The Irish playwright George Bernard Shawâs (1856â1950) philosophical comedy drama Man and Superman contains a long third act, the âDream sceneâ (sometimes also referred to as the âHell sceneâ) which, due to its length, isâsadly, but understandablyâoften omitted from stage productions. This act involves a philosophical debate between Don Juan/Jack Tanner and the Devil. Despite its frequent omission, it is an important part of the play. As Shaw himself stated:
I took the legend of Don Juan in its Mozartian form and made it a dramatic parable of Creative Evolution. But being then at the height of my invention and comedic talent, I decorated it too brilliantly and lavishly. I surrounded it with a comedy of which it formed only one act, and that act was so completely episodical (it was a dream which did not affect the action of the piece) that the comedy could be detached and played by itself. (Shaw 1987, Preface)
An interesting phrase in the quote above is âCreative Evolutionâ. The philosophical underpinning of the play is Shawâs own contentious interpretation of the French philosopher Henri Bergsonâs (1859â1941) concept of âorthogenesisâ, of evolution motivated by Ă©lan vital , humanityâs natural creative impulse (Bergson 1983), combined with the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzscheâs (1844â1900) concept of the Ăbermensch , the âOverhumanâ. In the Dream scene, heaven and hell are metaphors for two opposing attitudes towards life on earth. On the one hand there is the diabolical, represented by hell, where no improvement in the human condition is possible and, consequently, no hope or salvation. Heaven, on the other hand, symbolises something much higher and nobler in which human improvement and progress is indeed achievable (Wisenthal 1971, p. 299). The Devil cynically argues that the power that governs the earth is not Life, but Death, for âMan measures his strength by his destructivenessâ (Shaw 1970, p. 654). The Devil considers man (as opposed to the gender neutral âManâ) as âthe most predatory and destructive expression of lifeâ (Gibbs 1976, p. 170), whereas Don Juan argues for the potential for man to achieve âhigher ⊠organisation and completer self-consciousnessâ (Shaw 1970, p. 660). Don Juan does go on to differentiate between masculine and feminine forms of creativity in a somewhat reductive and essentialist manner, but in a more metaphorical sense the marriage of Don Juan/Jon Tanner to Ann Whitefield can be seen as âa union of contemplative and primary forms of creativityâ (Gibbs 1976, p. 172).
At root in Shawâs play is an optimism in the human, whether this be male or female, to evolve, hence the title Man and Superman. This confidence in the human to progress is also the main ingredient of this book, and this is the reason for the title Muslim and Supermuslim, for âManâ can readily be substituted for âMuslimâ. One is synonymous with the other. If I may be perhaps overly simplistic for a moment by defining philosophy as concerning itself with the âbig questionsâ, surely one such âbig questionâ is what does it mean to be human? This philosophical preoccupation with the human, going back in western philosophy to the ancient Greeks, is also a concern for Muslim believers. Whilst it has been conventionally accepted within the Islamic tradition that there has historically been some degree of animosity and suspicion towards the philosophical, as opposed to the theological and legal, tradition, this work will set out to show that, in actual fact, philosophy is, and has been through most of its history, central to Islam. Given this, it is only right that we should consider what the Islamic tradition can contribute to one of the most important questions for today: the future of the human.
The existential menace that looms over humanityâs identity and existence has become more imaginable in recent years, certainly since the detonation of the first atomic bomb on July 16, 1945, from which point humankind has the power to cause its own extinction. The term âAnthropoceneâ is not yet recognised or properly defined officially by anthropologists, although it is becoming increasingly used in modern parlance to refer to a new geological epoch which is marked by significant human impact upon the Earthâs ecosystem (Waters et al. 2014). The Anthropocene Working Group is currently occupied in accumulating evidence in arguing for the case for the Anthropocene to be recognised as an official geologic epoch. This is yet to be ratified. One of the issues is that even if the term is accepted, agreement needs to be reached as to when was the official beginning of this epoch. For example, does it begin with the testing of the first atom bomb in New Mexico, or further back to, say, the Industrial Revolution?
Officially we are still in the Holocene (ârecent wholeâ), the post-glacial geological epoch that began some 10,000â12,000 years ago, but the call for a new epoch, the Anthropocene, is growing (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). The term âAnthropoceneâ itself is a combination of anthropos, the Greek for âhumanâ, and â-ceneâ, which is the suffix used in names of geological epochs. The word was first used by the ecologist Eugene Stoermer in the early 1980s to describe what he observed of the industrial pollution on the wildlife of the Great lakes that separate Canada from the US (Lovelock 2019, p. 37), but as early as 1926 the Russian geologist V.I. Vernadsky acknowledged the growing power of the human when he wrote âthe direction in which the processes of evolution must proceed, namely towards increasing consciousness and thought, and forms having greater and greater influence on their surroundingsâ. In 1924 the term ânoösphereâ, the âworld of thoughtâ, was coined by the French Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin and E. LeRoy (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). Geologists tend to see earth history in terms of millennia, and so to apply an epoch to humansâwho in geological terms have only been around during a metaphorical blink of an eyeâmay seem like hubris but, whether officially recognised as an epoch or not, there is no denying the impact human activity has had on the earthâs system. In particular, the damaging effects such as global warming, oceanic acidification, habitat loss, and so on have increased the concern that Homo sapiens as a species is a detriment not only to other species but to itself. This concern has prompted ecology movements to engage in self-scrutiny and to lobby governments and corporations, who might not always be so scrupulous in their anxiety for the environment, to alter their policies and practices. Islam, for its part, has a growing body of research and groups in the field of ecology (though still in its infancy), often citing the call for Muslims to live up to their responsibilities as khalifa (Qurâan 6:167), or guardians, of Godâs creation for the sake of future generations. The concern for the environment, therefore, is seen as an act of religious worship and a duty. The role of humanity as âguardianâ suggests a paternalism towards other species, but transhumanism takes the status of Homo sapiens into a new territory, not so much as protectors of the planet, rather a possible enemy to itself and others that need to be overcome.
This âovercomingâ of the human is where transhumanism comes in: a school of thought that is increasing in terms of scholarly research and importance. Yet, transhumanism is a catch-all term: how this âovercomingâ is to be understood covers a very broad spectrum of views within the transhumanist movement, from the less radical enhancement of the human species that will allow the humans to adapt, survive, and thrive more readily to the changing environment, to the more drastic where Homo sapiens, if they survive at all, will be the cousin, perhaps the poorer cousin, of a new Humanity 2.0. This more radical school of thought inevitably raises important religious questions, particularly concerning the status of humankind in relation to God and creation. Whilst Islamic authority can be found and utilised in a way that encourages Muslims to protect the planet, it may be more difficult to argue that Islam can justify the possible extinction or, at best, depreciation, of the current human species (i.e. Humanity 1.0) in its quest to achieve such environmental goals. Having said that, however, whilst difficult to argue, this is not the same as saying that it is impossible, provided one is careful in the articulation of terms, most especially when dealing with such generalist words as âtranshumanistâ and âIslamâ.
In Chap. 2, therefore, I will clearly focus on a particular expression of transhumanism and how this can be applied to a particular expression of Islam. The reasons for this should be obvious, for nothing adds more to confusion and misunderstanding than a liberal use of general terms that can mean many different things to different people. I begin by examining what is meant by âtranshumanismâ in the modern context and what assumptions are made in terms of the nature of the human and the antagonism towards religious belief. The middle way approach between transhumanism and religion more generally is something that is already being engaged in, and has been for some years now. Transhumanists have certainly been willing to embrace the âeasternâ religions, especially Confucianism and Buddhism, which may allow for the perceptionâall depending of course on how interpretedâof the human being as at one stage in an evolutionary process. Going back to 2003, an informal meeting took place between the World Transhumanist Association (WTA , now known as Humanity+) president, Nick Bostrom, and the Templeton Oxford Summer Seminars in Christianity and the Sciences. This discussion led to an informal working paper entitled, âA Platform for Conversation: Transhumanism and the Christian Worldviewâ. What has Islam contributed so far? Frankly, very little, and the problem is that when Muslims address issues that arise in transhumanism they do tend to look to the prescriptive paradigmatic religious sources of, primarily, the Qurâan, and its kin, the hadith and shariâa for answers. This book subscribes to the view presented in Shahab Ahmedâs (1966â2015) ground-breaking work What Is Islam? (2016), which cogently looks to a creative and explorative explication of Islamic sources which are all too often ignored (by Muslims and non-Muslims alike), yet they provide so much guidance in terms of meaning and value. An awareness of the complexities and diversity of Islamic belief is key to understanding the relationship between Islam and transhumanism. Many transhumanistsâwhat I refer to as the secular transhumanistsâare wary of a possibility for any positive contribution that can emerge from religious traditions, especially the Abrahamic, due to a prevalent, particular of theology that believes, hopes, and prays for a better next life, and/or relies upon super...