science relegates this search to the realm of cosmology, ontology and metaphysics. Science maintains that tangible knowledge of material reality transcends and so this search cannot be concluded, so there is no use in researching. Thus the nature of science is of a descriptive nature, defining the world qualitatively and quantitatively. Therefore, science is closer to description than interpretation, as interpretation entails matters beyond description. Interpretation (tafseer) is the study of causes of existence of phenomena and its objective. Description by science does not provide man with the explanation of his reality. This is because science disregards explaining the objective. It only analyzes the world in both qualitative and quantitative senses. It only helps humankind to understand the world in terms of its description. However, it does not provide humankind principles for conduct or concepts regarding purpose. Regardless of its expanse, the knowledge provided by science is only a partial knowledge, related to a part of man’s existence and his world. Science does not encompass all the phenomena of his life and the aspects of his existence. Allah (swt) says,

“They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware.” [TMQ Surah Ar-Rum 30:7], There are many questions which science is unable to answer. The most important of them are regarding why? Why do humans exist? Why does the Universe exist? Why does life exist? These are all crucial questions related to man and his life. Man can neither rest nor make decisions, unless he finds the answers for them, whether the answers are valid or invalid.

In this respect, the French politician and writer Andre Malraux (died 1976) wrote the novel Man's Fate (French: La Condition humaine, The Human Condition'), which dramatizes the impossibility of finding permanent meaning or humanity, including the remark, “One can communicate even with death .... It’s most difficult, but perhaps that is the meaning of life ..." In addition to this, the traits of scientific method, as Westerners say, are progressivism and proliferation. The implication of this is that all the scientific knowledge is subject to development, evolution, adjustment and change. However, this also means that science does not provide ultimate knowledge. Thus it is not possible for a man to build his life and his systems upon this basis. It is thus wrong to say that science is a knowledge that establishes the meaning of life, explaining the reality of human existence.

As for second the aspect, considering scientific method as a basis of thinking, its methodology is corrupted. Its corruption is from several aspects, some of which are:

First: Scientific method in arriving at knowledge is the specific method of research, achieving true knowledge of a subject that is researched. It is based on specific steps: Observation, Induction (formulation of hypotheses), Deduction (experiment formulation), Testing (data collection) and Evaluation (data analysis and theory formulation). These are the steps of the classical scientific method. There are debates amongst the Western thinkers about the precedence of observation over hypothesis and vice versa. So the Westerners distinguish the inductive method, body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle, from the deductive method, the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion. Nonetheless the scientific method determines much of natural science, such as physics, chemistry and biology, as well as social science, including sociology, management science, political science, psychology and history.

The method called the scientific method is not fit to be a basis of thinking for man. This is because laying a basis of thinking for humankind necessitates that it must be accessible to all of humanity, so that they can all build a foundation for their thinking. However, the scientific method is in fact a complicated method that is subject to specific laws and conditions, which not all humans can either adhere to or fulfill. Realistically, scientific thinking can be a basis of thinking for particular people and factions, but not for the general masses. If knowledge or reality is the right of all the people, thinking must be made accessible upon a general basis, for everyone to build upon. This is not the case in the scientific method. The emergence of the scientific method in the West and its societal prominence were both based on a revolutionary critical trend that rejected ecclesiastical knowledge. The rejection was because the Church and clergy confiscated individual freedom for discussion and criticism, depriving the right to accept or reject by volition.

Moreover, by making science as a basis of thinking in the West, it displaced the Church as a sublime authority that must be heeded and complied. What was provided by science as explanations for the universe and life, even though they are not accessible for all to formulate and comprehend, became obliged upon everyone to submit to. This is even though they are mere hypotheses that have not reached the level of certain knowledge. Even when scientific knowledge is proved, it cannot be considered as ultimate knowledge, for it is always subject to correction, amendment and evolution. This was how the Western thinking turned from submission to the Church to the blind submission and following of science. Moreover, some of them consider science as a religion, with the example of the Scientology cult. Science does not possess the ultimate answer related to the issue of human existence. So, science, which was intended to emancipate man in the West, itself became a shackle.

Second: The scientific method is based on the basis of experimentation. It is only possible to research materials that are tangibly sensorial. It has no place within the realm of thoughts or research related to thinking. As for what the West sees of generalizing the scientific method to all the knowledge and all fields of human research, it is by emulation and imitation of the fundamental method of thinking itself. There are Westerners who concede that the empirical method cannot be applied to all human knowledge. They cite that human emotions and sensations cannot be studied from the empirical data perspective. This is because they are not tangible materials that can be subjected to scientific experimentation. Human relationships that shape the society, with specific variations, also cannot be studied according to empirical methods, based on laboratory testing.

Thirdly: The scientific method is not of definitive results. Instead, it is indefinite and subject to error. This is the matter observed and agreed upon in scientific research. Therefore, scientific knowledge is described as probabilistic and developing knowledge. Scientific thinking is subjected to evolution, development and change. Thus scientific thinking is not certain. Accordingly, the scientific method is not fit as a basis for human thinking, which man can establish his existence upon and adopt as the basis of his life. This is because it neither provides stable facts nor does it give ultimate results about the existence of things, their characteristics and their essences. It doesn't even provide a fundamental method of thinking. If the scientific method is taken as the basis of thinking, it will lead to the dilution of the concept of human existence, losing the meaning of life. This will result in obscurity in comprehending the essence of existence and confusion within man’s awareness of himself, his objective and his role in life. This is the matter that would shake man, making him a mere absurd being. In short, though the scientific method has its advantages and is needed by man, it is not fit to be a basis of thinking. This is even whilst it is appropriate for empirical sciences and some of the fields of knowledge that can be subjected to laboratory testing.

The correct method that must be taken as a basis of thinking, making it an arbitrator to judge on things and matters, is the rational method of thinking. If the rational method is utilized correctly by transmitting the sensed reality through sensations to the brain with the presence of previous information (which is neither previous nor subsequent opinion), this will interpret the reality, as it gives the correct results. Sensation is inseparable from thinking, contrary to what some Western thinkers assert. Previous information is not the previously held opinions, as asserted by some Western thinkers. Previous information is the necessary element required for thinking. The rational method, whether it is defined correctly or not, is the method upon which man acts to think as a human,

judging upon things, comprehending their existence, reality and characteristics. It is the method of thinking that is accessible to all people, which humans, regardless of their educational level, automatically adopt in their understandings, comprehensions and in passing their udgments. The rational method is suitable for all the branches of knowledge and research fields. Thus it is suitable for natural science as well as social science. Moreover, it has two distinguishing features that are not found in the scientific method. The rational method is distinguished by its ability to generate new ideas, unlike the scientific method, which is characterized by the capacity of discovery and conclusion. This is because the scientific method reveals the existing and it does not offer the non-existent. It is built upon the existing and does not generate the non-existent. Thus the scientific method does not generate new ideas. As for the second distinguishing feature of the rational method, it is the ability of providing definitive results about the existence of things. It provides man with decisive and definitive facts to comprehend the meaning of his life, unlike the scientific method which has a probabilistic nature. The scientific method does not provide man anything but speculations, having the possibility of error.

It may be asked: how can the rational method of thinking be made the fundamental thinking, as it has been established previously that the mind (‘aql) is incapable, deficient and limited and so it cannot define what is good (khair) or bad (sharr), and what is pleasant (hassan) or ugly (qabeeh)? Or how can rational thinking be the fundamental thinking for humans, when it is said after that there is a Power other than the mind that determines for man what brings him benefit and what prevents harm? The answer is: Rational thinking is itself the basis to affirm such a Power that determines for a man what is good or bad, what is pleasant or ugly. Thus, the mind confirms that there is a Creator behind the universe, man and life who created them all, and He is Allah (swt). The mind also confirms that man is a creation who is incapable of generating a system to organize his relationship with his Creator. Accordingly, there must be a Messenger who conveys the Message of the Creator, placing the system to organize the relationships between the Creator and the created. The mind also confirms the inability of a creature to generate a complete system without contradiction or disparity or difference, upon whose basis man would satiate his instincts and organic needs, with the finest of arrangements. Accordingly, from this perspective, there must also be a system devoid of imperfection and contradiction conveyed by the Messenger, which the Creator is pleased with. Thus there is no contradiction between making the rational method the fundamental thinking and Imaan (confirmed belief) in the Power Who is Allah (swt), Who organizes the life affairs of humans, defining for them what is good, bad, pleasant and ugly.