Science in Islam

IFX

//Moderator edit
Split thread

the_new_mr wrote:

A Muslim believes in God (through a combination of faith, reason and logic). God does not expect people to have blind faith and helps people to believe by stating scientific miracles in the Quran.

I disagree, what's the logic?
What are the miracles?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

A non-Muslim should not be trying to prove Islam wrong. At the same time, a Muslim should not try to force someone to be a Muslim. This is down to each individual.

I thought your post contained a lot of truth and honesty, and I felt this line caught what should be everyone’s personal ethic. My only problem is we live in a context where Christians and Muslims and probably people of other religions (except Buddhism, in fairness) see themselves as having an obligation to spread their faith, which inevitably means changing minds. Also, while I see a choice of faith as someone's own affair, I think we simply have to accept that people will and do need to debate on the implications of certain beliefs. For example, Catholicism has a blanket ban on use of contraceptives, including condoms. That's fair enough, its their faith, but it is also right for others to point out the implications of this both for the spread of disease and for the environment from unchecked population growth.

I also found the reference to the ‘scientific miracles’ left me cold. I would focus on two reasons – I know others could raise other objections:

All this talk of ‘miracles’ sidesteps the fact that the Quran also suggests that the Sun orbits the Earth and that the sky is held up by invisible pillars. We know that to be false. Using science as a proof of the Quran has to cut both ways. If we say ‘science says this, and so does the Quran, so that means the Quran is true’, that means we must be equally open to saying ‘science says this, and the Quran differs, so the Quran must be wrong’. Otherwise, the comparison to science is pointless.

My second point grows out of this. If we expect science to conform to the Quran, it means that any scientist finding evidence for a theory that conflicts with theology runs the risk of heresy. This brings out, to my mind, one of the most damaging and stunting aspects of religion. Like the totalitarian dictatorship in Orwell’s novel ‘1984’, we find it trying to control our very ability to perceive reality. Unable to deal with the truth revealed by science, the response is to suppress it in favour of a comfortable lie. Just to be clear, I’m not singling Islam out for this charge – consider the case of Galileo. But I am suggesting that the same risk is posed by Islam merging science and theology in this way.

I’d suggest just calling it as it is. Many people believe that the Quran is the word of God, and the reason they believe that is usually because of an inherited tradition. Science has nothing to do with it, one way or the other.

T-1111111111111

Schuhart wrote:

I also found the reference to the ‘scientific miracles’ left me cold. I would focus on two reasons – I know others could raise other objections:

All this talk of ‘miracles’ sidesteps the fact that the Quran also suggests that the Sun orbits the Earth and that the sky is held up by invisible pillars. We know that to be false. Using science as a proof of the Quran has to cut both ways. If we say ‘science says this, and so does the Quran, so that means the Quran is true’, that means we must be equally open to saying ‘science says this, and the Quran differs, so the Quran must be wrong’. Otherwise, the comparison to science is pointless.

My second point grows out of this. If we expect science to conform to the Quran, it means that any scientist finding evidence for a theory that conflicts with theology runs the risk of heresy. This brings out, to my mind, one of the most damaging and stunting aspects of religion. Like the totalitarian dictatorship in Orwell’s novel ‘1984’, we find it trying to control our very ability to perceive reality. Unable to deal with the truth revealed by science, the response is to suppress it in favour of a comfortable lie. Just to be clear, I’m not singling Islam out for this charge – consider the case of Galileo. But I am suggesting that the same risk is posed by Islam merging science and theology in this way.

I’d suggest just calling it as it is. Many people believe that the Quran is the word of God, and the reason they believe that is usually because of an inherited tradition. Science has nothing to do with it, one way or the other.

I think this text shows what is meant by Sun's orbit. Sun has its own orbit. The verse I don't think is talking about Sun orbiting around the Moon anyway, please read the following text taken from the book The Bible, The Qur'an and Science.

Reference to the Movement of the Moon and the Sun in Space With Their Own Motion

This concept does not appear in those translations of the Qur'an that have been made by men of letters. Since the latter know nothing about astronomy, they have translated the Arabic word that expresses this movement by one of the meanings the word has: 'to swim'. They have done this in both the French translations and the, otherwise remarkable, English translation by Yusuf Ali. [ Pub. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore (Pakistan)]

The Arabic word referring to a movement with a self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (yasbahuna in the text of the two verses). All the senses of the verb imply a movement that is associated with a motion that comes from the body in question. If the movement takes place in water, it is 'to swim'; it is 'to move by the action of one's own legs' if it takes place on land. For a movement that occurs in space, it is difficult to see how else this meaning implied in the word could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons.
-The Moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 291/2 days (approx.), so that it always has the same side facing us.
-The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis. There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and poles, (we shall not go into them here) but as a whole, the Sun is animated by a rotating motion.

It appears therefore that a verbal nuance in the Qur'an refers to the Sun and Moon's own motion. These motions of the two celestial bodies are confirmed by the data of modern science, and it is inconceivable that a man living in the Seventh century A.D.-however knowledgeable he might have been in his day (and this was certainly not true in Muhammad's case) -could have imagined them.

This view is sometimes contested by examples from great thinkers of antiquity who indisputably predicted certain data that modern science has verified. They could hardly have relied on scientific deduction however; their method of procedure was more one of philosophical reasoning. Thus the case of the pythagoreans is often advanced. In the Sixth century B.C., they defended the theory of the rotation of the Earth on its own axis and the movement of the planets around the Sun. This theory was to be confirmed by modern science. By comparing it with the case of the Pythagoreans, it is easy to put forward the hypothesis of Muhammad as being a brilliant thinker, who was supposed to have imagined all on his own what modern science was to discover centuries later. In so doing however, people quite simply forget to mention the other aspect of what these geniuses of philosophical reasoning produced, i.e. the colossal blunders that litter their work. It must be remembered for example, that the Pythagoreans also defended the theory whereby the Sun was fixed in space; they made it the centre of the world and only conceived of a celestial order that was centered on it. It is quite common in the works of the great philosophers of antiquity to find a mixture of valid and invalid ideas about the Universe. The brilliance of these human works comes from the advanced ideas they contain, but they should not make us overlook the mistaken concepts which have also been left to us. From a strictly scientific point of view, this is what distinguished them from the Qur'an. In the latter, many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been established by present-day science.

So consclusion is - the Qur'an is not wrong, but is in line with the science.

the_new_mr

IFX wrote:

I disagree, what's the logic?
What are the miracles?

Following site has some good examples.
http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/miraclesofthequran/index.html

Schuhart wrote:

I thought your post contained a lot of truth and honesty, and I felt this line caught what should be everyone’s personal ethic.

I'm glad you felt so.

Schuhart wrote:

My only problem is we live in a context where Christians and Muslims and probably people of other religions (except Buddhism, in fairness) see themselves as having an obligation to spread their faith, which inevitably means changing minds.

Well, we have to differentiate between spreading the message and changing minds. Islam is very clear on that. Even the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him), and I most certainly am not comparing myself to him, was only required to spread the message that started from Adam (peace be upon him).

Al-Ma'ida:92
"Hence, pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle, and be ever on your guard [against evil]; and if you turn away, then know that Our Apostle's only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him]."

As-Saffa:37
"Nay, but he [whom you call a mad poet] has brought the truth; and he confirms the truth of [what the earlier of God’s] message-bearers [have taught]."

The decision on whether or not to become a Muslim is down to each individual. A Muslim spreading the message should not really measure their success by the number of conversions they see.

Schuhart wrote:

Also, while I see a choice of faith as someone's own affair, I think we simply have to accept that people will and do need to debate on the implications of certain beliefs.

It's a valid point and one that shouldn't be ignored. However, there is a difference between debating and attacking. And for sure, if someone is thinking about any particular faith in terms of making a personal choice in view of conversion then they should ask anything they feel they need to.

The thing I wanted to be clear on is that there's no point arguing when someone has already made their mind up and simply doesn't want to listen to the other.

With respect to contraceptives, obviously I can't comment on this since the large majority opinion of Islamic scholars is that it's okay (but obviously only between two people who are married).

Schuhart wrote:

All this talk of ‘miracles’ sidesteps the fact that the Quran also suggests that the Sun orbits the Earth and that the sky is held up by invisible pillars.

I don't really want this thread to get hijacked as this point has been discussed at length in another thread before. I'd just like to point out that while some people (like yourself Schuhart) point out that the Quran says that the sun revolves around the earth, there is not one verse in the Quran that says this. The verses which some people use to say that it is implied really do not imply this at all.

Likewise, there aren't any verses that explicity say the opposite. The opinion that the Quran says that the sun orbits the earth is based on nothing other than the fact that there are no verses in the Quran saying otherwise which isn't a very valid way of making a point.

As for the pillars, there are two opinions.

The verse from Surat Luqman states:
Luqman:10
"He has created the skies without any supports that you could see..."

One opinion is that God placed this verse to correct a false belief of the ignorant times that the sky was held up by pillars (some believed these pillars were mountains).

The other opinion is that the pillars mentioned could be air pressure (hence the not being able to see). God knows best as to which opinion is correct.

As for the idea put forward in 1984 (which I have still to read... it's on my list of "to-read" books), there is no way someone in an Islamic state can be charged with heresy for putting forward an idea based upon their research that conflicts with religion. I guess it would be up to other scientists to prove him/her wrong. However, you can't have a situation where scientists make claims in conflict with religion just for the sake of it. They'd need to be sincere and prove this with an at least semi-solid argument. And God knows best.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

I don't really want this thread to get hijacked as this point has been discussed at length in another thread before.

I agree there is a danger of hijacking a sticky, and one that contains a solid message. I would certainly not disagree if, with your Moderator cap on, you think it better to split these subsequent posts off into a new thread on ‘Scientific Miracles in the Quran’ or whatever title you think fits the subject.

I think there are about fifty different issues at stake here, but I’ll try to focus on what I see as the main issue. That said, I do want to point out that in saying the Quran says the Sun orbits the Earth, I’m only repeating the opinion of a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. According to Theodosius Dobzhansky’s article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

As recently as 1966, Sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik:
"The Holy Koran, the Prophet’s teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit . . . and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind. . . . Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet."

At the risk of labouring the point, if someone as learned in the study of the Quran as a Grand Mufti felt this was the correct interpretation, then I don’t feel I’m being unreasonable in accepting the evidence of my own eyes when I read translations of Sura 21:33. Incidently, Sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz’s apparently believed the world to be flat, on grounds of the Quran describing it as being spread out by God.

Can I stress that I am not saying this need have any impact on the Quran’s spiritual validity. I’m simply pointing out that scriptural text is not science, and any religion linking the two inevitably ties itself up in knots.

the_new_mr wrote:

With respect to contraceptives, obviously I can't comment

You’ll understand I’m giving an example relevant to Catholicism just to make it clear that I see a need to confront all religions with the practical impacts of their beliefs, and not only Islam.

the_new_mr wrote:

However, you can't have a situation where scientists make claims in conflict with religion just for the sake of it. They'd need to be sincere and prove this with an at least semi-solid argument. And God knows best.

It’s the ‘God knows best’ line that causes the problem. Evolution is proven by more than a semi-solid argument. Yet many religious people oppose the theory. This opposition is not based on any reason to doubt the theory. They are simply unnerved that it is possible to explain the existence of human life without the necessity of a god. This seems to raise two fears in their minds

1. evolution=less religion=declining moral standards=corrupt society
2. evolution=less religion=threat to people depending on religion for their status in the community

There’s no need for religion to police science to keep out unfounded ideas – that what science does for itself. The only reason for religion to police science is to suppress ideas seen as undermining religion, even when those ideas are correct.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

I agree there is a danger of hijacking a sticky, and one that contains a solid message. I would certainly not disagree if, with your Moderator cap on, you think it better to split these subsequent posts off into a new thread on ‘Scientific Miracles in the Quran’ or whatever title you think fits the subject.

You read my mind I was actually thinking about doing this after I left the computer yesterday evening.

Schuhart wrote:

I do want to point out that in saying the Quran says the Sun orbits the Earth, I’m only repeating the opinion of a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.

Well, I see your point in that if Sheikh Abd el-Aziz Ibn Baz, may God rest his soul (and whom I didn't know of till now) thought that by interpreting then you're not being entirely unfair in your own interpretation. However, it's very important to note that his opinion is a minority opinion. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard of a Muslim scholar making such a statement.

It's also important to note that a number of scientists who have been well recorded as great contributers to astronomy (such as al-Farghani) did so during the Islamic golden period. Indeed, some of the first claims by anyone anywhere that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around came from the Islamic world which must have been a supermely crazy thought at the time. Nevertheless, the data was studied and people found that the Quran had no conflict with findings of this kind.

As for Sheikh Abd el-Aziz Ibn Baz. Maybe he wasn't too much on the intellectual side. At the same time, it seems that he was very pious since he was prepared to fly in the face of the opinion of all other Islamic scholars let alone scientists all over the world and hold to his belief.

Unfortunately, this kind of interpretation of the Quran without reason is all too present in Saudi Arabia. As I stated before, there are no verses that say that the sun orbits the earth but there are also no verses that explictly say that the earth orbits the sun. Clearly Ibn Baz's opinion is based on such false logic.

As another unfortunate example of the interpretation of the Quran in Saudi Arabia:
Not too long ago, a Saudi scholar (quite possibly Ibn Baz since I don't know the name of the scholar) said that absolutely everything in the Quran must be taken completely and utterly literally. An Egyptian scholar replied with the following verse (I think it was this verse):

Al-Isra:72
"But those who were blind in this world, will be blind in the hereafter, and most astray from the Path."

The Saudi scholar was actually physically blind. The Egyptian scholar had made his point.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Egyptian scholars are better than Saudi scholars. It's just meant to show that sometimes Saudi scholars (and some of other countries I guess) don't really use their head all the time.

Schuhart wrote:

Incidently, Sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz’s apparently believed the world to be flat, on grounds of the Quran describing it as being spread out by God.

After doing a wee bit of reading, I found that although he may well have made the sun/earth statement, his stating that the earth is flat was a lie.

As for verse 21:33 which reads:

Al-Anbiya:33
"and [fail to see that] it is He who has created the night and the day and the sun and the moon - all of them floating through space!"

If we look at this verse, we see that God states that both the sun and the moon are moving through space. This is not in defiance with modern science since it is a known fact that the sun itself is in an orbit of its own around a point somewhere in the universe. There is no mention in the verse above that the sun is revolving around the earth.

Schuhart wrote:

Can I stress that I am not saying this need have any impact on the Quran’s spiritual validity. I’m simply pointing out that scriptural text is not science, and any religion linking the two inevitably ties itself up in knots.

Well, we shouldn't get carried away with ourselves and think that we can once and for all answer the age-old question of religion and science right here

Still, I must disagree with you. As far as I can see, there are no scientific discrepencies in the Quran.

Schuhart wrote:

You’ll understand I’m giving an example relevant to Catholicism just to make it clear that I see a need to confront all religions with the practical impacts of their beliefs, and not only Islam.

Yes I know that you were just using it to make a point but I think you'll find the main difference here is that the Catholic church bans contraception based upon the opinion of the pope. The discussion at hand here is talking about the scientific validity of the Quran.

Schuhart wrote:

Evolution is proven by more than a semi-solid argument.

Although I've already stated before that evolution being real or not rests easily enough with me either way since there are two opinions in the Islamic world on the matter (one that evolution is true and one that it isn't) and up until now at least, I share the opinion of those that say that Darwin was wrong. However, it's important to note that evolution has not been proven... hence its name to this day of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Schuhart wrote:

They are simply unnerved that it is possible to explain the existence of human life without the necessity of a god. This seems to raise two fears in their minds

Well, in the opinion that evolution did happen, the idea is that God set the evolution process in motion in the first place. So even if evolution were true, it wouldn't mean that human life was explained without a necessity for God.

Schuhart wrote:

The only reason for religion to police science is to suppress ideas seen as undermining religion, even when those ideas are correct.

The search for knowledge is highly recommended in the Quran (even required). Religion would never have the right to suppress an idea that has truth in it. Science is nothing more than the study of the world/universe as we know it. Since I (and others) believe that this universe is God's creation then trying to understand more about it could never conflict with God's words. Islam is not afraid of anything.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

this is the first time I've ever heard of a Muslim scholar making such a statement.

I have no difficulty in accepting that today Muslim scholars would not attempt to suggest the Earth orbits the Sun. I do wonder, however, if the Grand Mufti’s reading of the text was really so utterly out of step with its traditional understanding. I’m not claiming any insight into the organisation of Islam, but I thought a Grand Mufti was someone respected for their religious knowledge and was hardly a post that would be given to a maverick.

some of the first claims by anyone anywhere that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around came from the Islamic world

It seems to have been another of those Greeks that came up with it first, someone called Aristarchus (310 BC - c. 230 BC) I found an article here that would seem to suggest that Islamic astronomy, while valuable, did not actually question the position of the Earth as the centre of creation.

Throughout the entire Islamic period astronomers stayed securely within the geocentric framework. For this one should not criticize them too harshly. Until Galileo's telescopic observations of the phases of Venus in 1610, no observational evidence could be brought against the Ptolemaic system.

the_new_mr wrote:

The Egyptian scholar had made his point.

And his point stands. As Dobzhansky says in the article I linked above

It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science. They treat of matters even more important: the meaning of man and his relations to God. They are written in poetic symbols that were understandable to people of the age when they were written, as well as to peoples of all other ages.

the_new_mr wrote:

There is no mention in the verse above that the sun is revolving around the earth.

I think the meaning is reasonably clear in the linking of night vs day and the equating of the motion of the sun and moon. Coupled with the good Mufti’s quote, I don’t see any reason to doubt that these words are written with the intention of simply describing the movements of Sun and Moon that would be readily seen by anyone, giving the appearance that they orbit the Earth.

Yusuf Ali's Translation
It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.

Pickthal's Translation
And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

Shakir's Translation
And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

NJ Dawood’s Translation
It was He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: each moves swiftly in an orbit of its own.

the_new_mr wrote:

evolution has not been proven... hence its name to this day of Darwin's theory of evolution.

As we know, there’s a lengthy thread on evolution in the Christianity Forum that clearly we don’t need to recycle here. But I do feel a need to point out that a theory is something supported by considerable factual evidence. Intelligent Design advocates tend to try to confuse a theory with a hypothesis. A hypothesis is, indeed, an unproven theory. Evolution is most certainly a theory, and not merely a hypothesis.

the_new_mr wrote:

So even if evolution were true, it wouldn't mean that human life was explained without a necessity for God.

Nothing proves or disproves the existence of God. But evolution does mean that the existence of God is no longer essential to understand the origin of the human species.

the_new_mr wrote:

Islam is not afraid of anything.

I’d find that easier to accept if I didn’t come across so many references to the ‘scientific miracles’ in the Quran. That suggests to me that someone needs the confirmation of science, which makes me wonder what happens when science refuses to give religion that confirmation. The debate on evolution answers that question for me.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

I have no difficulty in accepting that today Muslim scholars would not attempt to suggest the Earth orbits the Sun. I do wonder, however, if the Grand Mufti’s reading of the text was really so utterly out of step with its traditional understanding. I’m not claiming any insight into the organisation of Islam, but I thought a Grand Mufti was someone respected for their religious knowledge and was hardly a post that would be given to a maverick.

Yes, you would think so wouldn't you? He surely wasn't a maverick but clearly his opinion is only one opinion. I think you'll find that all other grand muftis around the world in their various countries at the time would have differed with him thus making his view the strange one. It really is shocking to find a scholar making such a statement.

Schuhart wrote:

It seems to have been another of those Greeks that came up with it first, someone called Aristarchus (310 BC - c. 230 BC) I found an article here that would seem to suggest that Islamic astronomy, while valuable, did not actually question the position of the Earth as the centre of creation.

Well, if you look carefully at my post you'll see that I said "some of the first". In any case, the point I was trying to make was that the idea was not rejected but indeed embraced since there was no conflict in the eyes of the Muslim scholars at the time. To think that someone like Ibn Baz would then come back centuries later and say what he did is, to say the least, weird.

Actually, just the other night I was watching a late night documentary with Michael Palin called Sahara. Quality show. Very interesting. Anyway, he was in Timbuktu (yes, it is a real place!! ) and there an imam from a mosque there showed him some very old documents predating Galileo showing calculations that said that the earth revolved around the sun. Also, I have seen such documents in the manuscript section of the library of Alexandria (fascinating place) but I'm not sure what date those particular documents were.

Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a "who did it first" thread as I just wanted to make the point that these views were not rejected in the Muslim world way back then when such an idea had much more potential to cause trouble.

And Dobzhansky statement is somewhat valid. I, of course, don't see the Bible as infallible (although I do believe that it contains some words of God in there) so I won't speak with reference to it. Certainly, the Quran is not supposed to be a science book. It's main purpose is to talk to mankind about the meaning of life etc. However, the scientific references in there are to help people believe so that blind faith is not required.

In Islam, we believe that any miracles that any Prophet was able to perform were suitable to their time but were also limited to their time with the exception of Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and the Quran.

For example, Moses (peace be upon him) was given miracles of a power similar to but more powerful than magic at a time when magicians were highly revered (turning his cane into a snake, splitting the red sea). Some of Jesus' (peace be upon him) miracles were of a medical nature (healing blind and lepers, raising the dead etc) when medicine was really starting to come into its own. These miracles were to validate their claim as messengers of God and to help their followers believe.

From an Islamic point of view, each Prophet was sent to their people only at their time only except for the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) who was sent to all people for all time. And since not everyone would be able to be present at the time of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) then the miracle that God gave him would need to be able to be seen long after his death. This is why the Quran is how it is.

Fussilat:53
"Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

Schuhart wrote:

I think the meaning is reasonably clear in the linking of night vs day and the equating of the motion of the sun and moon.

Well alright, you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion but can you really say that the verse is in complete disagreement with science? The verse says that:
1. God created night and day
2. God created the sun and moon
3. The sun and moon are moving through space

Whatever meaning you think is implied based on other ideas of astronomy at the time, it's clear that the verse says nothing about the sun revolving around the earth.

Schuhart wrote:

As we know, there’s a lengthy thread on evolution in the Christianity Forum that clearly we don’t need to recycle here.

Probably a good idea.

Schuhart wrote:

I’d find that easier to accept if I didn’t come across so many references to the ‘scientific miracles’ in the Quran. That suggests to me that someone needs the confirmation of science, which makes me wonder what happens when science refuses to give religion that confirmation.

Is it fair to ask someone to "just believe"? On what basis should they believe? Sometimes when I'm at the beach or look up to the sky or just take a glance out the window, I can see the wonders of God everywhere. Aside from the scientific miracles in the Quran and hadith, the world around me is proof enough for me. How can all of this just be an accident?

I've had a few experiences in my life where I really felt the presence of God. I mentioned one example in another of these forums (can't remember which one it was) about how I was driving home one night with some friends in the dark coming down from a hill on a twisty road in the winter. We were the only car on the road except at one corner. A car was coming the other way and due to the nature of the road, I had to come to a complete stop round a corner to let them by. There was at least a 10 metre drop to the left of us.

When I tried to get going again, I found that I was on a HUGE patch of black ice. After some very cautious movement of the steering and throttle, we managed to get away. I drove away a little frustrated that of all corners to meet someone on and have to stop, it had to be that one. It wasn't until a friend of mine said to me "Good thing we weren't going round that corner at speed, eh?" that it hit me! I don't know who was in that other car. I'm not necessarily saying it was an angel or anything. But I do firmly believe that God put that car there for us (and possibly us there for the other car as well come to think of it) to stop us from having an accident by sliding on the ice and on down the hill. Coudn't stop thinking about it for a few days.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

I've had a few experiences in my life where I really felt the presence of God. I mentioned one example in another of these forums (can't remember which one it was) about how I was driving home one night with some friends in the dark coming down from a hill on a twisty road in the winter. We were the only car on the road except at one corner. A car was coming the other way and due to the nature of the road, I had to come to a complete stop round a corner to let them by. There was at least a 10 metre drop to the left of us.

When I tried to get going again, I found that I was on a HUGE patch of black ice. After some very cautious movement of the steering and throttle, we managed to get away. I drove away a little frustrated that of all corners to meet someone on and have to stop, it had to be that one. It wasn't until a friend of mine said to me "Good thing we weren't going round that corner at speed, eh?" that it hit me! I don't know who was in that other car. I'm not necessarily saying it was an angel or anything. But I do firmly believe that God put that car there for us (and possibly us there for the other car as well come to think of it) to stop us from having an accident by sliding on the ice and on down the hill. Coudn't stop thinking about it for a few days.

OT I know, but :eek: You are Sir are truly a religious and philosophical chappie I must say. In your place the first thing I would have sought immediately after such an event would be the nearest stockist of underwear. I must also say the one thing about Muslim drivers is that the chances of them being drunk behind the wheel is pretty slim which more here would do well to emulate.

Schuhart

Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a "who did it first" thread as I just wanted to make the point that these views were not rejected in the Muslim world way back then when such an idea had much more potential to cause trouble.

In fairness, I don’t think anyone would argue with the essential conclusion that Islam at that time had a more open attitude to scientific enquiry than Christianity. We also seem to be able to agree that religious texts, be it Bible or Quran or, for that matter, the Bhagavad Gita, are not intended to be guides to science.

On the interpretation of 21:33, I know we’re reading it in different ways. But hopefully you’ll see I trying not be unfair to the Quran when I read it the way I do. I considered the various translations, and that’s what it said to me even before I’d come across the quote from the Mufti.

I do firmly believe that God put that car there for us

I’m not going to tell you to doubt your own personal experience. I’d only point out that others would also report miracles. I can remember being with my Grandmother one day looking for a particular document (which had a certain importance I won’t go into). Finally, she said a prayer to Saint Jude, who many Catholics regard as the helper of lost causes. I can still see her sitting at one of those writing desks – the front folds down, and there’s all these little drawers and shelves. She opened her eyes after the prayer, reached out and plucked the envelope containing the document from the shelf where it had managed to hide from all our searching.

Was that a miracle? She thought so (but, as you can see, it made no lasting impression on me). She would have had an equal conviction to you that this was divine intervention. But what would you make of it? Praying to a Saint? Even many Christians would regard that as utterly pointless, as its either God who’ll help or no-one. But lots of Catholics do it, and swear they’ve seen the benefits.

The only conclusion I can come to is that if there is a God out there performing the odd miracle, he really doesn’t care where you do your praying or to whom you direct the prayer.

Is it fair to ask someone to "just believe"?

You’ll understand I can’t really answer that from personal experience. But, certainly, some people do profess a belief in God while at the same time recognising that there’s no material proof for it. I honestly don’t know how that works, but may well have to do with some sense of wonder at the world.

Aside from the scientific miracles in the Quran and hadith, the world around me is proof enough for me.

I think that’s good, because ultimately I think those ‘scientific miracles’ will let you down. And, indeed, is it not fair to say that even if every Islamic scholar in the world came out and said Mohammed thought the Earth was at the centre of the Universe, it wouldn’t actually change your belief that he had received a divine revelation.

For what it’s worth, I think the ‘scientific miracles’ mindset is not good for the external face of Islam. I think this point is made, more gently than I would make it, in this article by a Muslim scientist on the ever-useful islamonline.net. My reading of what he’s saying (diplomatically) is that the miracles are bunk and the Quran is religious scripture and should be read in that light. Unsurprisingly, I like his conclusion.

My feeling is that the interest that currently goes to the scientific miracles in the Qur'an should go to the study of the world through science. This was one of the duties of the Muslims of the golden age, because they were very proud with their faith. So we should find again this spirit of exploration of the world.

I’d contrast that with the view expressed here

As for the claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to “nature,” because it negates the truth of Adam’s special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur’an.

This is the worst kind of religious view on science – demanding that even if (as is the case) evidence suggests humans evolved through the same mechanism as every other species, this has to be rejected. This kind of argument leaves religion with an increasingly tenuous grip on reality, as it has to pretend illusion is truth. Unfortunately, from browsing islamonline.net and a few other Islamic websites, the ‘scientific miracles’ mindset (which I'd regard this as part of)seems quite widespread.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

OT I know, but :eek: You are Sir are truly a religious and philosophical chappie I must say.

Well, not really sure how to reply to that. Do I say thanks? Thanks then I don't think this is something that is exclusive to only some people though. I've heard people say in the past "I wish I could be religious". It's not something that you just have, it's something you think about and work towards. I've seen that too. I guess you could say that I've seen that a little in my own self when I think about it.

It's really a topic on its own but the struggle to realise the truth of this world and look at our current lives as nothing more than a journey is a difficult one. It can always seem elusive. I guess, if you wanted to cliche the whole thing, you could call it enlightenment... but I tend not to use that word too much because it's so overly used these days

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not going to tell you to doubt your own personal experience. I’d only point out that others would also report miracles.

No doubt. Miracles are not only for Muslims.

Schuhart wrote:

I can remember being with my Grandmother one day looking for a particular document (which had a certain importance I won’t go into). Finally, she said a prayer to Saint Jude, who many Catholics regard as the helper of lost causes. I can still see her sitting at one of those writing desks – the front folds down, and there’s all these little drawers and shelves. She opened her eyes after the prayer, reached out and plucked the envelope containing the document from the shelf where it had managed to hide from all our searching.

Was that a miracle?

Well, I'm in no position to say what is a miracle and what isn't. Obviously, most skeptics would explain a miracle just as a coincedence. In the case of your grandmother, a skeptic might say "Well, she just didn't look in there yet anyway so the prayer just made it seem like a miracle". But I happen to know that God can help you from the small things to the big things.

Schuhart wrote:

But what would you make of it? Praying to a Saint? Even many Christians would regard that as utterly pointless, as its either God who’ll help or no-one. But lots of Catholics do it, and swear they’ve seen the benefits.

Well, we believe (as far as I know) that God can answer the prayer of anyone if they are sincere. I hope I'm not saying anything wrong here (and may God forgive me if I am) but I understand that God, in His infinite wisdom and being the Most Merciful, knows when someone is deserving of having their prayer answered. He is, after all, the God of everyone and not just Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else for that matter. I remember hearing this somewhere but I can't remember where or when. Sorry about that. I hate those kind of sources.

Schuhart wrote:

The only conclusion I can come to is that if there is a God out there performing the odd miracle, he really doesn’t care where you do your praying or to whom you direct the prayer.

I wouldn't put it like that. He certainly does mind people worshipping other than Him. As I said though, anyone can have their prayer answered I guess... if they're sincere. I've heard about stories of people who embraced Islam asking God to guide them to what is right wherever it may be.

Schuhart wrote:

some people do profess a belief in God while at the same time recognising that there’s no material proof for it. I honestly don’t know how that works, but may well have to do with some sense of wonder at the world.

Well, I think that someone should always be able to explain where their feeling comes from. The idea of just "feeling it" doesn't make much sense to a mind like mine and probably gives the idea of wishful thinking to skeptics like yourself. I think you can only "feel" it after you "know" it and to know it, you have to think about it with your mind but also with your heart.

Schuhart wrote:

I think that’s good, because ultimately I think those ‘scientific miracles’ will let you down.

Here is where we'll differ. I never think that these scientific miracles will let me down. Why would I follow a religion whose book has errors in it but says it is the literal word of God? Wouldn't that be lying to myself?

Schuhart wrote:

And, indeed, is it not fair to say that even if every Islamic scholar in the world came out and said Mohammed thought the Earth was at the centre of the Universe, it wouldn’t actually change your belief that he had received a divine revelation.

It's an interesting question. I guess I'll have only two options. Either to believe that all the scholars are wrong (they are just men and are not prophets) or to believe that they are right and that the earth is indeed flat (but probably the former).

Thanks for the links Schuhart. Some very interesting reading there. I read them last night actually but was too tired to reply back here. They were quite long. I found the structure of the second one a little harder to follow though. I do remember feeling that my opinion was somewhere in the middle of the two.

The interview with the french Muslim scientist had some good knowledge in there. The most interesting being the difference of opinion between Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd.

Al-Ghazali claimed that, in case of apparent disagreement, it is usually the fault of the scientists who go beyond the limits of science when they claim things about the action of God in the world, the nature of fundamental reality, and so on. Whereas for Ibn Rushd, if there is a contradiction between the statements of religion and the statements of science, one has to come back to the Holy Book and make new, more valid, "interpretations" of the text that do not contradict the sound results of science.

I remember thinking at the time that my own opinion (albeit a humble one since I'm miles away from the level of knowledge of such men) is somewhere in between them as well. I think one should keep an open mind on both sides. An open mind that the scientic theory could be wrong and an open mind that the interpertation of the religious text could be wrong.

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that the scientist thought that the scientific miracles are, as you put it, bunk. How can any Muslim sincerely believe that the Quran is the literal word of God whilst at the same time think the miracles are wrong.

My understanding was that he was saying that science can be questioned since every theory is potentially false whereas the Quran is the truth from The Truth.

I think that it is only a kind of blind submission to science. God knows reality. In His revelation, there are allusions to this reality, but it does not go beyond this point.
...
Science appears as the ultimate judge for truth, which it is not, as I tried to explain previously. This is not the correct order of things, because the physical has to be submitted to the metaphysical, not the opposite.

Actually, this scientist seems quite interested in this search of the truth in a sufi kind of way and so I guess his chosen Arabic name is very fitting (Abd Al-Haqq, servant of The Truth).

I think maybe what he's saying is that the Quran should be more used as a motivation to find out more and more about the universe instead of just using the scientific miracles as proof of the truth. Actually, Dr. Abdel Baset Mohamed Sayed used some verses from the chapter of Yusuf as a motivation for making (do you say making?) some eye drops. He has a website for anyone that might care to take a look.

As for the second article, I felt it made some good points as well. Obviously, anyone who finds someone suggesting the possibility that evolution does not explain our being here is going to disagree with such an article. I was a little uncomfortable with the author's readiness to say someone is in disbelief (although I guess sometimes it was valid).

Anyway, the evolution debate will rage on and on (and as we've already agreed, there's no point on continuing it here). As I've said in a thread elsewhere on this forum, I think that people are nearly more aggressive at defending the theory of evolution than others are of defending their religion from attack.

I for one (and I don't think Dr. Bruno Abd-al-Haqq Guiderdoni will disagree with me) believe that the Quran does indeed have hints here and there concerning the universe that we live in. But in the end, people will believe what they want to believe. Someone who doesn't want to believe just won't believe no matter what you tell them.

Al-Anfal:31
"When Our Signs are rehearsed to them, they say: "We have heard this (before): if we wished, we could say (words) like these: these are nothing but tales of the ancients.""

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

He certainly does mind people worshipping other than Him.

Which, you’ll understand, creates a bit of a problem if he’s answering every sincere person’s call regardless of faith. Presumably, if God answers a pagan’s prayer, that person’s belief in his faith is confirmed and so is less likely to embrace any other faith. So either God is wilfully misleading theists everywhere by doing miracles here and there, or else He makes no meaningful distinction between different religions.

the_new_mr wrote:

I never think that these scientific miracles will let me down. Why would I follow a religion whose book has errors in it but says it is the literal word of God?

I suppose what that sounds like to me is something like the quote from the second article I posted above. You cannot allow anything to contradict what you see as the scientific miracles, because that might conflict with religion. I don’t see this as a necessary conflict, and I think this is the main point the French scientist is making. I know he says that the Quran cannot be wrong on a point of fact, but I would take his floating of the idea that new scientific knowledge might prompt a re-interpretation to mean that he does not think this should cause the suppression of evidence.

I think the point he is gently making is that if, for the sake of argument (and I do wish I could think of an example that wasn’t evolution) we are faced with evolutionary theory on the one hand and on the other with an interpretation that says God created Adam and Eve, we need to re-interpret the Adam and Eve story mindful that we know the mechanism through which the early humans came about was by descent from apes. Hence, if someone was to say to him this was heresy, I would take it his reply would be ‘no, stating reasonable, objective truth cannot be heresy. Your interpretation of the Quran is the problem’.

From my end, this makes sense. I don’t reject the Quran because I read it as saying the Earth is the centre of the Universe. I reject it simply because I don’t regard the idea of a God interested in the doings of each and every one of us is credible. From that perspective, if someone does believe in such a God, as far as I’m concerned they’ve made such a leap of faith that I don’t see why a few factual errors here and there should make that much difference to them, particularly if it makes no real difference to the spiritual significance of the text.

the_new_mr wrote:

Wouldn't that be lying to myself?

I think this question is actually at the heart of the gap between Atheism and Theism. I can’t speak for all Atheists, but I think most of us do suspect that Theists consciously delude themselves and construct elaborate mental screens to avoid facing what looks to us as the sheer lack of credibility of any mainstream faith.

I guess I'll have only two options.

Another might be that the message was delivered in a way that would be understandable to people over a thousand years ago.

the_new_mr wrote:

How can any Muslim sincerely believe that the Quran is the literal word of God whilst at the same time think the miracles are wrong.

I don’t think its so much that the 'miracles' are wrong, so much as they just aren’t there. Each of them is just an exercise in twisting language to make it seem like the Quran is saying something that it’s not.

the_new_mr wrote:

I think maybe what he's saying is that the Quran should be more used as a motivation to find out more and more about the universe instead of just using the scientific miracles as proof of the truth.

My reading is he can see the miracles mean something to a lot of people, and he wants to get his point across rather than simply cause a controversy. But his language very clearly avoids saying the ‘miracles’ exist. The quote I posted above is, to my mind, a very clear suggestion that people should leave the ‘miracles’ behind them and rediscover what he sees as the Islamic tradition of pursuing real science, confident that whatever science reveals is simply God’s creation.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Presumably, if God answers a pagan’s prayer, that person’s belief in his faith is confirmed and so is less likely to embrace any other faith. So either God is wilfully misleading theists everywhere by doing miracles here and there, or else He makes no meaningful distinction between different religions.

Well, I think it comes down to God's mercy. Such is the level of His mercy and love for us that He answers the prayers of those sincere and in need.

I'm not sure if we read the same article about the french scientist Schuhart From what I can see (and as I showed using quotes in my previous post), it seems that he feels that putting the Quran to the test using science is backwards since science has the potential to be wrong whereas Muslims believe the Quran to be 100% true.

Schuhart wrote:

I would take his floating of the idea that new scientific knowledge might prompt a re-interpretation to mean that he does not think this should cause the suppression of evidence.

I don't think he said that. He did mention the two examples of al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd. I think the correct approach is somewhere between these two ideas (i.e., doing this sometimes and doing that sometimes... or trying both at once maybe).

Schuhart wrote:

I think the point he is gently making is that if, for the sake of argument (and I do wish I could think of an example that wasn’t evolution) we are faced with evolutionary theory on the one hand and on the other with an interpretation that says God created Adam and Eve, we need to re-interpret the Adam and Eve story mindful that we know the mechanism through which the early humans came about was by descent from apes.

This is what makes me feel we read a different article. I got the feeling that he was saying that absolutely anything in science can be questioned whereas the Quran cannot. I think he just wanted to state that there is the possibility that the interpretation of the verses may be incorrect.

As I mentioned in another thread, there is a theory that makes evolution in compliance with the Quran that suggests that Adam and Eve were spirtually transported into the evolved beings. However, this opinion seems to be weak on a few points so I'm not convinced.

Schuhart wrote:

Hence, if someone was to say to him this was heresy, I would take it his reply would be ‘no, stating reasonable, objective truth cannot be heresy. Your interpretation of the Quran is the problem’.

Once again, he seems to be against the idea of calling science "truth".

Dr. Bruno Abd-al-Haqq Guiderdoni wrote:

As you may know, the notion of scientific truth is difficult to define.
...
As far as scientific truth is concerned, I have to recall that it is always defined in the context of a theory. Scientific truth is the ability of a theory to explain and predict observational and experimental facts.
...
So we cannot define scientific truth

Schuhart wrote:

if someone does believe in such a God, as far as I’m concerned they’ve made such a leap of faith that I don’t see why a few factual errors here and there should make that much difference to them, particularly if it makes no real difference to the spiritual significance of the text.

Why would someone follow the teachings of a book that says that it's flawless but has flaws in it? The mind boggles. I know I wouldn't.

Schuhart wrote:

I think this question is actually at the heart of the gap between Atheism and Theism. I can’t speak for all Atheists, but I think most of us do suspect that Theists consciously delude themselves and construct elaborate mental screens to avoid facing what looks to us as the sheer lack of credibility of any mainstream faith.

Yes, I know this is what most (if not all atheists) believe. I think that both groups see the other as being somewhat arrogant. Or, perhaps more precisely, theists see atheists as arrogant and atheists see theists as stupid or naive.

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t think its so much that the 'miracles' are wrong, so much as they just aren’t there. Each of them is just an exercise in twisting language to make it seem like the Quran is saying something that it’s not.

I know some people see that. In my opinion, there are just too many of them. And sometimes they are proceded with a verse mentioning God's ability to do all things or something like "such are the signs of your Lord".

And then there's this verse.

Fussilat:53
"We shall show them Our portents on the horizons and within themselves until it will be manifest unto them that it is the Truth. Doth not thy Lord suffice, since He is Witness over all things?"

Schuhart wrote:

The quote I posted above is, to my mind, a very clear suggestion that people should leave the ‘miracles’ behind them and rediscover what he sees as the Islamic tradition of pursuing real science, confident that whatever science reveals is simply God’s creation.

Well, whatever science reveals may indeed be God's creation... or it may be false and we have to wait for a newer theory.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Such is the level of His mercy and love for us that He answers the prayers of those sincere and in need.

Which is avoiding the point about this either meaning he holds all faiths in equal regard or he’s toying with people. But, in fairness, if you don’t want to address that point I won’t force it.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'm not sure if we read the same article about the french scientist

Obviously there’s no point in me quoting his entire interview, so I’ll try to pick out the bits that give you a picture of what he’s saying.

But is it necessary to go to the point where we would like to consider scientific statements, that is, quantitative statements based on theories and experiments, in the Qur'an? Do we need that to prove the truth of the Qur'an? Shouldn't we recognize that the truth of the Qur'an is present in each verse and radiates its spiritual light? I share the admiration of those who contemplate the beauty of the description of the world in the Qur'an. And I do not see what is added to this truth and beauty by those who try to make a new science from the Qur'an.

Essentially I think this is about as clear a statement as he can make to say that the scientific miracles are bunk, without actually calling his co-religionists deluded. What he is saying here is that the Quran contains religious truth, not scientific truth. This distinction is what he is trying to draw. It features again strongly when he mentions Popper’s statement scientific theories should be falsifiable. What he is getting at here is that a scientific statement will be something that can be proved true or false – i.e. if we say carbon burns we can test that by experiment. Religious truth, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. There is no test that ‘proves’ the Quran is or isn’t the word of God. In plain language, he’s saying that its utterly nuts to try to prove religious truths with science and equally nuts to pollute science with religion. That’s the key point the guy is trying to make – although I accept he is making it gently and diplomatically.

the_new_mr wrote:

As I mentioned in another thread, there is a theory that makes evolution in compliance with the Quran that suggests that Adam and Eve were spirtually transported into the evolved beings. However, this opinion seems to be weak on a few points so I'm not convinced.

Which I think is the problem the guy is bothered about – that physical evidence is rejected because it causes a textual problem. Sura 18:86 describes the Sun setting in a pool of black water. Do we have to take this as scientific fact, or do we just accept that, whatever that Sura is meant to be saying, it’s not intended as a guide to the solar system?

the_new_mr wrote:

Why would someone follow the teachings of a book that says that it's flawless but has flaws in it? The mind boggles. I know I wouldn't.

I think it has to do with the nature of the flaws. Does the spiritual truth of the Quran really depend on whether it accurately describes the physical world? I know this is half repeating the same point again, but this really is what its about. If you try to pretend the Quran is flawless in every little detail you are setting it up for a test that it will fail.

the_new_mr wrote:

In my opinion, there are just too many of them.

But none of them I’ve looked at hold up to scrutiny. The fact that many unsupportable claims are being made doesn’t make any of them valid. It’s the kind of retrofitting of words that you see people doing to ‘prove’ the accuracy of the prophecies of Nostradamus.

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, whatever science reveals may indeed be God's creation... or it may be false and we have to wait for a newer theory.

I think we can have a little bit more confidence in our ability to understand the physical world. To quote our French friend.

What we can identify with great certainty is the scientific process that leads us to the growth of knowledge.It is a fact that we know more than we used to know in the Middle Ages, or even in the 19th century, because of this capitalization of knowledge. This is the scientific approach.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Which is avoiding the point about this either meaning he holds all faiths in equal regard or he’s toying with people. But, in fairness, if you don’t want to address that point I won’t force it.

I resent such a statement as "avoiding the point" Schuhart. I'm a little disappointed that you would say such a thing. I answered your point with a counter-point I felt was sufficient and did not "avoid" anything. A statement like that questions my intention. None but God knows my intention and I would appreciate it if you didn't do this again in the future.

From my understanding, God loves all humans and wants us all to do what's right becasue He wants us to be successful in both the life of this world and in the hereafter. An Islamic belief is that if we look at mercy as being made up of 100 parts, God gave one of these parts to be distributed to all beings for all time and the other 99 parts of mercy belong to God, The Most Merciful.

So, when someone of His creation is in a time of need and asks for His help sincerely, He may well grant them their wish. This is different to guiding an individual to one religion over another. The responsibility for this rests with the individual themselves. And in the end, their judgement rests with God who will never judge them unfairly.

As for the scientist, I think the quote you shows exactly what I was trying to say earlier. He says "But is it necessary...". The key word is necessary here I believe. I understand from this entire article that he feels that proving the Quran with scientifc miracles that must be verified by science which is, by his own admission, not perfect is doing things backwards. He feels that the other verses of the Quran are enough to prove its truth. I quote what I quoted earlier:

Dr. Bruno Abd-al-Haqq Guiderdoni wrote:

Science appears as the ultimate judge for truth, which it is not, as I tried to explain previously. This is not the correct order of things, because the physical has to be submitted to the metaphysical, not the opposite.

As for the level of importance he places on scientifc miracles, I think you're right in that he feels that people shouldn't be trying to prove the Quran with science. This is partly because, as he said, he has tried to show that the possibly false cannot be used to verify the (in Muslim eyes) definitely true.

Most people don't embrace Islam based on science alone. Although it must be said that there are scientists who found the verses in question in the Quran to be one of the main motivations for converting. I think that people will only embrace Islam if they feel it is the truth all round. The verses with hints at science may only act as a helper.

Schuhart wrote:

Sura 18:86 describes the Sun setting in a pool of black water. Do we have to take this as scientific fact, or do we just accept that, whatever that Sura is meant to be saying, it’s not intended as a guide to the solar system?

I see your point here and, to an extent, you are right. This verse is talking about how the sun was appearing to set to Dhul-Qarnayn. We shouldn't stifle scientific discovery because someone has made a particular interpretation of a verse of the Quran. Who is to say their interpretation is right anyway? Can they know the truth of God?

It's my understanding (albeit a humble one) that God placed these scientic references in the Quran to hint at the Quran's truth as time moves on and to give a helping hand to people who may be looking for the truth as new scientific discoveries are made. That is to say, a discovery is made, someone realises that there is more to a particular verse than it first appeared to be. Verses stating things like this often have something like "...these are signs for people who understand".

I think the example I talked about before about the verse from the chapter of Al-Alaq mentioning nasaya shows this. If I may be so lazy as to quote myself

In Surat Al-'Alaq, verses 13 to 16, which read as follows according to Yusuf Ali:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?; Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?; Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,- ; A lying, sinful forelock!"

Now, we can see here the word forelock. This was the word translated from the arabic word nasaya by both Ali and Pickthal.

dictionary.com defines forelock as follows.

dictionary.com wrote:

A lock of hair that grows from or falls on the forehead, especially the part of a horse's mane that falls forward between the ears.

Now, the correct meaning of the word nasaya is actually forehead (or front of the head) and not forelock. However, it appears that both Ali and Pickthal thought to themselves that since the forehead is attached to the forelock then God meant that they would be dragged by their forelock since that made more sense to them at the time with the information they had available to them at that time (Ali and Pickthal are relatively old translations).

Recent discoveries in science have shown that the part of the brain responsible for controlling whether one's actions will be good or bad, whether they will perform good deeds or bad deeds and whether or not they will tell the truth or lie is the frontal part of the brain (another of the scientific miracles in the Quran). Looking at verse 16 again with this knowledge, we should see:
A lying, sinful forehead!

So, the word nasaya meaning forehead was all along the most accurate meaning. When you think about it, God would have no bother pulling someone by their forehead instead of their forelock since He is, after all, God and is able to do all things.

Both Shakir and Asad use the word forehead instead of forelock. Verses 13-16 according to Shakir:

Al-'Alaq:13-16
"Have you considered if he gives the lie to the truth and turns (his) back?; Does he not know that Allah does see?; Nay! if he desist not, We would certainly smite his forehead,; A lying, sinful forehead."

There is no question now that the most apparent correct meaning at this time is forehead and not forelock.

What I'm trying to say is that a discovery may be made, someone realises that this was mentioned in the Quran, people say Subhan Allah! (Glory be to God).

As to reject science based on the interpretation of some verses in the Quran, I think that that would depend largely on the verses in question so each case would have to be considered individually. For example, if a scientist came along and said "The sun isn't in an orbit of its own around a point in the universe" then I would confidently dismiss such a comment.

Schuhart wrote:

If you try to pretend the Quran is flawless in every little detail you are setting it up for a test that it will fail.

In your opinion. I'm not pretending.

Schuhart wrote:

I think we can have a little bit more confidence in our ability to understand the physical world. To quote our French friend

What we can identify with great certainty is the scientific process that leads us to the growth of knowledge.It is a fact that we know more than we used to know in the Middle Ages, or even in the 19th century, because of this capitalization of knowledge. This is the scientific approach.

He said that we can identify the scientific process but we can't be sure of the scientific knowledge we achieve through this process. To quote yer man.

It turns out that it's quite difficult to specify the truth of a scientific theory. On this issue, there is a significant contribution of a philosopher called Karl Popper in the last century. He reflected on what was called "the logic of scientific discovery," that is, when can we infer, from a philosophical viewpoint, that a given theory is wrong or true? Popper argues that it is not possible to prove that a theory is right. It is only possible to prove that a theory is wrong by contradicting it with facts

Anyway, I guess we shall have to agree to disagree since you won't agree with me unless you also believe that the Quran is the literal word of God.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

We shouldn't stifle scientific discovery because someone has made a particular interpretation of a verse of the Quran.

Absolutely.

the_new_mr wrote:

From my understanding, God loves all humans and wants us all to do what's right …. in the end, their judgement rests with God who will never judge them unfairly.

Which suggests, if there is a God, he doesn’t particularly care what religion people follow, so long as they are decent and sincere.

the_new_mr wrote:

As to reject science based on the interpretation of some verses in the Quran, I think that that would depend largely on the verses in question so each case would have to be considered individually. For example, if a scientist came along and said "The sun isn't in an orbit of its own around a point in the universe" then I would confidently dismiss such a comment.

Except, of course, at this point you would be leaving any claim to ‘scientific miracles’ behind, as it you would be accepting that the Quran is not confirmed by science – which is the opposite of what I thought the point of these ‘miracles’ was meant to be.

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, I guess we shall have to agree to disagree since you won't agree with me unless you also believe that the Quran is the literal word of God.

Indeed, but hopefully you’ll appreciate that if these miracles require faith to be seen, they are not ‘scientific’.

As a half aside, some of this ‘miracle’ talk seems to base itself in the view that the society in which Mohammed lived was utterly ignorant of the world around them. But consider Newgrange, for the sake of argument. Nearly 4000 years before the Quran was written, stone age pagans were able to predict the movements of the Sun with enough accuracy to construct a tomb in such a way that the sunlight penetrated the burial chamber through a narrow slit to on the Winter solstice.

Therefore, it’s hardly strange that, several millennia after that, people would still know that celestial bodies move in an orderly fashion. The Quran simply describes the solar system as the people at the time probably saw it. We’ve mentioned verse 21:33. While browsing the website you posted above, I notice 36:38 talks about the sun running to a ‘resting place’ – a concept that only makes sense if the world is flat. 36:40 talks about the Sun not being allowed to overtake the Moon – a concept that only makes sense if they are both orbiting the Earth.

But none of that really impacts on the spiritual message that these verses are trying to communicate. That message seems to be the belief of some that order in the world around us is a sign of God. Our scientist friend is, to my mind, taking that as a reasonable indication that scientific enquiry into that order should not be constrained. He respects the Quran, and it inspires him to investigate the world around him. But he’s not expecting it to tell him how a galaxy is formed.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Except, of course, at this point you would be leaving any claim to ‘scientific miracles’ behind, as it you would be accepting that the Quran is not confirmed by science – which is the opposite of what I thought the point of these ‘miracles’ was meant to be.

I don't think so. If someone has made a scientific discovery and then someone realises that there is a verse in the Quran discussing this particular discovery then that's a scientic miracle. That's the way these things happen, not the other way around. But as Dr. Bruno says, the Quran does not need to be verified by science since that would be a case of using a lesser truth to verify the ultimate truth.

Schuhart wrote:

Indeed, but hopefully you’ll appreciate that if these miracles require faith to be seen, they are not ‘scientific’.

I don't think so. I think that when people read a verse of the Quran that they know others have said has a scientific miracle, they will either:
a) Read it sceptically and their sub-conscious (and likely their conscious) mind will attempt to find a way to disprove it
b) Read it with the faith in the Quran already there and likely accept it as a miracle (I say likely as opposed to definitely because an honest person may not be convinced with associating a particular interpretation with a particular scientific fact)
c) Read it without any bias at all (as in the case of someone purely curious or perhaps in search of the truth)

You are "a", I am "b" and others have been "c".

I am well aware that people such as those of newgrange or the pharaohs had made calculations and discoveries concerning the sun and things. However, nothing any other group of people have ever done even compares to the magnitude of the miracles in the Quran.

As for verses 36:38 and 36:40.

Another translation (and therefore interpretation) of 36:38 by Asad:

Ya-Sin:38
"And [they have a sign in] the sun: it runs in an orbit of its own [and] that is laid down by the will of the Almighty, the All-Knowing;"

and another by Ali:

"And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing"

As for 36:40, Yusuf Ali uses the word "catch" instead of overtake. The Arabic word used is tudrika which makes me think of the english word: obtain. So, I believe the verse here talks about how the sun will never collide (catch) with the moon.

As I said, as long as you are biased and don't believe even in the possibility that the Quran is the literal word of God then you're never going to take these scientific miracles as a possibility. There have been others like you. On the other hand, there have also been others who were non-Muslim before and found the miracles to have truth in them. I really feel like we're going round in circles now and I've been repeating myself for a while. This thread isn't going to settle an argument that's been going on for years.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

As I said, as long as you are biased and don't believe even in the possibility that the Quran is the literal word of God then you're never going to take these scientific miracles as a possibility.

I think you need to pause before equating disbelief in the ‘miracles’ with bias. The material suggesting there are any miracles is too flimsy to do that.

Just to illustrate, the translation you are querying for verse 36:38 is actually consistent with that cited on the ‘miracles’ site you posted above. It also has the idea of the sun heading for a resting place (from the main page click on ‘Astronomy’ and then ‘Orbits’). It’s also consistent with the translations available on islamonline.net.

I therefore don’t think this reading can be dismissed on the grounds that I’m biased. I’m basing my argument on translations taken from a reliable Islamic source, and even used by some proponents of the ‘miracles’ view. If your response is to rubbish that translation, I’m left with the impression that the words of the Quran will be twisted to fit any meaning that a particular situation demands, even ignoring material ordinarily cited as reliable.

Like Bruno Guiderdoni, I'm left puzzled at all this energy wasted on something that belongs on the pages of the Fortean Times.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

The material suggesting there are any miracles is too flimsy to do that.

In your opinion.

Schuhart wrote:

Just to illustrate, the translation you are querying for verse 36:38 is actually consistent with that cited on the ‘miracles’ site you posted above. It also has the idea of the sun heading for a resting place (from the main page click on ‘Astronomy’ and then ‘Orbits’). It’s also consistent with the translations available on islamonline.net.

I was thinking earlier today about the possibility that the interpretation of resting place was correct. I did some reading and found the following.

Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even give it a name, the solar apex.

And God knows best.

On a side note, no honest person would purposefully "twist" the words of the Quran. You must remember that arabic is a complicated language and different interpretations can happen. We ask God to guide us to know what is right.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

the interpretation of resting place was correct.

Are you suggesting that the Sun is going to reach that spot and stop?

A far more likely explanation of this, and the other verses, is simply that its describing an Earth centred system. But, as I've said, this doesn't necessarily impact on the spiritual meaning of those texts - which is simply a suggestion that the divine hand created the order in the Universe.

Even now people will say things like 'I had to go to the Ends of the Earth'. They just mean they had to make a long journey, and don't intend people to take this as a suggestion they think the world is flat and has an End. Can I suggest a similar attitude is necessary in reading all religious texts, of any religion.

the_new_mr wrote:

On a side note, no honest person would purposefully "twist" the words of the Quran.

In fairness, I'm sure mostly when people are retrofitting these verses they are sincere. But they still look to be squeezing a meaning into the words that just is not there.

the_new_mr

Been busy for a few days.

Schuhart wrote:

Are you suggesting that the Sun is going to reach that spot and stop?

Only God knows for sure.

Schuhart wrote:

A far more likely explanation of this, and the other verses, is simply that its describing an Earth centred system.

Once again, I'll disagree with you here.

Dave!

the_new_mr, do you think that if someone lost an arm in an accident and then spent the rest of their life praying to god for a replacement arm, that god would grant this wish?

The person is of course a good person and treats everyone with respect and prays every day, etc.

How come this doesn't happen to Palestinians or anything like that?

Is it just that god works in mysterious ways, yeh?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Only God knows for sure.

Possibly, but then it all seems to go back to Bruno Guiderdoni's comment that its ultimately pointless to seek confirmation of religious truth in science. At the end of the day, science is going to be about what we can know.

bonkey

the_new_mr wrote:

Still, I must disagree with you. As far as I can see, there are no scientific discrepencies in the Quran.
...
Although I've already stated before that evolution being real or not rests easily enough with me either way since there are two opinions in the Islamic world on the matter (one that evolution is true and one that it isn't) and up until now at least, I share the opinion of those that say that Darwin was wrong.

Don't these two statements conflict, at least partially?

If you disagree with science, but claim that science is wrong, then there is still a discrepancy.

Or is your stance on evolution completely removed from the teachings of the Quran?

If not, then I would also point out the "hedging of bets" thats going on here. If evolution were ever to be scientifically discarded, then those Muslims of the belief that evolution is wrong (according to the Quran) can stand up and proclaim that here is, once again, evidence of the scientific wisdom inherent in the Quran.

On the other hand, if science ever establishes evolution to the point where even the non-scientific could no longer mount a credible defence against it, those Muslims of hte belief that evolution is right (according to the Quran_ can stand up and proclaim that there is, once again, evidence of the scientific wisdom inherent in the Quran.

However, it's important to note that evolution has not been proven... hence its name to this day of Darwin's theory of evolution.

It would be equally important to note that theory is just about the highest standard that exists in science. All of the other issues which have been held up as the scientific wisdom in the Quran are merely in agreement with theories that have been no more proven than evolution has been.

How come that when it comes to these alternate theories, the uncertainty is not highlighted, but with evolution its overplayed?

The search for knowledge is highly recommended in the Quran (even required). Religion would never have the right to suppress an idea that has truth in it.

If someone were to prove tomorrow that one of the "scientific miracles" that the Quran has predicted was, in fact, an incorrect conclusion based on faulty data, and that the theory was, as a result, disproven.....there'd be no problem with that? There'd be no problem with the Quran agreeing with something that was shown to be wrong?

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

but then it all seems to go back to Bruno Guiderdoni's comment that its ultimately pointless to seek confirmation of religious truth in science.

We really will have to agree to disagree on this. Religious truth doesn't have to be confirmed by science but the miracles are there in my opinion.

Schuhart wrote:

At the end of the day, science is going to be about what we can know.

Yep.

Bonkey wrote:

Don't these two statements conflict, at least partially?

Don't think so. The first one says that I believe that the Quran could not be in conflict with science. Or perhaps to word it more accurately, I believe that the Quran could not be in conflict with reality since science may have an incorrect take on reality.

There's no "hedging of bets" going on. It's an ongoing discussion on the intellectual level.

Bonkey wrote:

It would be equally important to note that theory is just about the highest standard that exists in science.

It's also important to note that there are atheist scientists who believe it's wrong.

Bonkey wrote:

All of the other issues which have been held up as the scientific wisdom in the Quran are merely in agreement with theories that have been no more proven than evolution has been.

Examaples? Most of the verses identified as miracles are based on scientific fact as a result of data or actual observations. The theory of evolution doesn't have such proof until now. Maybe there will be in the future. Time will tell I guess. But for now it's not scientific fact.

Anyway, as already agreed on this thread earlier on, there is an ongoing discussion about the theory of evolution on the Christianity forum so I suggest you continue debating your case over there.

Bonkey wrote:

If someone were to prove tomorrow that one of the "scientific miracles" that the Quran has predicted was, in fact, an incorrect conclusion based on faulty data, and that the theory was, as a result, disproven.....there'd be no problem with that? There'd be no problem with the Quran agreeing with something that was shown to be wrong?

Think this point has already been covered especially with reference to the difference between the opinions of Al-Ghazzali and Ibn Rushd.

Dave!

the_new_mr wrote:

We really will have to agree to disagree on this. Religious truth doesn't have to be confirmed by science but the miracles are there in my opinion.

That's basically just another way of pointing out how there's no logic in trying to disprove a religious belief because religion is outside the boundaries of human thought.

That's handy, isn't it? If only we had that level of consciousness!

the_new_mr wrote:

It's also important to note that there are atheist scientists who believe it's wrong.

Not many.

the_new_mr

DaveMcG wrote:

That's basically just another way of pointing out how there's no logic in trying to disprove a religious belief because religion is outside the boundaries of human thought.

No it's not. It's just saying we should agree to disagree instead of runnning around and around in circles and repeating ourselves.

DaveMcG wrote:

Not many.

The fact that there is even 1 is enough.

At the same time, I imagine that a great many athiests feel the need to believe in the theory of evolution since it's the main sticking point that religion has and so, if only on the sub-cocscious level, athiest scientists who are in support of the theory of evolution do so because they reject the idea of religion in the first place. I can't prove that though

Son Goku

the_new_mr wrote:

At the same time, I imagine that a great many athiests feel the need to believe in the theory of evolution since it's the main sticking point that religion has and so, if only on the sub-cocscious level, athiest scientists who are in support of the theory of evolution do so because they reject the idea of religion in the first place. I can't prove that though

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Evolution is supported by scientists because it makes predictions that can and have been confirmed and explains a range of natural phenomena. It has nothing to do with issues scientists have with religion.

the_new_mr

Son Goku wrote:

Evolution is supported by scientists because it makes predictions that can and have been confirmed and explains a range of natural phenomena.

In cases of micro-evolution, yes but not in macro-evolution.

bonkey

the_new_mr wrote:

Don't think so. The first one says that I believe that the Quran could not be in conflict with science. Or perhaps to word it more accurately, I believe that the Quran could not be in conflict with reality since science may have an incorrect take on reality.

There's no "hedging of bets" going on. It's an ongoing discussion on the intellectual level.

I'm afraid that I disagree. I see you saying that the Quran is taken by some to be in agreement with evolution, and by others to be saying evolution is wrong....but that underneath all of that the Quran is right.

So basically, whatever happens in the conclusion will be that some people misinterpreted the Quran, and that the Quran agrees with whatever is right. To me, having something that can be interpreted two ways until we know which way it should be interpreted is a case of bet-hedging. It can't be wrong no matter what the truth is...but it can't definitively tell us the truth in and of itself, merely allow both possibilities until we know that one is false, at which point that interpretation is clearly wrong.

It's also important to note that there are atheist scientists who believe it's wrong.

Why is it important?

Examaples?

Why do I need to give examples. All of science is based on theories, despite your assertion to the contrary :

Most of the verses identified as miracles are based on scientific fact as a result of data or actual observations.

Scientifc fact? There is no such thing. Its all theories. All of it. Arguably, we can say that we're more certain of some theories than others, but at the end of the day, all of science is based on theory. That mightn't be convient, but its true.

The theory of evolution doesn't have such proof until now.

I believe what you mean is that it hasn't provided proof that has been accepted by everyone.

Of course, by that standard of proof, it hasn't been proven that the earth isn't holloow, nor that it is, indeed, round.

But for now it's not scientific fact.

You keep using this term. There is no such thing as scientific fact, unless you say that if we accept certain theories as true, then a certain conclusion is a fact. But you're still dependant on those base theories being correct, so you're still only dealing with the implication of theory.

Anyway, as already agreed on this thread earlier on, there is an ongoing discussion about the theory of evolution on the Christianity forum so I suggest you continue debating your case over there.

My question wasn't specifically about evolution. I'm questioning your assertion that there is no dissonance between the teachings of the Quran and science, despite the fact that the believers of the Quran can conclude either possibility concerning evolution (that it is, or is not true). Both cannot be correct, so there is dissonance. We may not know today which one of the two interpretations of the Quran is correct, but what we do know is that both cannot be correct as they are mutually exclusive. Either evolution is or is not correct. The Quran apparently supports both possibilities.

The reason I'm interested in this one is because I'm skeptical as to how many of these scientific miracles were understood unambiguously from the teachings of the Quran before science came across them. Or is it a case that someone looks at the Quran to see what its stance on something is and discovers that a certain passage can be interpreted after the fact to support the statement.

Think this point has already been covered especially with reference to the difference between the opinions of Al-Ghazzali and Ibn Rushd.

Only if we accept that what is being demonstrated is that there are many possible ways to understand the writings in the Quran and that rather than being in any way predictive, it is rather open to sufficient interpretation that one can always find agreement with what one believes to be true seperately.

For example...

For example, if a scientist came along and said "The sun isn't in an orbit of its own around a point in the universe" then I would confidently dismiss such a comment.

Would you continue to dismiss it if that scientist showed conclusive evidence that it was so?

And if, subsequently, whatever Islamic scholars you respect then turned around and said that this was a case where a commonly-held interpretation of the wording in the Quran was subtly incorrect, and in fact it was in agreement with this new scientific position....would you continue to dismiss it confidently?

ETA: Incitendally, the sun is known to orbit a point in the galaxy, not in the universe. Indeed, I believe science would disagree with the notion of a universal orbit, but my astrophysics is a bit rusty.

The fact that there is even 1 is enough.

No, its not. Individuals can be wrong. Gaining the accolade of "scientist" does not remove one's fallability. Indeed, as in any other field, the realms of science are full of scientists of every calibre.

I would go so far as to say that it would be difficult to find a single scientific theory that was unanimously held. It would possibly be an impossible task to find such. And you know what....thats part of the reason they're called theories and not facts.

Son Goku

the_new_mr wrote:

In cases of micro-evolution, yes but not in macro-evolution.

Since Schuhart didn't want another Creationism thread, I don't think I should persue this any further, except to say that macro/micro evolution are arbitrary distinctions invented by those who wish to discredit evolution. It is never used in biology papers. Not only that but the meaning of macroevolution has been shifted over the years. It originally meant evolution into a new species, but when we observed that happen (over the course of 100 years) to certain moths, flies and bacteria, that was no longer good enough because "They're still flies, even though they're another species".
Now it means something along the lines of "A change big enough so that the animal looks very different externally to the average human being".

Aside from this the mathematics following from "macro"evolution predicts certain trends in reptilian genetics, which have been observed in the fossil record.

Of course though, it doesn't matter a damn how much evidence there is.

bonkey

Following on my previosu post...

The notion of a universal orbit is an impossibility under current scientific (expansionary) models.

I take it that this means the_new_mr is confident that we do not live in an expansionary universe and that the astrophysicists are all wrong.

the_new_mr

bonkey wrote:

Why is it important?

To show that a scientist who disagrees with evolution is not always religiously motivated. I thought this was obvious.

bonkey wrote:

Scientifc fact? There is no such thing. Its all theories. All of it. Arguably, we can say that we're more certain of some theories than others, but at the end of the day, all of science is based on theory. That mightn't be convient, but its true.

Fair enough. If you say so. "More certain of some theories than others" is the statement I liked the most there.

bonkey wrote:

Both cannot be correct, so there is dissonance.

I've stated before that we can't be expected to intepret everything correctly.

bonkey wrote:

The notion of a universal orbit is an impossibility under current scientific (expansionary) models.

My bad. The Quran mentions nothing of a universal orbit or, for that matter, that the sun orbits it. My mistake entirely.

bonkey wrote:

Would you continue to dismiss it if that scientist showed conclusive evidence that it was so?

Let me say this then. If a scientist said that the sun isn't moving, I'd confidently dismiss it.

bonkey wrote:

No, its not. Individuals can be wrong. Gaining the accolade of "scientist" does not remove one's fallability. Indeed, as in any other field, the realms of science are full of scientists of every calibre.

Exactly my point.

Son Goku wrote:

Aside from this the mathematics following from "macro"evolution predicts certain trends in reptilian genetics, which have been observed in the fossil record.

As far as I know, fossil records have gaps in them when it comes to one species changing into another. Mathematical calculations have been wrong before in the past. Best not cotinue this in this thread though.

Son Goku

the_new_mr wrote:

As far as I know, fossil records have gaps in them when it comes to one species changing into another. Mathematical calculations have been wrong before in the past. Best not cotinue this in this thread though.

Eh, the point is that they are right in this case. They predict what we should observe in the fossils at certain intervals and what they predict is what we observe. The gaps don't matter because they predict a continuum of results which only have to be checked at large intervals.
The trend they predict is observed, i.e. they aren't wrong.

Anyway I'll respect the intentions not to continue with this.

Schuhart

FWIW, I’ve googled Bruno Guiderdoni out of an amount of curiosity as to how he reconciles his profession as a scientist with the practice of a religion. He’s actually produced some reasonable articles that give some insight into his thoughts and beliefs. ‘Miracles in the Koran’ don’t play a big part in his outlook. In fact, he plainly sees them as an embarrassment.

there cannot be any actual contradiction between the results of scientific investigation and the religious doctrines, provided they are not a complete illusion. However, and precisely for that reason, the connection of the evolving results of science with the symbolic teachings of religion should be more subtle that the ``cheap concordism'' which would consist in taking the literal meaning of some Koranic verses as alluding to ``scientific facts'', and in interpreting allegorically those whose literal meaning seems to be discrepant.

His reflections on life, the universe and everything seem to take him to that inevitable conclusion that there is no one true faith.

After some reading and travels in Northern Africa, I became aware of the necessity of following a spiritual path, and I embraced Islam. But the choice of Islam also includes the understanding that all religions of humanity come from God and go back to God. That has become an important element of my conversion. All religions eventually converge to the top of the mountain where God stands. Islam is one of the many religions that have been given by God to humanity.

We should not try to make a kind of mix between science and religion, or between all religions. We have to keep the scientific method when we do science. We have to keep religious rituals and dogma when we do religion. And everybody has to be faithful to his own religious roots.

I find I can accept his worldview, while I don’t share it myself.

I might be doing his writings a disservice, and I’m conscious that as his scientific field is how galaxies are formed so studying things that happen over that kind of timescale means he must be painfully aware of how the universe is so much older than us and so much larger than we need to exist. But my problem with what I’ve read of him is he seems to suggest a half-static idea that we are here studying the world about us and understanding God from that. This is fine so far as it goes, but it seems to skip past our place as part of this evolving universe. In a million years time our descendants won’t still be homo sapiens sapiens. That seems to me to be terribly significant in this context.

That said, Islam needs more Brunos and less ‘miracles’.

the_new_mr

Good idea to google Bruno Guiderdoni. He's an interesting guy with interesting thoughts. It's clear that his stuff is deep and is very "sufi" in nature as he talks often of a person's relationship with God which is of course what religion is all about (at least for most religions).

I'd say he'd be a fascinating guy to talk to. Must see if I can do that someday. Maybe when I head over to France some time I'll see what I can do

Anyway, I don't know if he sees them so much as an embarrassment as you put it. It seems to be that he maybe doesn't accept them. Maybe he does see them as an embarrassment. I don't know. You'd have to ask him really. Now, whether that's because he's upset at the idea that religion should be subjected to the judgement and imperfections of scientific discovery and human thought or because of something else I don't know. I'd love to ask him, being a cosmologist, what he thinks of the verses describing the universe as steadily expanding or the verse that describes that the universe will contract again on the Day of Judgement.

As for the idea of all religions coming from God. That is true to an extent. I mean, nobody would get anything unless God wanted them to get it. At the same time, verses in the Quran are clear about how Christianity and Judaism have veered from their original truth.

I wonder if perhaps Buddha was a messenger of God that was mentioned and whose teachings have been distorted. I'm just saying it's a possibility, not for definite. I don't want any Buddhists getting upset. I'm just saying maybe based upon this verse.

Ghafir:78
"We did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them there are some whose story We have related to thee, and some whose story We have not related to thee. It was not (possible) for any apostle to bring a sign except by the leave of Allah. but when the Command of Allah issued, the matter was decided in truth and justice, and there perished, there and then those who stood on Falsehoods."

Going back to the idea of all religions coming from God, I myself have a certain opinion on this. I'm nobody really so who I am I to say any of this and I'd like to point out that my opinion should not be taken as "fact". God forgive if I'm saying something wrong.

But with my knowledge that God is The Most Just, I think that there are good people who, through no fault of their own, would live and die as a non-Muslim and may still go to heaven because it'll come back to their intentions. I think I've said before that it comes back to exposure and sincerity of heart. Then again, I could be talking rubbish. Anyway, this topic is way way waaaaaaaaaaaay out of my realm so I'm gonna leave it there really. God forgive me if I've mentioned anything I shouldn't have.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, I don't know if he sees them so much as an embarrassment as you put it. It seems to be that he maybe doesn't accept them

In fairness, I don’t know if he does find them embarrassing. But he really doesn’t like them.This is about the most blunt comment of his that I’ve read.

Much confusion has arisen recently because of a naive parallelism between Koranic verses and the discoveries of modern science, that betrays some ignorance on the nature of the scientific inquiry and of the religious texts.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'd love to ask him, being a cosmologist, what he thinks of the verses describing the universe as steadily expanding or the verse that describes that the universe will contract again on the Day of Judgement.

Taking his own words, I think he’d worry that this was

a literalistic reading of the Scriptures, which is a double error: It leads us to say things about the world that are wrong, and it makes us forget the symbolic nature of revelation, which concerns the invisible and the ultimate destiny of humans.

the_new_mr wrote:

At the same time, verses in the Quran are clear about how Christianity and Judaism have veered from their original truth.

What original message? Maybe the full truth hasn’t been found yet. As our mate Bruno says

God is not exhausted by creation or by revelation. He does not cease to speak.

To my mind, this isn’t a million miles away from facing that reality that no religion has the final word, because we’re still writing it.

Schuhart

I won’t labour the point, even if I am digging up an old thread. But I think this extract from ‘The Koran for Dummies’ by Sohaib Sultan does a lot to illustrate just what’s wrong with the whole ‘scientific miracle’ approach.

The Koran shows an innate knowledge of astronomy in pointing out that the sun and moon alternate by day and night in a ‘rounded course’ (21:33) which alludes to the fact that both the sun and moon rotate around the earth, a ‘scientific’ discovery that was made well after the Koran’s revelation.

the_new_mr

No offense intended but honestly, I don't see the point of your last post there Schuhart. I think we've already established that such a view is incorrect. You can't hold Islam responsible for the incorrect view of a few. It's like saying that being Catholic automatically makes you part of the IRA (which of course it doesn't).

Schuhart

Perhaps more explanation of what I see in this is necessary. I’m certainly not saying that Muslims believe the Sun orbits the Earth. In fact, someone could equally wonder how that sentence got through the publisher’s editing process and, indeed, several book reviews without anyone, including presumably many non-Muslims, noticing what it was saying. I found it while browsing the religion section in my local library and felt it worth posting as a footnote.

I’d guess the mindset of the author to be of interest. He’s been taught, presumably, that the Quran contains information miraculously predating scientific discovery. He can see the Quran describes the Sun as orbiting the Earth. Hence, he writes something we can all see is pure fantasy.

For me, this is simply a good illustration of the credulity on which those ‘miracles’ claims are based.

the_new_mr

Yeah but didn't we establish that just because someone sees that, it's not necessarily true. Especially since a vast majority (all) of Muslims believe that the earth orbits the sun and that the interpretation of the Quran does not conflict with this idea.

I wouldn't be surprised if it snuck in there as an unintentional error either. Especially since the author writes that it confirms a "scientific discovery". Since science disagrees with this than I doubt that's what he meant.

Anyway, regardless of what he meant, I still don't see it relevant to the subject at hand.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

and the interpretation of the Quran does not conflict with this idea.

I’d put it more as ‘and there’s no reason to expect confirmation of this from the Quran.’ The key point is that the Quran is not a scientific textbook. The quote from ‘The Koran for Dummies’ illustrates a very good reason for remembering this.

the_new_mr wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if it snuck in there as an unintentional error either.

That was also my first thought. But I cannot see any way that this can be passed off as a typo. The only explanation is that he came across some garbled version of the ‘miracle’, and saw no reason to doubt it.

I’m not suggesting every Muslim has to be responsible for every mistake by every other Muslim who writes a book. Nevertheless, I do thing this is illustrative of the pitfalls of the miracles approach – hence the post.

There is absolutely no reason why any of that should have any impact on the Quran’s value as a religious text. It only raises problems for anyone who wants to read a literal meaning into the text that it does not support.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

That was also my first thought. But I cannot see any way that this can be passed off as a typo. The only explanation is that he came across some garbled version of the ‘miracle’, and saw no reason to doubt it.

Even though it's completely besides the point, from a psychological point of view, this kind of thing can happen very easily due to knowing what you expect to see and therefore reading what you expect to see instead of what's really there. That's why you should get someone else to proof-read your own stuff and even then there are no guarantees. That's not to say for sure that what's in the book isn't what the author intended. As I said, it doesn't matter.

I think you've made your point very clear already that you don't think that the references in the Quran are scientific. And you've also said that Bruno Abd Al-Haqq Guiderdoni thinks the same. I've also said that I disagree. To my mind, there are too many verses that appear to me to be too accurate to just be a coincidence. And as I've said before, I think the best approach is somewhere between the opinions of Al-Ghazzali and Ibn Rushd as discussed earlier.

the_new_mr wrote:

Bruno Abd Al-Haqq Guiderdoni wrote:

Al-Ghazali claimed that, in case of apparent disagreement, it is usually the fault of the scientists who go beyond the limits of science when they claim things about the action of God in the world, the nature of fundamental reality, and so on. Whereas for Ibn Rushd, if there is a contradiction between the statements of religion and the statements of science, one has to come back to the Holy Book and make new, more valid, "interpretations" of the text that do not contradict the sound results of science.

I remember thinking at the time that my own opinion (albeit a humble one since I'm miles away from the level of knowledge of such men) is somewhere in between them as well. I think one should keep an open mind on both sides. An open mind that the scientic theory could be wrong and an open mind that the interpertation of the religious text could be wrong.

As far as I could tell, I felt we already agreed on this. Anyway, if you have any new points that I'd be glad to discuss them to the best of my ability but please don't lets go round in circles.

Suff

What bout scientists conversion?
, scientists’ comments on the scientific miracles in the Quran
might emphasis of the Scientific Materials in the Quraan.

Edit:
added a better site for info in the 2nd link

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

As far as I could tell, I felt we already agreed on this. Anyway, if you have any new points that I'd be glad to discuss them to the best of my ability but please don't lets go round in circles.

I don’t mean to go round in circles – I’m just posting something I saw that I thought was of interest. But I think were we end is split on that point of whether its at all reasonable to expect a religious text to be scientifically accurate.

Suff,

Thanks for the links, and I will watch them later.