Islam and Science Fiction

Consider this a kind of follow-up to the topic of the previous post. I have to acknowledge Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad's path-breaking work on Islam and science fiction. Muhammad has compiled an anthology on the subject, entitled A Mosque Among the Stars:

He also maintains the Islam and Science fiction website. I was particularly impressed by Irfan Rydhan's contribution, "Star Wars: An Islamic Perspective". This is no mean feat, given how so much has been written about Star Wars, with Lucas generally excoriated for his portrayal of the Jedi faith. For example, Slavoj Zizek, as I have previously mentioned on this blog, seems to entertain no doubts that this integral aspect of the film is in keeping with the West's interest in Buddhism. Contra this view, Irfan Rydhan writes:

“The Force” is the common thread between all six movies and is defined as an energy field, which binds all living things together  (i.e. Allah, God, a Supreme Being or Power that most religion’s adherents worship, follow and/or yearn to become a part of).  According to Star Wars mythology, the Jedi “are a noble order of protectors unified by their belief and observance of the Force.”


"George Lucas, the creator of the Star Wars films, has attributed the origins of “The Force” to the film 21-87 (dir. Arthur Lipsett) which used samples from many sources.”One of the audio sources Lipsett sampled for 21-87 [a film that had a great influence on Lucas] was a conversation between artificial intelligence pioneer Warren S. McCulloch and Roman Kroitor , a cinematographer who went on to develop IMAX. In the face of McCulloch’s arguments that living beings are nothing but highly complex machines, Kroitor insists that there is something more: ‘Many people feel that in the contemplation of nature and in communication with other living things, they become aware of some kind of force, or something, behind this apparent mask which we see in front of us, and they call it God.”

The Wikipedia entry on 21-87 also notes how this short not only influenced the aesthetic of THX-1138 and American Graffiti, but is said to have inspired the term "The Force". Furthermore, Princess Leia's cell in Star Wars: Episode 4 (A New Hope) is numbered 21-87.

Intriguing enough to be sure, but I found that Rydhan's article maintains a consistently high standard of credibility throughout, in its jump from these recorded facts about Lucas's original inspiration, to the possible parallels to the tenets of Islam--including, for example, citation of a Sufi website, which includes the following description: "“We are at the core a Movement of Jedi..." Also noteworthy is the sympathetic reading of the "sand people" in the films as "a metaphor of the Arabs and other people of the Middle East."

I am still exploring Islam and Science Fiction, but read in light of my previous post, I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss  it as somehow divorced from "real world" concerns. Indeed, to the contrary, as we increasingly confront the conception of life as an "emerging property", there seems more reason than ever before to turn to science fiction to interrogate its provision of something like a "sociology of anticipation", with respect to these developments. It is certainly difficult to imagine a time when Islam would not play a constitutive, rather than a merely after-the-event role, in this emerging formation. I therefore commend Muhammad Aurangzab Ahmad and his fellow contributors for laying the groundwork for these conversations.

One final thing, if you're interested in watching 21-87, you can do so here.

Willful Misinterpretation: The Father, the Master and Doctor Strangelove in Vietnam

Why 'Star Wars' Is Secretly Terrifying for Women

Why 'Star Wars' Is Secretly Terrifying for Women -- powered by Cracked.com

“Perfectibilism” in science fiction narratives about biological destiny

Sci fi author Robert J Sawyer proves himself an eloquent critic of the most reactionary strands of biologism underpinning the genre. I think it fair to say though that many of his points, and the basic underlying approach, will be familiar to anybody versed in the basics of cultural studies type reading methods. But there are still some provocative revelations that make it worth watching all 3 parts (some of which are more specifically related to the wasteland of television, that evidently periodically requires a tonic of revitalisation, oftentimes provided by sci fi).

The part I most enjoyed was his comprehensive demolition of the cultural legacy of Star Wars, and the thought occurred to me that any assessment is complicated by the fact that Lucas' work does not easily fall into the Darwinian paradigm (despite the prominence of the genetic aristocracy of the Jedi Knights). The conception of "The Force" appears closer to Intelligent Design, typifying an energy force behind all living things, albeit something only accessible to an enlightened elite. Hence it is probably more accurate to say that George Lucas manages in effect to combine the worst of both worlds, Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

I will try to tread carefully here, because afterall, why should one in principle exclude apriori a paradigm on the basis that it is kept afloat by ghastly political fellow travelers? Darwinism has long being championed by eugenicists, Nazis and the like, and yet its contemporary supporters conveniently forget this when they attempt to take ID to task because of its unfortunate association with the Christian Right. What may prove more compelling is the possible generalisability of the concept of "perfectibilism" outside of its original context of application. Indeed, this ambition is potentially radical, and has been taken up in a particular fashion by those currently associated with the "posthumanist" project. I take it that sociologists such as Steve Fuller have in mind its possible socialist applications, along with a wait and see pragmatic scientific approach, wherein, in other hands (i.e. not the Christian Right), it may someday yield positive research innovations.

As Fuller argues though, these ends tend to be lost sight of by the warrriors of the "science wars", such as Norman Levitt, who see merely epistemological relativism and undesirable political consequences:

"Had Levitt read my book a bit more carefully, he would have noticed that the relevant feature of Newton’s Unitarianism that motivated subsequent generations of scientists — I pay special attention to Joseph Priestley — is what is sometimes called “perfectibilism”, the Christian heresy that humans through their own will and intellect might become God. This is the radical implication of deus absconditus that Levitt misses. In the 20th century, this orientation animated such pioneers of artificial intelligence as Warren Weaver, Norbert Wiener, and Herbert Simon. I count these people as ID theorists just as much as Dembski and Behe.

...As any student of the history of science knows, challenges to the status quo often originate in strange, sometimes even unsavory, quarters. After all, Darwin’s own theory was kept afloat for its first half-century largely by an unholy alliance of capitalists, eugenicists, free-floating racists, and wishful theologians. The trick is for the challenger to expand from its initial base and secure the support of the broader scientific community. Darwin’s theory has certainly done that; ID has not. My book was written to show that there are good historical reasons for believing that ID’s scientific constituency could well extend beyond the offices of the Discovery Institute. Why Levitt should fear this prospect to such an extent that it compromises his critical judgment remains a mystery to me."

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-01-16.html