Islam and Science

Great Debates
61

In the Name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful.

I see that Satan has now joined the discussion. I was wondering why you were quiet up until now. Anyways lets try to deal with the points you brought up, without having to go fetch some “sharp objects”:wink: Your impatience in this matter itself shows your unscholarly way of approaching the matter. It is very interesting to find out that many of the people here cannot tell the very obvious difference between fact and theory. It seems that maybe you havent been reading any of the previous posts or else you would have seen the difference between them.

Second of all, if you recall and go back to the first page, it was not I who started this topic on evolution in the first place. It was not even my intention to get into it, because it was a topic I had dealt very breifly with in one of the old forums that I had participated in. But Myrss decided to bring the topic up, and therefore I started replying to the best of my knowledge? So why criticize me for talking about it while as I was not the source or cause for the discussion arising in the first place?

Third of all, if I am not mistaken, this thread is titled “Islam AND science”. Therefore scientific discussions mostlikely will or should take place in it, seeing as the title itself mentions it. I was asked to show how Islam is in absolute harmony with scientific facts, and therefore that is what I intend to do. I am no scholar or scientist, and yet I am not speaking from sheer ignorance or speculation. I have backed up all of my claims and opinions. It is you who have failed to bring any substantial proof for your belief that evolution is fact and not theory.

Anyways now lets just see if your claims that evolution is fact and not theory are at all tenable.

“The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge.”—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.

FACT OR THEORY?

“Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else.”—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).

FACT OR THEORY?

“Although natural selection theory fails to explain the origin of evolutionary novelties, its greatest shortcoming, in terms of evolutionary theory, is it fails to explain evolutionary diversity.”—*D. Rosen, “Darwin’s Demon,” in Systematic Zoology 27 (1978), p. 372.

FACT OR THEORY?

“If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form any kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by an unbroken series of intergrade, but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.”—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, (1941), p. 3.

FACT OR THEORY?

“Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another . . It may be claimed that the theory of descent is lacking, therefore, in the most essential feature that it needs to place the theory on a scientific basis.”—*T.H. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation, p. 42.

FACT OR THEORY?

*Darwin considered it “a very obvious difficulty.” Well, so much for Darwin.

" . . The distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links is a very obvious difficulty."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, (6th ed., 1927), p. 322.

FACT OR THEORY?

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to nonbiologists.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 105.

FACT OR THEORY?

" . . Nobody has ever succeeded in producing a new species, not to mention the higher categories, by selection of micromutations."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Theoretical Genetics.

FACT OR THEORY?

“The birth of both the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion.”—*Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (2nd Ed.), chap. 21.

FACT OR THEORY?

“Nowhere have the limits of the species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap which also includes sterility.”—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (1960), p. 168.

FACT OR THEORY?

“Neo-Darwinist textbooks on evolution keep citing the same comparatively few examples: industrial melanism [darkened variety of peppered moths], sickle-cell anemia, DDT resistance. All are comparatively minor changes; all involve variations in which a large and obvious selective advantage can be obtained by a single parallel substitution.”—*P. Saunders and *M. Ho, “Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable?—And Does it Matter?” in Nature and System (1982), p. 191.

*Note: Neo-Darwinism means Pro-Darwinism, basically supporting the theory.

“If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.”—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943, p. 63.

FACT OR THEORY?

“I think however that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”—*H.J. Lipson, F.R.S.A Physicist Looks at Evolution, in Physics Bulletin 31, 1980, p. 138.

FACT OR THEORY?

So much for your allegations that all scientists hold evolution to be FACT and not just THEORY. I could give countless more examples, both past and present, but I think this should suffice for now. Then again FACTS are rarely accepted by hard-headed people, but THEORIES usually are.

62

**

You could say that.

Or you could check the archives and see how many thousands of times the same erroneous misinformation has reared its ugly head.

Care to check the archives?

**

It is amazing that you do not know what a “scientific theory” is, now do you? Now, this has nothing to to with the coloquial way we use the term in normal language.

Now, if you would be so kind as to use - oh, a normal dictionary, you would find several definitions for “theory,” a few of which might surprise you since you sem to think that it is different than a fact:

Now, as you can see, it has everything to do with “a body of fact” and “scientifically acceptable principle of body of principals.”

Now, are you aware of the difference between a scientific theory or the colloquial use of the term? If you are not after the lesson you were given, I’ll give you another one:

That is from [.

**

So, according to you, if someone else brings up a topic, you are then given license to post anything you wish and I am to simply let any misinformation go by unacountably? Simply because you didn’t start it? I disagree.

**

If I am ignorant on a subject, I generally try and listen more than I talk on it. I am ignorant about the Koran - I asked for you and others to help with that.

I am not, however, ignorant about science, or the scientific method.

**

I will tell you exactly what I tell fundamentalist Christians who try and warp science, or show a misunderstanding of scientific principal, in order to back their own book up:

Do you think that God (or Allah) needs you to lie for Him?

Because if you claim what you say, either you don’t know what you speak of, or you are willingly lying.

I’m sorry, and I don’t know that much about Allah of the Koran, but I doubt He needs that kind of deception, nor does He encourage that kind of willful ignorance.

**

Let’s see… I posted a link above to a very comprehensive website about evolutionary theory that, with a few clicks of your mouse, would answer every charge you made.

Did you not check the site? I will post the link again: http://www.talkorigins.org/](http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#6.14"Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism: Revised and Expanded[/url).

All of your answers will be found there. I don’t know much about the Koran, but I can safely say that judging from what you have posted, it - like the Jewish and Christian Bibles - is not a science textbook, no matter how much those who use those books for their spiritual guidance would like to think they are.

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 3 hours, 23 minutes and 7 seconds.
4565 cigarettes not smoked, saving $570.70.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 25 minutes.

Vist the The Fabulous Forums of Fathom

63

Just cheering on ** Satan… **
I’m too tired to do all this work, and probably couldn’t have done it half as well…

64

Hi,
Raven just asked me to start a new thread for this topic.This one is too long already.I’m gonna name it “Ask the Islamic Guys”.hahaha another “ask the _____ guy” Thread.

Ok here’s my conclusion from all the intellectual brainstorming we did.Its a matter of belief.

Before it was discovered that the earth revolves around the sun,people thought that the earth was surrounded by a large glass ball decorated with stars.Hell and heaven is beyond this.After copernicus shattered this ball and showed people the universe beyond this,they persecuted him.This was due to the fact that if there was no glass(or was it crystal) ball then there was no heaven and hell and so no God existed.
Islam didn’t react because this does not shatter any of our belief systems because it doesn’t contradict any of our belief systems.In fact Islam was very very open to Science.Where do you think chemistry originated?
Our theory of evolution is the same and it is in fact such a big mess.e.g scientists are also christian,jews,muslims and if a devout christian becomes a scientist then he does not become the one and all encompassing.His word is not everything,so if there are denials or acceptances on evolution then it is more belief than science.I hope everyone agrees.
Now until somone can come up with something,i think we should devote a thread to creation vs. evolution instaed of putting it all out on the islamic guy.
Bye
Zeeshan

65

Thank you.

I will say to you, friends, what I say to Christian people who say similar things:

If you wish to believe in evolution and Allah, I believe that the two are not inconsistant with each other. In fact, click the link that someone provided above which reconciles both things quite well, I think.

If you wish to have FAITH that Allah did it his way, please just say that. Saying science is wrong, especially in a manner which only shows your own misunderstanding of science, does nothing constructive.

If, however, you were to say: “I know there is evidence of evolution, but I have faith that Allah did it another way,” you would not raise a hair on my graying head, friends! :slight_smile:

I am sorry if I reacted harshly, however, I assure you that way before you guys came here, we heard the same arguments from Christian Biblical literalists and also from Orthodox Jews as well.

It is unfair of me to take my frustration out on you fellas since you just got here, but I assure you, a loook through the old threads in this forum will show this coming up countless times.

Again, I am sorry, and I thank you for your words above which do make mroe sense to me.

Yer pal,
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, three weeks, two days, 5 hours, 20 minutes and 38 seconds.
4568 cigarettes not smoked, saving $571.11.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 1 day, 20 hours, 40 minutes.

“Satan is not an unattractive person.”*-Drain Bead (Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!)

66

In the Name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful.

Thanks for the archives site Satan. I will be reading through it hopefully. This is just to show that I am not close minded or stubborn, and am willing to learn and maybe correct my past erroneous notions. But truly as brother Zeeshan has said, this issue seems to be based more on belief rather than anything else. In any case as I said I will be reading through the archives, and maybe then we can further discuss the issues in the future.

But just a few points that have to be noted right now before going on to further pursue the topic at hand. It seems that many people have been comparing Islam to Christianity, or the Quran to the Bible. People have mentioned on this forum that the attempt to show scientific evidence in the Quran is similar to the attempt of the Christians to prove that in the Bible. This belief or notion is very wrong and misleading for a number of factors. First of all because the most common approach taken by most Christian scholars in regards to their Holy Book has been to reveal the thousands of alledged prophecies that are found therein. The majority of their focus has not been towards science or scientific data, although some recent attempts have been taken in this path.

But what should be noted here is that it is wrong to compare the Islamic attempt to the Christian attempt to prove science through their Holy Books. First of all because of the fact that the Bible itself contains many discrepancies and contradictions within it. Second of all because in many places the Bible contradicts sceintific facts. One need only open the first book of Genesis to see this. A few examples are:

  1. That the sun was created on the 3rd day in the book of Genesis, and yet there was still “day” and “night” in the previous 3 days of creation. This is obviously contradictory because even a child knows that there can be no day light without the sun.

  2. That the world or universe was created in 6 days - six distinct and seperate days. This conflicts with modern scientific data.

  3. The very obvious distinction between the two geneologies of Jesus found in the Gospel of Luke and Matthew.

And many many more…

Even if it is agreed that the claim by Muslims that the Quran contains modern scientific data is false and very far-fetched, then the very least that can be said is that the Holy Book (Quran) does NOT conflict with modern science at all. You need only look at the history of the early Islam, and see the intellectual advancements thattook place in many of the scientific fields because of precisely this harmony between the Quran and science. The Quran itself in many places praises knoledge and learning.

If one sees the very rapid growth of culture and and science during the period after the Prophet Mohammad, one can clearly see how the Spirit of Islam and the Quran played the vital role in this advancement. Look at the many great scholars who arose, for example al Kindi who wrote several mathematical treatises. Jabir ibn Hayan was the one who invented alchemy. It was also from his name that the word “algebra” came from. In Arabic its called al jabra. Look also at the many other scientists and philosophers, such as al Razi (Rhazes in Latin) who also wrote many mathematical and medical treatises and books, and was one of the most well-known physician in his time. Ibn Sina (Aviceena) and Ibn Rush (Averroes) are two other great examples. Their medical works, as well as other scientific works, were used in all European Universities up until the 16th century, while the individuals themselves lived in about the 10t-11th century A.D.

The examples are indeed endless. These Muslim philosophers and scientists never encountered any conflict or disputes with the orthodox religious scholars of their times, and this precisely because there is absolutely no conflict between the Islamic teachings and science. There are countless examples in the Quran of God’s appraisal of science and knowledge. The Prophet’s own words also prove this. In one hadeeth the Prophet is reported to have said, “Seek knowledge from the cradle until the grave”. In another hadeeth the Prophet is reported to have said, “Seek knowledge even if it were in China”. (as China was thought of to be the farthest place on earth, this shows the Prophet’s emphasis that one should seek knowledge even in the farthest regions). In yet another hadeeth the Prophet has said, “Seeking knowledge is OBLIGATORY on every Muslim man and woman.” These are but a very few of the tens and even hundreds of other examples that there are.

And so in brief, in history, Islamic teachings never came in opposition with scientific discoveries or facts. Of course there may have been exceptions, but these are very few, and are found more in the philosophical field than the purely scientific one. But the difference between the Islamic history and that of Christianity is quite different. The instances in history where the Church came in conflict with scientific discoveries are numerous, one very well-known case being that of Galileo and how all of his books were banned and he was disqualified from teaching on account of some of the discoveries he had been making in the field of physics and astronomy.

Western thought today is in the midst of a raging battle between religion and science. It is almost impossible for a western thinker today to accept the fact that there may be a meeting ground between religion and science. The Bible, in which the Christians believe, states that the tree from which the Prophet Adam was forbidden to eat was the tree of knowledge. Thus, after he ate from it, he gained certain knowledge that he had not had before. For this reason, Europe spent two centuries arguing whether or not to accept scientific knowledge coming from Muslims.

The Church ruled that the pursuit of such scientific knowledge was the cause for the original sin. The bishops drew their evidence from the Old Testament, where it is mentioned that when Adam ate of the tree and gained some knowledge, God was displeased with him and denied him mercy. Scientific knowledge was therefore rejected entirely by the Church as a taboo.

Finally, when the free thinkers and scientists of the West were able to overcome the power of the Church, they took revenge by going in the opposite direction and suppressing any power of the religion. They went to all possible extremes in order to overcome the power of the Church and reduce its influence into a narrow and a confined corner.

Therefore, if you discuss the issue of religion and science with a westerner, he readily goes into sheer wonderment. They do not know Islam. They do not know that Islam accords a very high status to knowledge and men of knowledge, regarding them as witnesses, after the angels, to the fact that there is no deity but Allah, as Allah himself has told us in the Qur’an:

There is no God but He: That is the witness of Allah, His angels and those endued with knowledge. (Qur’an 3:18)

And God, may He be exalted and Glorified has also told us:

Know, therefore, that there is no true deity but Allah. (Qur’an 47:19)

It is known from the Qur’an that Adam was favored over the angels by virtue of the knowledge given to him by God. The Qur’anic story contradicts that of the Bible which Muslims hold to have been distorted. According to the Qur’an, the fact that Adam was given knowledge is a mark of honor, and not the cause of his expulsion from Paradise. Hence, if one discusses Islam and science with Western thinkers, they tend to expect an argument similar to what they have in their own religious and cultural context. That is why they react with surprise when they are presented with the crystal clear facts of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

And so the contrasting that many people have been making is very wrong and erroneous. One must understand the history of both Christianity and Islam to know the full truth behind this matter. Anyways more to come later, by the will of God. Peace :cool:

67

I just thought it might be interesting to discuss Islamic history and the stance religion took towards science and learning in general.

Most Westerners are ignorant of the debt their civilisation owes to Islam, even for modern industrial transformation, scientific advance and philosophical enterprise.

Islam came into the world in the bosom of one of the most backward of peoples. In a very short time it had raised those tribes to pre-eminence in every field.Its greatest miracle was its appearance as a fullgrown adult of the spirit in so degraded and poverty -stricken an environment. Its second miracle was the raising of that environment, by sheer force of inspiration, without any extraneous aids, to an unmatched destiny.Its third was to create a cultural focus from which strong waves radiated, stimulating renascence in other peoples of every background throughout the world.

The changes it wrought compose history’s greatest revolution so far, a revolution in sense and sensibility, in thought and intellect, in relations of individuals and communities, and indeed in every department of human life.

By the end of its first millennium Islam stretched from the Atlantic coast of Africa in the west to the Great Wall of China in the east, from the Mediterranean to the Sahara in Africa. In Spain its troops took first Andalusia, then all Spain up to the Pyrenees, and even penetrated the south of France as far north as Tours. All the “Jezirat-ul’ Arab” was of course Muslim. From Muslim Iran and Afghanistan other troops took Sind, the Punjab and the Gobi - and this within a few short centuries.

In all its dominions the principles worked out in the Arab homeland were applied to the new societies under its sway. In particular its justice, equality and brotherhood, humane fruits of its meticulous care for the individual and his place in society, which are the distinguishing marks of Islam, set their stamp on the communities over this entire vast area.

The first task was the overthrow of tyrannies : the second was the establishment of sound Islamic rule and respect for human rights : the third was the illumination of intellect, research and thought: the fourth was the propagating of the faith by its calm appeal to reason and logic and by its profundity and breadth of vision: the fifth - and perhaps the most glorious because the most anonymous-was the infection of other nations, of all creeds and none, with its own superior moral, mental and spiritual outlook.

This last achievement not merely raised the general level of peoples of every religion throughout the world, but also drew many proselytes to itself from the idolaters of Arabia, the animists of Africa, the Magians and Zoroastrians of Iran, and the Christians of Egypt and Syria.

Pre-Muslim Arabia had no trace of culture, no science, no erudition, no economics; for geographical reasons Arabs lived in penury and squalor, the prey of superstitions, isolated from world currents. Islam changed all that, and went on to open the hearts and brains of men everywhere to new possibilities.

In far-off Andalusia a school of scholars, writers, mathematicians, scientific researchers and philosophers arose, inspired by Islam to revive the level of thought reached by the Greeks 1500 years earlier, and to move on up from there to heights never before touched by man.

Modern scholars in every country,. even those whose prejudices would make them prefer to maintain a critical and hostile attitude to Islam, more and more draw attention to the speed of the spread of the Muslim faith, to its beneficent results for mankind’s prowess in thought and study, and the progressiveness of the ideas which it brought to other stagnant civilisations.

It should be noted by all our “progressives” everywhere, that this brilliant advance for all humanity was the concomitant of a moral self-discipline, of an eschewing of the dissipation which follows upon loosing the reins of passion, and of a deliberate control of the creative instincts, which channelled them into works of artistic, intellectual, and social creativity worthy of mature human beings. This inner discipline, which man needs, promotes the inner freedom he desires; and it is one cause of Islam’ s wide dominion over the minds of men of the early Middle Ages. For it offered not merely sounder outward forms of living but reassurance to the inner core of the spirit. It abolished the wild persecutions brought about by purblind bigotry and by narrow-minded fanaticism.

It was for this reason that the Sultan Kemal-ul-Mulk, nephew of Saladdin, talked as man to man, and as scion of the same spirit, to Francis of Assisi when the Saint crossed the lines from the camp of the Crusaders under King Louis, whom the Muslims had halted before Damietta. It was the same universal humanity which caused the vast contrast between Omar’s merciful treatment of the Christians in Jerusalem when he conquered it, and the barbarous massacre of Jerusalem’s Muslim inhabitants by the European Crusaders who took it back for a brief period 300 years later. Islam replaced such savagery with a constitutional rule, a humanely regulated society, an overarching philosophy embracing all mankind.

In Europe’s Dark Ages, while the Church established its power over the different nationalities, and fettered them in restraining bonds in a status quo, Islam was building up a many-sided culture which laid the basis for that flowering of science, knowledge, and artistic and technological creativity which is called the “Renaissance”. This was while the Church was condemning Galileo for confirming Copernicus’ theory of the orbiting of the earth round the sun, and forcing him to his famous recantation: “I, Galileo Galilei, in the 70th year of my age (1633 AD), on my knees before your Reverences (the Pope and Bishops) with the Holy Scriptures before my eyes, take them in my hands and kiss them while repenting and denying the foolish claim that the earth moves, and regard that claim as a hateful heresy,” even while he muttered rebelliously sotto voce “Eppure si muove”.

Yet 500 years previously our own great astronomer and mathematician Omar Khayyam of Nishapur (floruit 2nd half of 11th century AD, when William the Bastard was conquering England) had provided Iran with the Jalali Calendar which to this day enables us to start our new year not merely on the day, but on the exact hour, minute, and second that the earth terminates one orbit and starts another round the sun at the vernal equinox! How few Westerners know this! They think of him as a poet, though he was an indifferent one, but do not realise that if they had picked up his wisdom they might have avoided all their Gregorian alterations of the Julian calendar, and the loss of their “11 days”!

Roger Bacon (1214-1292 AD) the Franciscans’ “Doctor mirabilis”, was in the reign of Edward I of England compelled to give up the experimental research into science to which his lectures in Paris on Aristotle’s works and in particular on the " Liber de Causis" had led him’, and was driven out from Oxford back to Paris to be kept under the Church’s eye-an eye too narrow and bigoted to see the wealth of the scientific treasures he was offering them. He was arraigned as a dabbler in devilish and satanic alchemy: and the mob was incited to yell for this sorcerer’s hand to be cut off and this Muslim’ (!) to be exiled."

Nowadays European and American historians and scholars all recognise and relate the fundamental contributions made by Islam to all modern advances in science, mathematics, technology, philosophy, in many ways of which this brief chapter has only been able to touch the fringe.

68

Averroes, I’m delighted to see somebody on this board talking about the immense scientific contributions made by the medieval Islamic world. You are quite right that we in the West learn far too little about these things in our relatively Eurocentric educational milieux. I trust that you won’t mind my nitpicking a few errors of fact, in the humble role of the guy with a shovel who follows along behind the parade. :slight_smile:

I’ll skip over the issues of religious and cultural propaganda in the excerpts you posted—that sort of boosterism is inevitable in didactic works, which your sources obviously are, and readers can apply their own grains of salt. I’ll also skip Zeeshan’s extremely flawed description of the Copernican Revolution, since there are plenty of more detailed and accurate sources on-line to compare it to ([this example](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen 12047a.htm) isn’t perfect but has a lot of good data). On to the Straight Dope:

*Jabir ibn Hayan was the one who invented alchemy. It was also from his name that the word “algebra” came from. In Arabic its called al jabra. *

Cleanup: Our word “algebra” does come from the Arabic mathematical term al-jabr wa 'l-muqabala, literally (more or less) “balancing and restoring”, apparently referring to the operations of combining different types of terms on the appropriate sides of an equation. jabr does come from the same root jbr as the name Jabir, but it’s in no way directly related to Jabir ibn Hayan (of whom it’s quite an oversimplification to say that he “invented alchemy,” btw).

*These Muslim philosophers and scientists never encountered any conflict or disputes with the orthodox religious scholars of their times, and this precisely because there is absolutely no conflict between the Islamic teachings and science. *

Cleanup: This is a modern revisionist interpretation. In medieval times, there was indeed a great deal of tension between falsafa (from “philosophia”), the speculative/quantitative approach to natural philosophy that was based on the Greek Aristotelian and Ptolemaic traditions, and kalam, or orthodox Islamic theology. There are not a lot of online sources for this topic, and the only one I was able to find focuses more on falsafa-kalam interactions in mathematics (and is written in French). It is certainly possible to interpret Islamic teachings so that they don’t conflict with any particular scientific theory, but there were certainly lots of mutakallimun or religious scholars who objected to various contemporary scientific theories on religious grounds.

  • Pre-Muslim Arabia had no trace of culture, no science, no erudition, no economics*

Cleanup: The pre-Muslim Bedouin were a tribal people of pastoral nomads with a trade and barter economy, and had been pressing on their more urbanized neighbors (and sometimes becoming assimilated into their agricultural mercantile cultures) before the rise of Islam pushed their expansion past the critical point. They were literate and produced some extremely fine poetry; pre-Islamic Arabic poetry is an important field of study to Arabists today.

  • a school of scholars, writers, mathematicians, scientific researchers and philosophers arose, inspired by Islam to revive the level of thought reached by the Greeks 1500 years earlier, and to move on up from there to heights never before touched by man. *

Cleanup: This is in many respects quite true; many contributions of mathematical scientists in Islam are described in these biographical entries. It should be noted, though, that the remarkable achievements of Islamic science drew not only on vast numbers of translated Greek works but also on the scientific traditions of India and of Sassanian Persia; the scholars writing in Arabic who contributed to them were not just Muslims but also Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and pagan Harranians.

69

Thank you, Kimtsu. You saved me much typing and did the job more elegantly and autoritatively than I would have managed to boot.

70

Thank you, Spiritus. We live to serve! :slight_smile:

71

What you really said:

" Add to this the fact that according to all historians, regardless of faith or creed, bear witness that the Quran was written down in book form in the life of the Prophet Mohammad himself. "
This is a big leap- you go from saying that of course the Quran is authentic, because everyone, including unbelievers accepts the undeniable truth of its authenticity, to saying that a “majority of historians” agree to its authenticity, and those that don’t are just biased. So not only do you change (without acknowledgement) what you said, you also add the genetic fallacy as well.

You then go on to prove the authenticity of the Koran by quoting from a book which is 30 years out of date, even though recent work has turned up a number of variants of the Koran from the early days of Islam.

-Ben

72

Unfortunately you seem (IINM) to have completely ignored the real point. Regardless of whether evolution is a fact or theory, or whether “fact” and “theory” are synonyms, you said that evolution wasn’t part of science. Well, it is, and if the Koran says evolution is false, then you can’t claim that the Koran is wonderfully in synch with modern science.

Forgive me if you’ve answered this and I missed it somehow, but I think it’s an important point.

-Ben

73

Averroes, why do you keep referring to Christianity and stressing that Islam hasn’t committed the sins of Christianity? Who cares about Christianity? We’re here to discuss Islam.

Also, I’m going to issue my usual challenge to creationists:

ok, so you say evolution is “only” a theory. You say (in blatant defiance of reality) that evolution is not a part of modern science and that not a lot of scientists accept it. Well, I’m one of those weirdo scientists who accepts evolution. I use it in my work every day, because I use protein homology. If you want me to accept the Koran, you have to give me something. You see, I’ve been working on curing disease using evolution to explain protein homology. If I reject evolution, I can’t just quit using protein homology- I have to hve some sort of framework to explain it so that I can make new discoveries and create new medicines. So how if I were to become a creationist, how would I explain protein homology?

I have never, I mean NEVER, not once in MY ENTIRE LIFETIME, met a creationist who could give me an answer to this. I have maybe met a grand total three creationists who even knew what protein homology is- and I’ve even written to famous creationist pundits and the authors of creationist science textbooks! One or two creationists I’ve heard from even admit that protein homology presents overwhelming evidence for evolution, and that they believe creationism purely on the basis of faith.

You can do this however you like- you can write to the most brilliant creationist scientists in the Islamic world, if you want, but if you want to prove to me, a scientist, a scientist who uses evolution in his everyday work even though his work has nothing to do with evolutionary biology per se, that evolution is wrong, you have to be able to provide me with an explanation that works at least as well as what I already have. And I guarantee you that you will not do it. Even if you write the most brilliant creationist scientist you can find, he won’t be able to give you an answer.

-Ben

74

Let’s take another look at the embryology issue:

now, I maintain that a clear reading of the text indicates that embryos are formed as little skeletons,and then flesh is slapped on to the outside. Raven has claimed that since the layers which become bones form before the layers which become muscle, that the Koran is describing the real course of fetal development.

But suppose fetal development went a little differently. How hard is it to use this logic to fit the Koran to any scheme of development? For example:

  1. layer which becomes bones forms after the layer which becomes muscle, but bones develop before muscle does.

  2. Everything forms (including bones) before skin, and the skin (ie the “flesh”) forms last.

  3. Bones form after muscle and skin, but the epithelial layers which directly clothe the bones (such as synovial membranes) form next.

  4. Muscles form, bones form, and then more muscles form.

  5. Muscles form, bones form, then internal organs form.

  6. Internal organs form, bones form, then muscles form.

It seems to me that if you’re going to be so flexible in the definitions of “bones” and “flesh” that “flesh” only refers to muscles, but either term can refer to things that will ultimately develop into bones and muscles, then the only sort of embryonic development which would not fit the Koran would be one in which everything forms before the bones, and bones are the absolutely last thing to form, and the layer which ultimately will become bones has to form last of all the layers. Even then, you could claim that the “bones” formed in the sense that the “bones” layer formed, and then that layer was clothed in the muscles which developed from pre-existing layers.

What we do not see in the Koran is a simple, textbook explanation of embryology which describes the formation of a blastula, a morula, etc. If you took a class in emryology and gave the Koran quote as an answer on your final exam, it would certainly be counted wrong, because the immediate meaning is the opposite of what really happens.

-Ben

75

In the Name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful.

As for Ben’s comments on evolution once more, I am doing some personal research in the archives site that Satan kindly provided me with. I will read through it, then read any arguments and couter-arguments, and then reply to your comments on that. It would be very frivilous for me to speak of a subject that I am not well-educated and fully equipped in. Thats why I think I should go back to the original works and read any material I can get my hands on, as well as any arguments that may have been raised, by both creationists and non-creatonist scientists.

As for your constant denial of the embryological developments mentioned in the Quran, I will now provide you with what has been said of it, not by a Muslim who could be accused of bias or far fetched and erroneous interpretations, but by a French scientist by the name of Dr. Maurice Bucaille.

This is from the words of a scientist who is much more learned in this area than myself and probably anyone else here. So I would appreciate it if you could read through this, and maybe try to be a bit more objective and open minded. As I said earlier, the Quran was not meant to be a scientific text book. That was not its primary goal. The primary goal of the book was to perfect mankind’s social, economic, and spiritual aspects. But even though this may be the case it still has very basic references to scientific facts and observations that could not have been discovered in the days of its revelation, but rather have only been discovered in the past 50 years or so of our modern era. It may not mention the exact details of what takes place, but it does mention in general things that were not known until many centuries later. Raven’s attempt at proving this was very well-done and meritorious, and yet some people would rather just deny then accept the truth. So now I will provide with the opinion of a high-ranking Western scientist who cannot be just speaking from ignorance as maybe we simple minded people have done. Here are the exact words of the scientist on this subject:

**"Evolution of the Embryo inside the Uterus.

The Qur’anic description of certain stages in the development of the embryo corresponds exactly to what we today know about it, and the Qur’an does not contain a single statement that is open to criticism from modern science.

After ‘the thing which clings’ (an expression which is well-founded, as we have seen) the Qur’an informs us that the embryo passes through the stage of ‘chewed flesh’, then osseous tissue appears and is clad in flesh (defined by a different word from the preceding which signifies ‘intact flesh’).

–sura 23, verse 14:
“We fashioned the thing which clings into a chewed lump of flesh and We fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and We clothed the bones with intact flesh.”

‘Chewed flesh’ is the translation of the word mudga; ‘intact flesh’ is lahm. This distinction needs to be stressed. The embryo is initially a small mass. At a certain stage in its development, it looks to the naked eye like chewed flesh. The bone structure develops inside this mass in what is called the mesenchyma. The bones that are formed are covered in muscle; the word lahm applies to them.

Another verse which requires extremely delicate interpretation is the following:

–sura 39, verse 6:
“(God) fashions you inside the bodies of your mothers, formation after formation, in three (veils of) darkness.” (zulumat)

Modern intrepreters of the Qur’an see in this verse the three anatomical layers that protect the infant during gestation: the abdominal wall, the uterus itself, and the surroundings of the foetus (placenta, embryonic membranes, amniotic fluid).
I am obliged to quote this verse for the sake of completeness; the terpretation given here does not seem to me to be disputable from an anatomical point of view but is this what the text of the Qur’an really means?

It is known how certain parts appear to be completely out of proportion during embryonic development with what is later to become the individual, while others remain in proportion.

This is surely the meaning of the word mukallaq which signifies ‘shaped in proportion’ as used in verse 5, sura 22 to describe this phenomenon.

“We fashioned . . . into something which clings . . . into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.”

The Qur’an also describes the appearance of the senses and the viscerae:

–sura 32, verse 9:
“(God) appointed for you the sense of hearing, sight and the viscerae.”

It refers to the formation of the sexual organs:

–sura 53, verses 45-46:
“(God) fashioned the two of a pair, the male and the female, from a small quantity (of sperm) when it is poured out.”

The formation of the sexual organs is described in two sura of the Qur’an:

–sura 35, verse 11:
“God created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then He made you pairs (the male and female).”

–sura 75, verse 39:

“And, (God) made of him a pair, the male and female.”

As has already been noted, all statements in the Qur’an must be compared with today’s firmly established concepts: the agreement between them is very clear. It is however very important to compare them with the general beliefs On this subject that were held at the time of the Qur’anic Revelation in order to realize just how far people were in those days from having views on these problems similar to those expressed here in the Qur’an. There can be no doubt that they would have been unable to interpret the Revelation in the way we can today because we are helped by the data modern knowledge affords us. It was, in fact, only during the Nineteenth century that people had a slightly clearer view of this question.

Throughout the Middle Ages, the most diversified doctrines originated in unfounded myths and speculations: they persisted for several centuries after this period. The most fundamental stage in the history of embryology was Harvey’s statement (1651) that “all life initially comes from an egg”. At this time however, when nascent science had nevertheless benefited greatly (for the subject in hand) from the invention of the microscope, people were still talking about the respective roles of the egg and the spermatozoon. Buffon, the great naturalist, was one of those in favor of the egg theory, but Bonnet supported the theory of the seeds being ‘packed together’. the ovaries of Eve, the mother of the human race, were supposed to have contained the seeds of all human beings, packed together one inside the other. This hypothesis came into favor in the Eighteenth century.

More than a thousand years before our time, at a period when whimsical doctrines still prevailed, men had a knowledge of the Qur’an. The statements it contains express in simple terms truths of primordial importance which man has taken centuries to discover."**

76

Also many other things can be found in the Quran under which perfecly correspond with modern day knowledge of human reproduction. Here again is some more info in the book entitled “The Bible, the Quran, and Science” by the scientist Dr. Bucaille in the title of ‘Human Reproduction’.

*"From the moment ancient human writings enter into detail (however slight) on the subject of reproduction, they inevitably make statements that are inaccurate. In the Middle Ages-and even in more recent time-reproduction was surrounded by all sorts of myths and superstitions. How could it have been otherwise, considering the fact that to understand its complex mechanisms, man first had to possess a knowledge of anatomy, the discovery of the microscope had to be made, and the so-called basic sciences had to be founded which were to nurture physiology, embryology, obstetrics, etc.

The situation is quite different in the Qur’an. The Book mentions precise mechanisms in many places and describes clearly-defined stages in reproduction, without providing a single statement marred by inaccuracy. Everything in the Qur’an is explained in simple terms which are easily understandable to man and in strict accordance with what was to be discovered much later on.

Human reproduction is referred to in several dozen verses of the Qur’an, in various contexts. It is explained through statements which deal with one or more specific points. They must be assembled to give a general idea of the verses as a whole, and here, as for the other subjects already examined, the commentary is in this way made easier.
REMINDER OF CERTAIN BASIC CONCEPTS.

It is imperative to recall certain basic concepts which were unknown at the time of the Qur’anic Revelation and the centuries that followed.

Human reproduction is effected by a series of processes which we share in common with mammals. The starting point is the fertilization of an ovule which has detached itself from the ovary.

It takes place in the Fallopian tubes half-way through the menstrual cycle. The fertilizing agent is the male sperm, or more exactly, the spermatozoon, a single fertilizing cell being all that is needed. To ensure fertilization therefore, an infinitely small quantity of spermatic liquid containing a large number of spermatozoons (tens of millions at a time) is .required. This liquid is produced by the testicles and temporarily stored in a system of reservoirs and canals that finally lead into the urinary tract; other glands are situated along the latter which contribute their own additional secretions to the sperm itself.

The implantation of the egg fertilized by this process takes place at a precise spot in the female reproductive system: it descends into the uterus via a Fallopian tube and lodges in the body of the uterus where it soon literally implants itself by insertion into the thickness of the mucosa and of the muscle, once the placenta has been formed and with the aid of the latter. If the implantation of the fertilized egg takes place, for example, in the Fallopian tubes instead of in the uterus, pregnancy will be interrupted.

Once the embryo begins to be observable to the naked eye, it looks like a small mass of flesh at the centre of which the appearance of a human being is at first indistinguishable. It grows there in progressive stages which are very well known today; they lead to the bone structure, the muscles, the nervous system, the circulation, and the viscerae, etc.

These notions will serve as the terms of reference against which the statements in the Qur’an on reproduction are to be compared.
HUMAN REPRODUCTION IN THE QUR’AN.

It is not easy to gain an idea of what the Qur’an contains on this subject. The first difficulty arises from the fact already mentioned, i.e. that the statements dealing with this subject are scattered throughout the Book. This is not however a major difficulty. What is more likely to mislead the inquiring reader is, once again, the problem of vocabulary.

In fact there are still many translations and commentaries in circulation today that can give a completely false idea of the Qur’anic Revelation on this subject to the scientist who reads them. The majority of translations describe, for example, man’s formation from a ‘blood clot’ or an ‘adhesion’. A statement of this kind is totally unacceptable to scientists specializing in this field. In the paragraph dealing with the implantation of the egg in the maternal uterus, we shall see the reasons why distinguished Arabists who lack a scientific background have made such blunders.

This observation implies how great the importance of an association between linguistic and scientific knowledge is when it comes to grasping the meaning of Qur’anic statements on reproduction.

The Qur’an sets out by stressing the successive transformations the embryo undergoes before reaching its destination in the maternal uterus.

–sura 82, verses 6 to 8:
“O Man! Who deceives you about your Lord the Noble, Who created you and fashioned you in due proportion and gave you any form He willed.”

–sura 71, verse 14:
“(God) fashioned you in (different) stages.”

Along with this very general observation, the text of the Qur’an draws attention to several points concerning reproduction which might be listed as follows:

  1. fertilization is performed by only a very small volume of liquid.
  2. the constituents of the fertilizing liquid.
  3. the implantation of the fertilized egg.
  4. the evolution of the embryo.
  1. Fertilization is Performed by Only a Very Small Volume of Liquid.

The Qur’an repeats this concept eleven times using the following expression:

–sura 16, verse 4:
“(God) fashioned man from a small quantity (of sperm).”

The Arabic word nutfa has been translated by the words ‘small quantity (of sperm)’ because we do not have the terms that are strictly appropriate. This word comes from a verb signifying ‘to dribble, to trickle’; it is used to describe what remains at the bottom of a bucket that has been emptied out. It therefore indicates a very small quantity of liquid. Here it is sperm because the word is associated in another verse with the word sperm.

–sura 75, verse 37:
“Was (man) not a small quantity of sperm which has been poured out?”

Here the Arabic word mani signifies sperm.
Another verse indicates that the small quantity in question is put in a ‘firmly established lodging’ (qarar) which obviously means the genital organs.

–sura 23, verse 13. God is speaking:
“Then We placed (man) as a small quantity (of sperm) in a safe lodging firmly established.”

It must be added that the adjective which in this text refers to the ‘firmly established lodging’ makin is, I think, hardly translatable. It expresses the idea of a firmly established and respected place. However this may be, it refers to the spot where man grows in the maternal organism. It IS important to stress the concept of a very small quantity of liquid needed in the fertilization process, which is strictly in agreement with what we know on this subject today.

  1. The Constituents of the Fertilizing Liquid.

The Qur’an describes the liquid enabling fertilization to take place in terms which it is interesting to examine:

a) ‘sperm’, as has been stated precisely (sura 75, verse 37)
b) ‘a liquid poured out’. “Man was fashioned from a liquid poured out” (sura 86, verse 6)
c) ‘a despised liquid’ (sura 32, verse 8 and sura 77, verse 20)

The adjective ‘despised’ (mahin) would, it seems, be interpreted not so much on account of the nature of the liquid itself, as more the fact that it is emitted through the outlet of the urinary tract, using the channels that are employed for passing urine.

d) ‘Mixtures’ or ‘mingled liquids’ (amsaj): “Verily, we fashioned man from a small quantity of mingled liquids” (sura 76, verse 2)

Many commentators, like professor Hamidullah, consider these liquids to be the male and female agents. The same view was shared by older commentators, who could not have had any idea of the physiology of fertilization, especially its biological conditions in the case of the woman. They thought that the word simply meant the unification of the two elements.

Modern authors however, like the commentator of the Muntakab edited by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Cairo, have corrected this view and note here that the ‘small quantity of sperm’ is made up of various component parts. The commentator in the Muntakab does not go into detail, but in my opinion it is a very judicious observation.

What are the components parts of sperm?
Spermatic liquid is formed by various secretions which come from the following glands:

a) the testicles: the secretion of the male genital gland contains spermatozoons, which are elongated cells with a long flagellum; they are bathed in a sero-fluid liquid.
b) the seminal vesicles. these organs are reservoirs of spermatozoons and are placed near the prostate gland; they also secrete their own liquid but it does not contain any fertilizing agents.
c) the prostate gland: this secretes a liquid which gives the sperm its creamy texture and characteristic odour.
d) the glands annexed to the urinary tract: Cooper’s or Méry’s glands secrete a stringy liquid and Littré’s glands give off mucous.

These are the origins of the ‘mingled liquids’ which the Qur’an would appear to refer to.
There is, however, more to be said on this subject. When the Qur’an talks of a fertilizing liquid composed of different components, it also informs us that man’s progeny will be maintained by something which may be extracted from this liquid.

This is the meaning of verse 8, sura 32:
“(God) made his progeny from the quintessence of a despised liquid.”

The Arabic word, translated here by the word ‘quintessence’, is sulala. It signifies ‘something which is extracted, the issue of something else, the best part of a thing’. In whatever way it is translated, it refers to a part of a whole.

Fertilization of the egg and reproduction are produced by a cell that is very elongated: its dimensions are measured in ten thousandths of a millimetre. In normal conditions[77], only one single cell among several tens of millions produced by a man will actually penetrate the ovule; a large number of them are left behind and never complete the journey which leads from the vagina to the ovule, passing through the uterus and Fallopian tubes. It is therefore an infinitesimally small part of the extract from a liquid whose composition is highly complex which actually fulfills its function.

In consequence, it is difficult not to be struck by the agreement between the text of the Qur’an and the scientific knowledge we possess today of these phenomena.

  1. The Implantation of the Egg In the Female Genital Organs.

Once the egg has been fertilized in the Fallopian tube it descends to lodge inside the uterus; this is called the ‘implantation of the egg’. The Qur’an names the lodging of the fertilized egg womb:

-sura 22, verse 5:
“We cause whom We[78] will to rest in the womb for an appointed term.”

The implantation of the egg in the uterus (womb) is the result of the development of villosities, veritable elongations of the egg, which, like roots in the soil, draw nourishment from the thickness of the uterus necessary to the egg’s growth. These formations make the egg literally cling to the uterus. This is a discovery of modern times.

The act of clinging is described five different times in the Qur’an. Firstly in verses 1 and 2 of sura 96:
“Read, in the name of thy Lord Who fashioned,
Who fashioned man from something which clings.”

‘Something which clings’ is the translation of the word 'alaq. It is the original meaning of the word. A meaning derived from it, ‘blood clot’, often figures in translation; it is a mistake against which one should guard: man has never passed through the stage of being a ‘blood clot’. The same is true for another translation of this term, ‘adhesion’ which is equally inappropriate. The original sense of ‘something which clings’ corresponds exactly to today’s firmly established reality.

This concept is recalled in four other verses which describe successive transformations from the small quantity of sperm through to the end:

–sura 22, verse 5:
“We have fashioned you from . . . something which clings.”

–sura 23, verse 14:
“We have fashioned the small quantity (of sperm) into something which clings.”

–sura 40, verse 67:
“(God) fashioned you from a small quantity (of sperm), from something which clings.”

-sura 75, verse 37-38:
“Was (man) not a small quantity of sperm which has been poured out? After that he was something which clings; then God fashioned him in due proportion.”

The organ which harbours the pregnancy is qualified in the Qur’an by a word which, as we have seen, is still used in Arabic to signify the uterus. In some suras, it is called a ‘lodging firmly established’ (sura 23, verse 13, quoted above and sura 77, verse 21)[79]."*

77

In the Name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful.

I just wanted to briefly reply to some of Kimstu’s “clear-ups” before I leave for work.

First of all about the conflict of the mutakallimun with some scientific discoveries, I never truly ruled out the possibility, but rather said that the conflict was more on philosophical and theological grounds than purely scientific grounds. It should be noted that the mutakallimun themselves (theologians) were subject to much criticism by orthodox and traditional scholars, such as al Ghazali and al Farabi. And even when the theologians had clashes with certain aspects of the sciences, it was not from the purely scientific view point that they raised objections, but rather because of the philosophical theories that had been concluded from scientific expirements, such as the explanation of emanation proposed by al Kindi. Philosophy was very much mixed with the sciences, and usually philsophers used scientific and physical experiments to create metaphysical and theological theories. The sources that I have found this information in are not purely Islamic sources, as you have indirectly indicated. My prime source is from an encylopedic work called “History of Islamic Philosophy”, which is a compilation of many articles and papers on different aspects of Islamic history and philosophy. The work itself was edited by a Muslim professeur (Hossein Nasr) and a Western scholar (Oliver Leaman). The articles inside are also written by both Muslims and non Muslim scholars, the majority being of the latter.

The second crucial point that I should ‘clear up’ is that the bedouins of pre-Islamic Arabia were NOT educated, had no particularly scientific heritage, no organized society or economy, and no organised set of ‘written literature’. That in fact is why the Quran is called the first Arabic book (See for example "Islam, the Quran, and Arabic Literature written by Elsayed M.H Omran Vol XIV No. 1 , Spring 1988). It is very well-known that the majority of the Arabs in Arabia at that time were illiterate, with very few exceptions. This is the reason for their amazing skills in memorizing, and this is also why very few of their poems were ever written down.

In actual fact, it was the Quran that influenced the Arabists to further perfect their area in lingustics, poetic and prose. The Holy Qur’an has undoubtedly helped reinforce and deepen the Arab people’s awareness of the richness and beauty of their tongue. From a linguistic point of view, the revelation of the Qur’an was the most important event in the history of the Arabic language. It was an event with far-reaching and lasting consequence, for the Qur’an gave Arabic a form which it had hitherto lacked. In fact, it was due to the desire to preserve the Qur’an that efforts were made to develop and refine the Arabic alphabet. It was within the same context that Abu l-Aswad al-Du’ali developed the dot system in the first century of the Islamic era in his attempt to lay the basis for Arabic grammatical theory. (Taha Husayn, Op. Cit., p. 129)

His efforts were among the first to establish a permanent form for the Arabic alphabet and hence the Arabic writing system. As deciphered from the earliest inscriptions, the Arabic alphabet was vague, unsystematic, and inefficient. The dot system as developed by al-Du’ah helped to clarify and establish distinctions which were otherwise unclear. In fact, it can be maintained that had it not been for the strong desire to preserve the Qur’an, its form, grammar, pronunciation, and accuracy, the Arabic alphabet and writing system might not have developed as quickly as they did.

The Qur’an likewise helped to expand the scope of Arabic as it was known in the early years of the seventh century. Islam and the Qur’an helped to open new horizons and fields of study which included such disciplines as philology, Islamic law (the sharia), and Islamic philosophy. The Qur’an also introduced a host of new themes and linguistic forms not only to the Arabic language but to the Arab mind as well. Taha Husayn dealt with this particular aspect of the verses of the Qur’an when he wrote:

In its external form the Qur’an is neither poetry nor prose. It is not poetry because it does not observe the metre and rhyme of poetry, and it is not prose because it is not composed in the same manner in which prose was customarily composed.

Anyways thats just a bit of info on the History of the Arabs and their truly barbaric state before the advent of Islam. For further information see Philip K. Hitti’s “The History of the Arabs”, Part 1 ch. 1-3. It was the religion of Islam through the agency of Prophet Mohammad that brought civilization, cultural values, scientific develeopments, and many other aspects of perfection to the Arabian Peninsula first, and then later to all other nations and peoples who accepted Islam. It is precisely for this reason that some modern scholars have gone out of their way to praise Prophet Mohammad and the religion of Islam, to the extant that one has said,

“If a man like Mohammad were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.” (George Bernard Shaw)

An yet still there are always those orientalists writers and authors who have a very obvious hostility towards Islam, and it is precisley for this reason that a few of them have come up with idea that the Quran may be unauthentic, as ben has been stressing (without brining any proof or references by the way). Western orientalist’ biases towards Islam have been the subject of much criticism, by both Muslim writers and even some moderate Western writers, such as Edward Said who claimed, "“The hardest thing to get most academic experts on Islam to admit is that what they say and do as scholars is set in a profoundly and in some ways an offensively political context. Everything about the study of Islam in the contemporary West is saturated with political importance, but hardly any writers on Islam, whether expert or general, admit the fact in what they say. Objectivity is assumed to inhere in learned discourse about other societies, despite the long history of political, moral, and religious concern felt in all societies, Western or Islamic, about the alien, the strange and different. In Europe, for example, the Orientalist has traditionally been affiliated directly with colonial offices.”( Said, E.W., Covering Islam (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981) p. xvii)

Instead of assuming that objectivity is inhere in learned discourse, Western scholarship has to realize that precommitment to a political or religious tradition, on a conscious or subconscious level, can lead to biased judgement. As Marshall Hudgson writes, “Bias comes especially in the questions he poses and in the type of category he uses, where indeed, bias is especially hard to track down because it is hard to suspect the very terms one uses, which seem so innocently neutral…”(Hodgson, M.G.S., The Venture of Islam, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) p. 27)

The Muslim reaction to the image portrayed of them by Western scholarship is beginning to get its due attention. In 1979, the highly respected scholar trained in Western academia, Albert Hourani, said, “The voices of those from the Middle East and North Africa telling us that they do not recognize themselves in the image we have formed of them are too numerous and insistent to be explained in terms of academic rivalry or national pride.”(Hourani, A. “Islamic History, Middle Eastern History, Modern History,” in Kerr, M.H. (ed) Islamic Studies: A Tradition and Its Problems (California: Undena Publications, 1979) p. 10.

Anyways I thank you for the sites you provided me with. I will look through them thoroughly, by the will of God. And yet it would be wise to try and look at Islam and study it through different spectacles than the ones most western people view it through. It might also help to try studying Islam through Muslim sources also, at least to level out the sense of objectivity.

In conclusion I would just like to say that Ben’s remarks of the Quran being unauthentic according to some modern scholars is nonsense, according to my opinion. Those scholars who claim this are most obviously infected by the disease of bias I have described above. The self-evident truth and miracle of the Quran can be seen to all of those who open their minds and hearts. The harmony of the Quran with science is also manifest to those who wish to look at it objectively and without any past biases or hostility, which the Western Media has immensely propogated. Anyways Ben hasnt provided any reliable sources that I may check upon. I am sure he probably found his claims at some anti-islamic sites on the net, with no proof whatsoever to back up those claims.

More to come later, by the will of God. Sorry if I offended anyone, as that was not my intention at all. Peace be upon you all :slight_smile:

78

Hi,
i am an evolutionist muslim.Is that bad or wrong?Is it advisable to lose your religion due to the way you percieve things.I mean in the case of the sensitive issue of evolution well it has caused worldwide panic.It was the 'cause of Marx’s inspirtion as he devoted an entire book to darwin and regarded him very highly.
However i believe that both theories are correct until proven wrong.I mean you are innocent until proven guilty.
I have also been following everything with interest.I believe in the Adam and Eve story.By the way there is a difference in the stories of genesis in the bible and the Quran,though both are the same in gist.
Ok here’s my reasoning.Since both “theories” have not been disproved yet so i choose not to turn communist just yet and just go both ways.Yes from a religious point of view i believe creation.From a scientific point of view i believe in evolution.I also believe in a unified theory that will actually explain everything,just like heaven and hell don’t need a glass sphere to exist(unlike some former pope’s thought)similarly we don’t need to prove or dissprove things by twisting and turning.Let someone come up with something concusive and just discuss and explore the ideas but don’t let them be the reason for believing or not.I mean its like many stories in the Quran speak of future events in past tense.I wondered about this when i realised that what i considered a fault in the Quran or my understanding was actually a really interesting phenomena that answered a lot of my questions on religion like why would God want to test us if he already knows the outcome.its plain stupid.But for God time is relative.He does not have to live in a precise time frame,so he knows what will happen,also in the quran it is stated that humans are gods finest creation because they have free will.They can choose to obey or disobey him.This is a great power in itself and he may already know the outcome,but he is not fixing the results.Kinda confusing to the first time reader but crystal clear when you think about it for as long as i have.
Bye
Zeeshan

79

You know, once again it becomes clear that refuting misinformation is ten times the effort of disseminating it. I wish I had the energy to do so. But I’ll one point:
Most of those passages quoted were much less relevant than they were made out to be–especially if you remove all the parenthesized words…

But I’m quickly becoming bored with dealing with someone who refuses to respond to a post–repeatedly ignoring evidence on evolution, and whitewashing the false claim to predicting the heliocentric theory when it was exposed. maybe I missed something, but I don’t see a debate going on here. I see one person posting three pages without even looking at the opposing view, as laid out with firm evidence…

80

Hi,
Ok lets see.You guys really make it hard for a guy.Don’t just bake a person.I mean its supposed to be a debate but hey in Islam everything isn’t literal though we ourselves have made it so.Read my post above for an example on why God refers to future events sometimes in past tense and sometimes in future tense.This was something that bothered me for a long time.Look i am a big Stephen Hawking Fan.He is an atheist who is also trying to prove the non-existence of God through cosmology.I am also an evolutionist at the moment.How can that not clash with my faith.Please read my previous post.I wonder if you guys think that is the wise thing to do or is the evolution “theory” so well established that i will have to leave my religion for it.
Please answer.I am gonna meditate on the evolution issue and study the quranic passages on the subject as soon as i get some time.Might turn up something interesting.I stopped quoting other sources 'cos i too feel like you that it seems like we are desperately trying to reject evolution.Well i am not and i don’t want God asking me why i accepted my religion halfway and hence without a proper firm belief(trying to delude myself)when he gave me a brain and told me to wonder and think about the problems of life belief and religion.
Bye
Zeeshan