![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Extracts from the video "The Truth"]
Thank you from above post but most of those references will not be accepted by wikipedia. Although they might accept following books (I found from amazon.com).
and so on... --- ابراهيم 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wht won't the above be acceptable? They seemed like reputable articles to me Ratherhaveaheart 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A History of Muslim Philosophy Ratherhaveaheart 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as non-neutral. I believe the article should not be deleted unless it can be demonstrated that it cannot be fixed. I'm going to start working on it; if you disagree, please discuss here. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is pretty new and still needs a lot of work, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Instead we should work on improving it.-- Islamic 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone here consider "Islamic apologist" a pejorative expression? Maurice Bucaille appears almost always associated with his apology of Islam, rather than with his medical career.
BTW, Bucaille wrote a lot and it's fine prose, but I think there shouldn't be so many long quotations of his. I can work on summarize them later, but I'd rather have other apologists, some Muslim scientists, etc., and of course notable skeptics. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The term does have unnecessary negative connotations; also, introducing him as "Islamic apologist M.B." while the next two are "historian and philosopher" and "physicist" seems unbalanced. Though his position might be that of an apologist, he is in actual fact a physician and it makes the article more neutral to introduce him as such.
On the other hand, Ibrahim - I think you're mixed up on original research as it would apply here: Mentioning anything that Bucaille has written wouldn't be OR, while juxtaposing Quranic quotes with scientific statements and "letting the reader decide" is venturing into OR territory. In my opinion, this article shouldn't be about showing "the link between Quran and Science" as if it were a fact, it should be about presenting the viewpoint some people have that there is such a link, and the opposing viewpoint, and as such, quotes are necessary. Still, I agree with Pablo about needing to summarize some of the Bucaille stuff. -
Valarauka(
T/
C)
20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)--I agree with valarauka. This should also state opinions. MOI 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really into astronomy, so it's probably my fault here, but "the sun also rotates in its own rounded course" makes me scratch my head. I thought this wasn't the case? -- Nehwyn 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants." -- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19
But they can't. Most ants produce no sounds, and the few subspecies that do only produce one or two sounds, which indicate at most a general state of danger to the nest. So the claims of the Qur'an do not make sense.
Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ... -- Sura 18:86 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it. -- Sura 18:90
However since the earth is round there is no setting place or rising place. And it is clearly blatantly false the sun sets into a muddy pool.
The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:31, Middle Meccan, "And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them..."
The Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:15, Late Meccan, "And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you..."
Luqman 31:10, Late Meccan, "He has created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you.."
The News (Al-Naba') 78:6-7, Early Meccan, "Have We not made the earth an expanse, and the mountains as stakes."
The Overwhelming (Al-Ghashiya) 88:17,19, Early Meccan, "Do they (the unbelievers) not look...at the mountains, how they have been pitched (like a tent)"
However, earthquakes do happen in many parts of the world, and the presence or absence of mountains play no role in them.
And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. -- Sura 51:49
In his commentary on this verse Yusuf Ali writes:
All things are in twos: sex in plants and animals, by which we are individual is complementary to another, in the subtle forces of nature, Day and Night, positive and negative electricity, forces of attraction and repulsion: and numerous other opposites, each fulfilling its purpose, and contributing to the working of God`s Universe: and in the moral and spiritual world, Love and Aversion, Mercy and Justice, Striving and Rest, and so on; all fulfilling their functions according to the Artistry and wonderful purpose of God. Everything has its counterpart, or pair, or complement. God alone is one, with none like Him, or needed to complement Him. These are noble things to contemplate. and they lead to a true understanding of God`s Purpose and Message.
However, there are many species which are asexual or are parthenogenic, and there are species of plants which are all of the same sex.
So if you guys want to keep this article please include these things.
24.7.89.173 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What must be borne in mind, Anon, is that the Quran very often relies on poetic, even lyrical, phrasing, symbolism and similes to make its points. At times it's quite literal. At others its allegories become mystical. This text sits squarely in the midst of the very rich Arab tradition of story telling.
It's no more a textbook than the Torah or Gospels — and can't be treated as such any more than those scriptures can. So asserting that there's "bogus things in the Quran" when viewed through a purely scientific lens misses the point, and betrays a superficial take on the text. The fact that, given its context, it makes any scientifically valid points, far more than the Torah and Gospels combined, is worthy of notation and study.
The problem will be to find a reputable source that a particular reading of a particular passage is literal (The Sun in its orbit) or poetic (Conversing ants). Untangling that has given Muslims problems for generations, and is even behind the current rise of Muslim extremism. Then again, taking allegorical scripture literally is behind Chrisitian extremism too. MARussellPESE 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
--When muslims say he will be near stationed to Allah, they mean he will have high respect with Allah. It says so about Mohammed too. I will get an ayaat for this, dont worry. Also there is an ayaat that states that Jesus will be asked wether he told his people to worship him and he will say no. I will refrence this too. In other words like the other prophets of the Quran, he will be given high station. That does not mean muslims are supposed to worship him. MOI 03:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98
The key issue here is that there is nothing new in the Quran which people around the time (or prior for the previous many 1000s of years) knew anyway. Also, there is little mention of radioactivity, radio spectrums (microwave/Xrays/VHF etc) or even of aluminium (one of the worlds most abundant metal) yet these are all around us. Certainly nothing about computer technology be it valves or silicon. As with say Nostradamus, vague text can be made to fit into many Scientific observation. Keep the article but it needs a serious going over with an eye to what is reasonable. Ttiotsw 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
--I thought the Quranic verses had been collected from their origin (tree bark and leaves) and then put togethor into the whole Quran. Anyway, I think when they talk about science in the Quran they mean bodily and environmental stuff. I read something about small particles in the air and in our environment. It may have been refering to Molecules and Atoms. I will find the ayaat right now. MOI 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
... for discussion of the scientific validity of the Qur'an. We're only here to report what other people said about that topic. I'm repeating myself, but please please remember that. We've been able to work on this so far only because we haven't turned this into a religion-vs.-science argument. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The section titled, Big Bang, which has one of the translations to English in it, reads like a straw man or an irrelevant conclusion at best. These are often used ploy within religious tracts and quite effective, but it's a fallacious ploy for us to perpetrate such fallacies within an encyclopedia. The plainly visible separation of the heavens (I guess sky ?) and Earth and the obvious fact that all life requires water is used by the Quran to then tell the disbelievers this proves the existance of a supernature through implication. The scientific approach is that the data presented by the quran can be explained by other means without the need to include anything supernatural. In fact science would hold the supernatural as irrelevant. The person proposed as the reference to support the link (Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani) is no doubt (and by me too with respect to religious tolerance) worthy in his own right but it is unclear if he has any authority in the field of cosmology. This section needs to be culled. Ttiotsw 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahimfaisal, Answering-Islam has criticism of the Qur'an as a scientific source, despite the fact that it may also be a propaganda site. Please don't remove it just like that; show that it is not reliable, or live with it.
Observation Point, Islam101 is a website about Islam which contains pro-Islam material. It seems to be correctly presented, even if you don't believe in any of it, and is just what we need to compile claims about the Qur'an.
I'm not supposed to be the nanny for this article. Understand what the problem is, leave your prejudices aside, and don't mess this up more than it already is. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In certain places the article states that "God said." for instance at the end of the Encouraging Science section. While if you are a member of the faith you believe the Quran is god's words, others may not agree. Would it be more neutral to say that the "Quran states" instead? Ratherhaveaheart 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The anon is changing it saying that human egg is also required beside one sperm. It does not make any sence. Obviously if I put my sperm on the bed it will not create a child. Will it? Obviously many other things could be need including human egg. But Quran is say that one sperm is required. It implies no two, three or four sperm is required (no one is saying that a human-egg is not required). Can someone stop Mr. anon who do not even want to register or semi-protect the article for anon and new users? --- ابراهيم 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
--[Read in the name of your Lord Who created. He created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is Most Honorable, Who taught (to write) with the pen. Taught man what he knew not] (Al-`Alaq 96:1-5). (Clot meaning egg/sperm clot)
--I got this from my Quran translation. MOI 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahimfaisal seems to spend every waking moment devoted to skewing wikipedia articles on Islam. I need someone to help me. He's refusing to let me put up the claim of SCIENCE that a sperm cell is not sufficient for conception and that ants cannot communicate at the level of complexity they are portayed as using in the Quran. If "Human embryology" and "Communication of ants" are going to have sections in this stupid article, I think that's relevant. And yes I will register sometime today. This is really frustrating. It's not like I'm censoring this article! Censorship is one of those things that is OK in Muslim countries but not in the West. Like cutting people's hands off. Oh and I'm still anonymous but have a username now. Arrow740 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
First off a reminder of WP:Civil should be noted, calling the article stupid is not okay, making generalized insults about Muslim countries is not okay.
I think it would be helpful if we separate out what is "fact", which goes into the article, from opinion or belief, even if we believe something is fact that does not make it so according to WP, that is why outside sources are required.
As far as the one sperm is required statement I think it depends on the context, I agree with Ibrahimfaisal that in the context the Quran is stating that only one sperm vs many sperms is all that is needed, it assumes that there will be a woman, egg, and uterous, it is making the point about the number of sperms needed not everything else.
However my understanding of WP is that it is fine to include both interpretations. " Some argue that this shows... because... While others state this is not consistent with science because..." Ratherhaveaheart 01:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's all I'm really asking, that both sides be included. And the Qur'an does not even mention sperm at all, let alone one sperm cell. It says a drop of semen. If you think that saying "a drop of semen" is the same as saying "a single sperm cell," then, well, you're wrong. And silly. Besides, they probably knew that coitus interruptus isn't 100% effective, so this is no revelation. And yes, I retract my generalization about Muslim countries. I know that cutting off hands is the punishment for stealing in some of them, though. Arrow740 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
--Hmmmm. Well I would like to say that you have a point about creating a seperate section on Human Embryology, (which they have already done). I am studying arabic, and if you leave out a single letter for a word then the whole meaning of the word changes. For example in 'they said'(singular) if you drop the letter 'fa' the meaning will change to 'he said'. If you drop the 'qasraa' in she it will turn to he. so maybe you didnt read the aayat, talking about the sperm cell, correctly. Or maybe you just read a different ayaat. -Ayaat=the verses in the Quran MOI 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see that there is any notable real-world debate among reputable experts regarding these subjects; they seem rather the talking points of a handful of proselytizing cranks. Observation Post 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
--To become a medical doctor you have to work in different feilds of science.Like biology. Which is a feild of science. Also Avicenna (a scientist philosopher and much more) wrote the Cannon of Medicine, which had been used as a medical text book for 5 centuries IN EUROPE. He was influenced by the Quran. It even said so on wikipedia. Besides how can you say the Harun Yahya was not an expert on the Quran? Just because a persons writing skills may not be to the equivelant of J.R.R Tolkeins, does not mean they arent an expert on something. My mother happens to have a bachelors in Islamic Studies but cannot put her thoughts into words, all the time. Dr. Maurice bucaille was the head of the University of Paris's surgical clinic, and he is not an expert on science how...? I think your comment is all based on opinion. MOI 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed at the turn this article has taken. I don't believe in the Qur'an, yet I modestly helped save this article from deletion and tried to provide a balanced set of references. I was genuinely interested in this topic, even being, as I am, an atheist; but since this has become an issue of Muslims loudly proclaiming their faith vs. non-Muslims slapping them (or insulting them) for doing so, I'll stop wasting my time here. I'll keep this in my watchlist to check when it's put up for deletion again, which will be very soon, at this rate. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should be moved to a book page "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science" as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I do not see that this article can seriously stand on its own under the title "Quran and science". -- CltFn 21:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
--His book was based on The QURAN. Not the bible. His main source is the Quran. MOI 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have labeled a criticisms section and created a history section. As I learn more about the subject I will be adding to the article Ratherhaveaheart 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure about this article being from a non-notable resource. The Quran is very notable in the muslim world, and is now a topic of much research. MOI 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
--I am sorry but i made Absolutley NO changes. I wrote my opinions on the talk page though. Which you probably read. I have not added anything to this article okay. Where did yuo get that from? MOI 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What if we take all the science sections that do not have references and put them on the talk pages as areas for further expansion. Ratherhaveaheart 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nearly all specific area sections should have referenced arguments that science is not supported by Quran. I personally think the metalevel sections are more important for the article rather than the specific scientific areas. Ratherhaveaheart 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded the definition of what is science, added what a scientist is and added Category:Pseudoscience as any science in the Quran will always be just that as it is obtained through revelation and yet claims to be scientific. This is at odds with other Muslim involvement with the Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method and Early_Muslim_philosophy. The Revelation of the Quran and say any science within Hadith are very different subjects from the definition of science or rather pseudoscience point of view. Well unless people want to argue that the revelation in Quran was actually observations of man ?. I think it's clear that the Quran is stated as being revealed and not observed and yet if we look at our own Wikipedia article on Pseudoscience we do find that Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that a pseudoscience claims to offer insight into the physical world obtained by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that derive from "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Thus whilst the attempt is made to claim to be scientific and yet firmly claim revelation this article will always be in the category of pseudoscience. Ttiotsw 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Ibrahimfaisal deleted the introduction sentence I put on the Quran and Science article. I used the same sentence that is on the Science and the Bible article. He mentioned in his edit summary that Quran and Science don't have to agree, which I think is a true statement. However the purpose of the article is to study the relationship between the Quran and Science. I think that the discussion that has occurred on the article Talk page and the AfD's show that there is dispute regarding the relationship between the Quran and Science. I feel that it is important to state the overall purpose of the article in the beginning and if you have another sentence that speaks about the relationship between the Quran and Science then please insert it in the article. Ratherhaveaheart 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My analysis:
i think we need to define (and discuss here) what exactly the article is about and what it aims to expound upon, because through that we can work towards a more precise introduction and more coherent (and structured) presentation. certainly, the article is not about whether or not the qur'aan itself is scientific (or whether they are in harmony), as quite clearly there will be things in the qur'aan not consistent with current trends of scientific thought, and vice versa. that suggests the article may be more focused on particular passages related to scientific study claimed to be (un)scientific. the problem i see with merely identifying and discussing all statements percieved to be scientific or unscientific is that it opens the floodgates to mass polemics from both sides, and really in my opinion there's no need for it to be regurgitated in an encyclopaedia since we'd just be telling the story of endless rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. if we stick to books from good publishers (or at least "publications"), that lessens the problem somewhat i think, although in the interests of NPOV it (i.e. partisan websites) may have to be stooped to in order to obtain some critiques (or apologetics), valid or not. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
On Tuesday, May 16 2006, Jimbo Wales wrote:
Jimbo is talking about statements which would be
libel if false, in accordance with policies like
WP:BLP. read the other comments in that thread too.one should
WP:AGF of the editor who inserted it, assuming that they do have a source for it (even a poor one, NPOV trumps RS), and at least finding out from them about it before proceeding to remove it.
ITAQALLAH
01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
i have been looking through more discussions in that thread, the context seems to be mainly around BLP, companies or personal safety. has this issue been discussed elsewhere in wikipedia, assuming from the connotations from such a statement (although he said it is not a policy statement), it surely must have been. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Who changed it from semen to sperm? There's no way they had a word for sperm back then. Western scientists didn't discover it for quite some time. Arrow740 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
--my goodness! I added an opinion here and now that I come back it has been removed! Cant a person feel free to stay away from the computer with the knowlede that their opinion will be valued? MOI 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this twice now, and received no answer. Anonymous or unknown writers cannot be sources for Wikipedia articles. If no one knows, I will remove all references to his work. Observation Post 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you point out where he's referenced in the article? I couldn't find any mentions... -
Valarauka(
T/
C)
07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)in his analysis of this verse, he states that the next stage (which mentions formation of bones and flesh) is also in accordance with the stages of embryological development, as first the bones form as cartilage models, after which muscles develop from the surrounding somatic mesoderm
Valarauka(
T/
C)
16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)i managed to get some scans of pages 8-11 and page 14, because these are the pages which discuss in depth the history of embryology. page 9 is the only page on which the qur'an is mentioned. this is what Moore states, under the heading "Embryology in the Middle Ages", right column on page 9:
Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryological investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. It is cited in the Quran (seventh century A.D), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and the female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearence of the early embryo. Later the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance".
that is all Moore(/Persaud) state about the Quran. before this quote in the previous section, he talks about Aristotle, Galen and talmudic scholars and their theories. he states absolutely nothing about the relationship between Galen and the qur'an. he states nothing about the qur'an except in that paragraph. he says nothing about B. Musallam either. he lists GR Dunstan's work on page 14 under the header "References and Suggested Reading" along with just over two dozen other books/articles. and guess what else is on that list? i quote:
either Moore had a significant change of heart between the sixth and seventh edition or "Brother Andrew" has been extremely economical with the facts, attributing an opinion to Moore he never had. i don't even think that Moore even cites Musallam anywhere in the sixth edition either (see below), and as shown above the quote of Musallam given by Dunstan has been deceitfully misinterpreted.
ITAQALLAH
14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, i checked the sixth edition also (page ten, left column). he says exactly what he says in the seventh, though here he mentions Musallam at the end of the paragraph (after he says '.. chewed substance'):
For more information about embryological references in the Qur'an, see Musallam (1990).
how on earth this amounts to "Moore changed his opinion" or "Moore is being misrepresented" (as claimed earlier) is totally absurd. he is referring to Musallam to support what he has already said about the qur'an (see above). as we saw, the Musallam quote given in the other link was a devious misrepresentation, plain to see for anyone who read the passage without the distortion of context provided by 'Brother Andrew'. ITAQALLAH 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Though the Moore material is of questionable value we cannot eliminate it. The rest of the "sources" are a different story. However since the journal that published Moore's material is not carried anywhere, I cannot find it. Where did you find it, Ibrahim? Itaqallah? Arrow740 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arrow, is the Moore material of "questionable value" now? first, you didn't seem to "care" who he was. then, he became "unimpeachable", now the value of his work is "questionable"? we have already concluded that he is totally applicable here and his observations are noteworthy. did you verify for yourself what Moore says in "the developing human" by the way? as for the article from the respective journal, it's literally all over the internet. for example: [5], [6], [7], [8] and many other places if you search for it. this same work is cited in other publications such as "The Embryo: Scientific Discovery and Medical Ethics" (p. 57, ISBN 3805578024) and in Moore's other books on embryology, as you might have discovered on checking the sixth or seventh edition of "the developing human". ITAQALLAH 13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The section in Astronomy which is titled, Creating of Galaxies, is original research. Why ?. Because the quotes of Commentary by Maurice Bucaille do not mention the word "Galaxies". Also the two verse 21:30 and 41:11 which are mentioned talk about coming together and also being torn apart. Which is it ? We also won't mention the Quran ignoring the basis of all living things on Earth - Carbon or that to create either Oxygen for the water mentioned in 21.30 or Carbon for organic chemicals you need supernovae - type II helps I think. Well hey, kind of a clanger not mentioning some of the most catastrophic events in the Universe. Maurice Bucaille says "that constituted the basic process of the formation of the Universe " and that may be true to him but we can't simply discribe what we know today about comology and how stuff in it was formed in the same space that the Quran is described hoping for some sort of halo effect to have science rub off into the Quran sura. Ttiotsw 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Fossils of human ancestors" it talks about "According to first two verses, Adam and Eve were directly created by the God from clay. They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin. The rest of mankind is the progeny of Adam and Eve. The third verse implies three stages in their creation." This whole section seems to be copied from http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq202.htm so copyvio may be in hand, but copyright aside, who exactly is this person Shehzad Saleem. I'm not going to judge his advice on beating your wife ( http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq203.htm ) but for him to say that "They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin" without presenting evidence goes against all science we know today with respect to common ancestry and the genetics of the human genome. Ttiotsw 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Suspected WP:OR here too by contributor. See last sentence of Wikipedia article, "The fossils which we find today might belong to forms of the first and second phases" (my emphasis) and what http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq202.htm has with "The fossils we find today are those of these forms of the first and second phases." (again my emphasis). Notice the change in meaning with the words "might belong" in Wikipedia. Please confirm the actual text is accurately recorded here and the authority of the person who said it WRT biology else the whole lot of this section needs to be culled. Ttiotsw 10:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
the question is, whether the source is a reputable (or should we say accurate) respresentation of Muslim interpretation of such verse. if it is, it easily passes WP:V. the only tweaking that would need to be done with it would be allowing it to conform to NPOV by stating that "[Some] Muslims believe that such and such refers to ...", as well as making sure that it has been written in our own words instead of being a possible copyvio. for now, i will re-include it so that it can have these minor adjustments made. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made a much needed POVing of the section titles. Now the article makes a lot more sense.-- CltFn 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No other article requires reference to a "section title," which is not an "arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories," it is a description of the subtopic of the article. As stated before the section title is general enough to includes material both why the Quran is AND is not related to the scientific topic. The section titles you have proposed are violate NPOV by putting forth the POV of skepticism. Now I have fully answered to supposed objections to the section titles and since they are correct as they are you can go through every WP guideline and state the section titles are a violation , but I will be able to logically refute all. Ratherhaveaheart 19:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we fix the quotation style used in this article as it is waste of space and makes the article hard to read, using up to 6 lines of that article for a one line quote.-- CltFn 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The section titled "Evolution of Universe" is based on a paper by a certain Kamel Bin Salim who from the paper is a Professor of Data Analysis for the Department of Computer Science at the Faculty of Science, Tunis, Tunisia. Please advise how he is relevant to cosmology ? I'm happy for computer people to process numbers but it's the origin of the numbers that concerns me. Where the heck does a "day" or "period" get mutated into 2.3 Billion years ? This reads like the Quranic study showing the speed of light (correctly I might add). As an aside, have ANY of these people read Sagans The_Demon-Haunted_World ? How the heck can people write "However, some details of this model contradict known scientific knowledge, such as stabilization of Universe after 4.6 billion years and beginning of Big crunch.". There is no way that the stuff of this CS Professor is going to be stay here under the title of "Evolution of Universe". Given the model is stated as being in error it should be "Errors in Quranic Interpretation of the Model of The Evolution of the Universe". Ttiotsw 07:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Saleem stuff should be allowed. It is referenced, so it's not plagiarism, and the wording is different from the original piece. And as Itaqallah said, it is published in what is probably a reputable Muslim journal so as a source of Muslim (clearly unscientific) opinion we can allow it. Also see my comments a couple sections up about this (in respone to Ttiotsw). Arrow740 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The section titled, "Reflection of light by heavenly bodies" has numerous technical errors. Firstly it quotes part of Qur'an, 24:35. There are two errors here. The quoted sura do not match the exact text of the links provided. The use of the word "similitude" would indicate Pickthal is the closest. The section point is that the whole sura is not quoted but extracted. It leaves out the last bit of the sura that mentions the rather unscientific source of the light i.e.,
"...(This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things. "
This is just plain wrong to not only misquote just the small part of the sura as if it was the whole sura but then to present what is clearly stated as a parable in other versions of the sura as some evidence of science. Last time I checked very few olive "trees" (actually Olives are bushes) are found on the Sun or moon or probably neither on any planets other than Earth. Don't people understand parable ?. The second issue is that the use of the word "lamp" also progresses in Sura 25:61 which is also misquoted, through an edit to have the word (Sun) in it in Wikipedia !. The closest seems to be by SHAKIR but the three translations reference are as below and neither mention "Sun", 025.061 YUSUFALI: Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
PICKTHAL: Blessed be He Who hath placed in the heaven mansions of the stars, and hath placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light! SHAKIR: Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon.
They all mention "lamp". Maybe the same olive oil lamp mentioned in 24:35 ?. We can only guess but we cannot add the word sun simply as this is original research. We can't reference something unless it is quoted exactly. This is a fatal flaw in this section. Ttiotsw 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid removing contents from this Journal. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (PJST) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal of interdisciplinary scientific research, theories, and observations. It is considered vandalism-- Aminz 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Good job on the links Aminz. This Golshani may finally be the source we have been looking for on the pro-Quran side. Maybe we can eventually get rid of the Bucaille and Yahya stuff. Arrow740 08:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The book is published by the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran. Again, Golshani is a also a philosopher of science, and that quote is quite relevant to that. It is not saying anything controversial furthermore. -- Aminz 07:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- Aminz 07:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
i would like to see the full passages being used for the following statements in the article, so we can see what is being said in context:
In his book A History of Embryology, Professor Joseph Needham dismisses the embryological surahs in the Quran as "a seventh century echo of Aristotle and Ayurveda," [1], and in referring to the wider Arabic contribution to embryology, he concludes that: "Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and atronomy, was not of great help to embryology."
and
Basim Musallam writes that the scienfitic tradition of Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen "was native to the Middle East for centuries before Islam."[14] He further opines that "the Quran described the development of the foetus in the language of the biological sciences of the time. There was little difference between the language of the Quran and that of Galen on the stages of foetal development."[14]
i have removed a portion of the OR inserted by Arrow. i would also like to state that the references being given are extremely sub-par. provide the publisher, journal/book name, date, id (OCLC, ISBN or other) number, page, and so on. material on WP is supposed to be verifiable, so that readers can actually look up the refs themselves. ITAQALLAH 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact there is evidence that one of Muhammad's close companions was a student of Greek medicine, and I'm hoping to find a good source on that. Arrow740 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)The scientific sources of biological knowledge in the pre-modern Middle East were medicine and natural philosophy, two clearly defined disciplines with their own literatures and leading authorities, primarily Hippocrates and Galen for medicine, and Aristotle for natural philosophy. This scientific tradition was native to the Middle East for centuries before Islam, and by the tenth century the whole of this heritage had become available in Arabic. Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen were as much part of Arabic Middle Eastern culture as anything else in it. This was so much the case that it would be possibe to write a decent history of ancient Greek biology from medieval Arabic sources alone.
The extent of human knowledge of embryology stretched back to the second century, where Galen had described the placenta and fetal membranes. Discussing the "stages" mentioned in this verse, Moore argues that it was probably known to the seventh century doctors that the human embryo developed within the uterus, though their knowing of human embryos developing in stages would have been unlikely. Aristotle noted the developmental stages of a chick embryo during the fourth century, but it was not until the fifteenth century that developmental stages of human embryo had been the subject of discourse.[10
Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology. My friend Professor Reuben Levy has collected for me the following embryological excerpts from the Koran: XXXIII(12ff) We created man of a choice extract of clay, then we placed him as semen in a sure place, then we created (?) the semen into clotted blood, then we formed the clotted blood into a morsel of flesh, then we created the morsel into bones, and we covered the bones with flesh, then we produced out of it a new creature. XXIV(44) God created every beast out of water. XXXV(12) God created you from earth, then from a clot, then he made you pairs. LXXV(36) Does man think that he shall be neglected? (37) Was he not a clot of emitted seed? (38) Then he was congealed blood, then God created him and fashioned him. (39) And made of him the pair, male and female. LXXVI(3) Verily, we created man out of a clot of mixtures. A seventh-century echo of Aristotle and Ayur-veda.
Note that some of the numbers are off a digit or two. This is inconsequential as he included the text. Arrow740 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
He is a medical doctor, nothing more. He is not a reputable source for Quranic interpretation or for non-medical science. Those of you who wish to keep his work in this article, please give a reason why we should. Arrow740 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The following is a conversation itaqallah and I carried out on our talk pages:
"it seems that these are not merely Bucaille's own interpretations as he himself claims to have met with specialist linguists and qur'anic exegetes, Muslim and non-Muslim, before ever considering writing on the topic." : Please back this up with citations. If you can't I will take note of your lying for the RfD you have threatened me with and delete all references to Bucaille. Arrow740 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
and here it is[1]. Bucaille says: It was not until I had learnt Arabic and read the Qur'an in the original that I realised the precise meaning of certain verses. Only then did I make certain discoveries that were astounding. With my basic ideas on the Qur'an - which to begin with were inaccurate, just as those of most people in the West - I certainly did not expect to find in the text the statements that I in fact uncovered. With each new discovery, I was beset with doubt lest I might be mistaken in my translation or perhaps have provided an interpretation rather than a true rendering of the Arabic text. Only after consultations with several specialists in linguistics and exegesis, both Muslim and non-Muslim, was I convinced that a new concept might be formed from such a study: the compatibility between the statements in the Qur'an and firmly established data of modern science with regard to subjects on which nobody at the time of Muhammad - not even the Prophet himself - could have had access to the knowledge we possess today. Since then, I have not found in the Qur'an any support given to the myths or superstitions present at the time the text was communicated to man. This is not the case for the Bible, whose authors expressed themselves in the language of their period. In La Bible, le Coran et la Science (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science), which first appeared in the original French in 1976 and which subsequently appeared in English in 1978, I set forth the main points of these findings. On November 9, 1976, I gave a lecture to the Academie de Médecine (French academy of Medicine) in which I explored the statements of the origins of man contained in the Qur'an; the title of the lecture was Données physiologiques et embryologiques du Coran (Physiological and Embryological Data in the Qur'an). I emphasised the fact that these data - which I shall summarise below - formed part of a much wider study. -- ITAQALLAH 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Not one name? This book is written by a man with no quranic, astronomy, or physics qualifications, he doesn't cite a single Quranic expert, and his book is not published by an academic publisher. It's out. Arrow740 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You have altered my quote of Musallam regarding Ibn Qayyim. It is now incorrect. Do not do such things in the future. Get the source and stop this childishness. If you continue to be disruptive I will take action against you. Arrow740 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Basim Musallam quotes the Damascene Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim (1291-1351) as reporting a different interpretation: "Most commentators explain, it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta." [2]
Basim Musallam quotes the Damascene Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim (1291-1351) regarding the interpretation of the phrase "three veils of darkness", who states it refers to "the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta." [2]
so ibn al-qayyim states: "Most commentators explain, it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta", yes? ITAQALLAH 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We need more sources like Golshani. There have to be more people out there writing on this topic with good qualifications. I have Hodgson, Edis, Ziauddin Sardar, God, Life, and the Cosmos edited by Peters, Iqbal, and Haq, Islam without Illusions by Ed Hotaling, and some less useful sources, with more coming to my library soon. But anything and everything else with a good pedigree would be very helpful. Arrow740 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked the text of the article in a few days. What happened to the part about the history of scientific study in Islam? I thought it was a good section. Ratherhaveaheart 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is quoted from the wikipedia article on Harun Yahya:
Even though he often writes about science, he has never actually studied any science at a university level. ( [15], [16], [17])
If we are to keep his work in this article he needs to be demonstrated as having some standing as a Quranic scholar. Is he so received in the Muslim world? Is there any evidence for this? Arrow740 06:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to know what people think is wrong if I quote from Zakir Naik vidoes. We know he is good in Quran and Islam. He is also a MBBS doctor. --- ابراهيم 14:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Arrow740 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we can have another article particularly on Qur'an and science. I have found articles from Encyclopedia of Qur'an and from Oliver Leaman on this topic. This article is focused on "The relation between Islam and Science" in general. -- Aminz 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"The Quran and science" was not inspired by this book as at that time I have not read his work. -- ابراهيم 09:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"The conception of an omniscient and omnipotent personal God, Who made everything in accordance with a rational plan and purpose, contributed to the notion of a rationally structured creation." "The notion of a transcendent God, Who exists separate from His creation, served to counter the notion that the physical world, or any part of it, is sacred. Since the entire physical world is a mere creation, it was thus a fit object of study and transformation." "Since man was made in the image of God (Gen.1:26), which included rationality and creativity, it was deemed possible that man could discern the rational structure of the physical universe that God had made." "The cultural mandate, which appointed man to be God's steward over creation (Gen1:28), provided the motivation for studying nature and for applying that study towards practical ends, at the same glorifying God for His wisdom and goodness."
What exactly does God has to do with science . Is there anything in this section that science is ever gonna prove ( untill unless humans invent some "God detectors") F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 02:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
With respect to Mr. Golshani, I am shure, that he isn't the only scientist doing research on this topic. Perhaps his theories can be discussed on his article page in depth and there for shorten his view here slightly and use the space to present further opinions.
I would like to put the article on the lack-of-quality page too, but can't find a matching templete. I think the structure of this article desperatelly needs wikinizing. It's a sheer caos right now.
Might be, the best thing of all would be to delete it.
Reguards.
Article give undue weight to Mehdi Golshani. First three sections are just big quotes from him. Probably should make these one small paragraph, the view of Golshani. Opiner 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What most of the article is really about is if the Koran predicts modern scientific things or not. It is the controversy over this that really makes it interesting, so what we should be talking about is not the "Facts" themselves but the claims (there is a subtle difference). Perhaps the article should be renamed to explain this.
Should we do things this way?
The danger with doing this is that the article will turn into a series of "X says Y, but Z says not Y" articles. What do you think? Mike Young 23:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a good subject, but I think there are some serious issues in this article.
Again, I think the subject is encyclopedic, but the article is still in need of tight, neutral editing. MARussellPESE 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There's more:
Given all these, I think the {{totally-disputed}} tag is warranted. Most disappointing.
Please note, I voted twice to Keep this article early on; but that was based on my personal expectation that the editors would be able to produce an encyclopedic article worthy of the subject. Islam's role in stimulating modern western civilization is a concept I accept with gratitude; so I expect more than coincidental overlap. But, I don't think this article is anywhere close. MARussellPESE 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, what more could I talk about here on the talk page? {{totally disputed}} is totally justified. I have problems with every section, and I've detailed them all here. There's a lot of ground to cover before we can call this article anything remotely neutral or comprehensive. Frankly, unless somebody can get in here and rescue the Islamic perspectives, I expect to have to nominate it for deletion. MARussellPESE 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the neutrality/factual accuracy tag and replaced it with two POV tags on the sections MARusselPESE labelled biased. Please, work on the external links, someone. It's better if an outside party does that as I've been involved in serious conflicts in this article. I will get the Musallam book again for the specific page numbers. Though I gave page numbers on this talk page previously I don't think I gave a 1-1 link. Arrow740 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I object to the neutrality of the entire article because it's failings are pervasive as noted above. First and last: it provides no scientific viewpoints on several of its subjects. Ttiotsw's observations about this subject being pseudo-science are right on target.
In addtion to the points I raised above, I object to the factual accuracy on various points:
The "Embryology" sub-section is the only one of use; however, I'd like to see more than a two-page op-ed piece. I have a very bad feeling that a lot of this relies on selected passages that are out-of-context.
The article is trying to make the case that literal readings of the Quran conform precisely to some degree to modern science. While any affirmative statement is inherently POV, that does not necessarily mean it should be excluded.
But affirmative statements need proof and corroboration. Without them, and this article lacks both in abundance, the POV position remains nothing more than a POV statement. And those are to be called out, if not excluded. MARussellPESE 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
But in Christian apologetics a contempory of Darwin argued another possible explanation on creation... It runs (mutatis mutandis) "Allah did not create Adam as a baby but created him as a man, therefore Allah created something already "old". The same with the rest of creation: trees not seeds etc. If Allah can create a man with an age why should he not also create him (and the world) with a history? So the whole of pre-creation History that we study and try to understand in Evolution: that should also be regarded as a creation of Allah." Of course philosophically this becomes unfalsifiable meta-physical speculation but it made a lot of Victorian clergy feel better and I wonder if Islamic scholars followed the same debate? -- BozMo talk 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the links to polemical sites; I'll remove the tag. Arrow740 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This article shows a lack of historical perspective. Islamic culture was more scientific than the Christian world for most of the time that both have existed. That only turned around in the Age of Reason. 4.250.168.22 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (User:WAS 4.250)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Extracts from the video "The Truth"]
Thank you from above post but most of those references will not be accepted by wikipedia. Although they might accept following books (I found from amazon.com).
and so on... --- ابراهيم 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wht won't the above be acceptable? They seemed like reputable articles to me Ratherhaveaheart 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A History of Muslim Philosophy Ratherhaveaheart 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged this article as non-neutral. I believe the article should not be deleted unless it can be demonstrated that it cannot be fixed. I'm going to start working on it; if you disagree, please discuss here. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is pretty new and still needs a lot of work, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Instead we should work on improving it.-- Islamic 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone here consider "Islamic apologist" a pejorative expression? Maurice Bucaille appears almost always associated with his apology of Islam, rather than with his medical career.
BTW, Bucaille wrote a lot and it's fine prose, but I think there shouldn't be so many long quotations of his. I can work on summarize them later, but I'd rather have other apologists, some Muslim scientists, etc., and of course notable skeptics. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The term does have unnecessary negative connotations; also, introducing him as "Islamic apologist M.B." while the next two are "historian and philosopher" and "physicist" seems unbalanced. Though his position might be that of an apologist, he is in actual fact a physician and it makes the article more neutral to introduce him as such.
On the other hand, Ibrahim - I think you're mixed up on original research as it would apply here: Mentioning anything that Bucaille has written wouldn't be OR, while juxtaposing Quranic quotes with scientific statements and "letting the reader decide" is venturing into OR territory. In my opinion, this article shouldn't be about showing "the link between Quran and Science" as if it were a fact, it should be about presenting the viewpoint some people have that there is such a link, and the opposing viewpoint, and as such, quotes are necessary. Still, I agree with Pablo about needing to summarize some of the Bucaille stuff. -
Valarauka(
T/
C)
20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)--I agree with valarauka. This should also state opinions. MOI 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really into astronomy, so it's probably my fault here, but "the sun also rotates in its own rounded course" makes me scratch my head. I thought this wasn't the case? -- Nehwyn 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants." -- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19
But they can't. Most ants produce no sounds, and the few subspecies that do only produce one or two sounds, which indicate at most a general state of danger to the nest. So the claims of the Qur'an do not make sense.
Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ... -- Sura 18:86 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it. -- Sura 18:90
However since the earth is round there is no setting place or rising place. And it is clearly blatantly false the sun sets into a muddy pool.
The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:31, Middle Meccan, "And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them..."
The Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:15, Late Meccan, "And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you..."
Luqman 31:10, Late Meccan, "He has created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you.."
The News (Al-Naba') 78:6-7, Early Meccan, "Have We not made the earth an expanse, and the mountains as stakes."
The Overwhelming (Al-Ghashiya) 88:17,19, Early Meccan, "Do they (the unbelievers) not look...at the mountains, how they have been pitched (like a tent)"
However, earthquakes do happen in many parts of the world, and the presence or absence of mountains play no role in them.
And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. -- Sura 51:49
In his commentary on this verse Yusuf Ali writes:
All things are in twos: sex in plants and animals, by which we are individual is complementary to another, in the subtle forces of nature, Day and Night, positive and negative electricity, forces of attraction and repulsion: and numerous other opposites, each fulfilling its purpose, and contributing to the working of God`s Universe: and in the moral and spiritual world, Love and Aversion, Mercy and Justice, Striving and Rest, and so on; all fulfilling their functions according to the Artistry and wonderful purpose of God. Everything has its counterpart, or pair, or complement. God alone is one, with none like Him, or needed to complement Him. These are noble things to contemplate. and they lead to a true understanding of God`s Purpose and Message.
However, there are many species which are asexual or are parthenogenic, and there are species of plants which are all of the same sex.
So if you guys want to keep this article please include these things.
24.7.89.173 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What must be borne in mind, Anon, is that the Quran very often relies on poetic, even lyrical, phrasing, symbolism and similes to make its points. At times it's quite literal. At others its allegories become mystical. This text sits squarely in the midst of the very rich Arab tradition of story telling.
It's no more a textbook than the Torah or Gospels — and can't be treated as such any more than those scriptures can. So asserting that there's "bogus things in the Quran" when viewed through a purely scientific lens misses the point, and betrays a superficial take on the text. The fact that, given its context, it makes any scientifically valid points, far more than the Torah and Gospels combined, is worthy of notation and study.
The problem will be to find a reputable source that a particular reading of a particular passage is literal (The Sun in its orbit) or poetic (Conversing ants). Untangling that has given Muslims problems for generations, and is even behind the current rise of Muslim extremism. Then again, taking allegorical scripture literally is behind Chrisitian extremism too. MARussellPESE 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
--When muslims say he will be near stationed to Allah, they mean he will have high respect with Allah. It says so about Mohammed too. I will get an ayaat for this, dont worry. Also there is an ayaat that states that Jesus will be asked wether he told his people to worship him and he will say no. I will refrence this too. In other words like the other prophets of the Quran, he will be given high station. That does not mean muslims are supposed to worship him. MOI 03:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98
The key issue here is that there is nothing new in the Quran which people around the time (or prior for the previous many 1000s of years) knew anyway. Also, there is little mention of radioactivity, radio spectrums (microwave/Xrays/VHF etc) or even of aluminium (one of the worlds most abundant metal) yet these are all around us. Certainly nothing about computer technology be it valves or silicon. As with say Nostradamus, vague text can be made to fit into many Scientific observation. Keep the article but it needs a serious going over with an eye to what is reasonable. Ttiotsw 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
--I thought the Quranic verses had been collected from their origin (tree bark and leaves) and then put togethor into the whole Quran. Anyway, I think when they talk about science in the Quran they mean bodily and environmental stuff. I read something about small particles in the air and in our environment. It may have been refering to Molecules and Atoms. I will find the ayaat right now. MOI 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
... for discussion of the scientific validity of the Qur'an. We're only here to report what other people said about that topic. I'm repeating myself, but please please remember that. We've been able to work on this so far only because we haven't turned this into a religion-vs.-science argument. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The section titled, Big Bang, which has one of the translations to English in it, reads like a straw man or an irrelevant conclusion at best. These are often used ploy within religious tracts and quite effective, but it's a fallacious ploy for us to perpetrate such fallacies within an encyclopedia. The plainly visible separation of the heavens (I guess sky ?) and Earth and the obvious fact that all life requires water is used by the Quran to then tell the disbelievers this proves the existance of a supernature through implication. The scientific approach is that the data presented by the quran can be explained by other means without the need to include anything supernatural. In fact science would hold the supernatural as irrelevant. The person proposed as the reference to support the link (Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani) is no doubt (and by me too with respect to religious tolerance) worthy in his own right but it is unclear if he has any authority in the field of cosmology. This section needs to be culled. Ttiotsw 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahimfaisal, Answering-Islam has criticism of the Qur'an as a scientific source, despite the fact that it may also be a propaganda site. Please don't remove it just like that; show that it is not reliable, or live with it.
Observation Point, Islam101 is a website about Islam which contains pro-Islam material. It seems to be correctly presented, even if you don't believe in any of it, and is just what we need to compile claims about the Qur'an.
I'm not supposed to be the nanny for this article. Understand what the problem is, leave your prejudices aside, and don't mess this up more than it already is. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In certain places the article states that "God said." for instance at the end of the Encouraging Science section. While if you are a member of the faith you believe the Quran is god's words, others may not agree. Would it be more neutral to say that the "Quran states" instead? Ratherhaveaheart 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The anon is changing it saying that human egg is also required beside one sperm. It does not make any sence. Obviously if I put my sperm on the bed it will not create a child. Will it? Obviously many other things could be need including human egg. But Quran is say that one sperm is required. It implies no two, three or four sperm is required (no one is saying that a human-egg is not required). Can someone stop Mr. anon who do not even want to register or semi-protect the article for anon and new users? --- ابراهيم 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
--[Read in the name of your Lord Who created. He created man from a clot. Read and your Lord is Most Honorable, Who taught (to write) with the pen. Taught man what he knew not] (Al-`Alaq 96:1-5). (Clot meaning egg/sperm clot)
--I got this from my Quran translation. MOI 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ibrahimfaisal seems to spend every waking moment devoted to skewing wikipedia articles on Islam. I need someone to help me. He's refusing to let me put up the claim of SCIENCE that a sperm cell is not sufficient for conception and that ants cannot communicate at the level of complexity they are portayed as using in the Quran. If "Human embryology" and "Communication of ants" are going to have sections in this stupid article, I think that's relevant. And yes I will register sometime today. This is really frustrating. It's not like I'm censoring this article! Censorship is one of those things that is OK in Muslim countries but not in the West. Like cutting people's hands off. Oh and I'm still anonymous but have a username now. Arrow740 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
First off a reminder of WP:Civil should be noted, calling the article stupid is not okay, making generalized insults about Muslim countries is not okay.
I think it would be helpful if we separate out what is "fact", which goes into the article, from opinion or belief, even if we believe something is fact that does not make it so according to WP, that is why outside sources are required.
As far as the one sperm is required statement I think it depends on the context, I agree with Ibrahimfaisal that in the context the Quran is stating that only one sperm vs many sperms is all that is needed, it assumes that there will be a woman, egg, and uterous, it is making the point about the number of sperms needed not everything else.
However my understanding of WP is that it is fine to include both interpretations. " Some argue that this shows... because... While others state this is not consistent with science because..." Ratherhaveaheart 01:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That's all I'm really asking, that both sides be included. And the Qur'an does not even mention sperm at all, let alone one sperm cell. It says a drop of semen. If you think that saying "a drop of semen" is the same as saying "a single sperm cell," then, well, you're wrong. And silly. Besides, they probably knew that coitus interruptus isn't 100% effective, so this is no revelation. And yes, I retract my generalization about Muslim countries. I know that cutting off hands is the punishment for stealing in some of them, though. Arrow740 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
--Hmmmm. Well I would like to say that you have a point about creating a seperate section on Human Embryology, (which they have already done). I am studying arabic, and if you leave out a single letter for a word then the whole meaning of the word changes. For example in 'they said'(singular) if you drop the letter 'fa' the meaning will change to 'he said'. If you drop the 'qasraa' in she it will turn to he. so maybe you didnt read the aayat, talking about the sperm cell, correctly. Or maybe you just read a different ayaat. -Ayaat=the verses in the Quran MOI 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see that there is any notable real-world debate among reputable experts regarding these subjects; they seem rather the talking points of a handful of proselytizing cranks. Observation Post 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
--To become a medical doctor you have to work in different feilds of science.Like biology. Which is a feild of science. Also Avicenna (a scientist philosopher and much more) wrote the Cannon of Medicine, which had been used as a medical text book for 5 centuries IN EUROPE. He was influenced by the Quran. It even said so on wikipedia. Besides how can you say the Harun Yahya was not an expert on the Quran? Just because a persons writing skills may not be to the equivelant of J.R.R Tolkeins, does not mean they arent an expert on something. My mother happens to have a bachelors in Islamic Studies but cannot put her thoughts into words, all the time. Dr. Maurice bucaille was the head of the University of Paris's surgical clinic, and he is not an expert on science how...? I think your comment is all based on opinion. MOI 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed at the turn this article has taken. I don't believe in the Qur'an, yet I modestly helped save this article from deletion and tried to provide a balanced set of references. I was genuinely interested in this topic, even being, as I am, an atheist; but since this has become an issue of Muslims loudly proclaiming their faith vs. non-Muslims slapping them (or insulting them) for doing so, I'll stop wasting my time here. I'll keep this in my watchlist to check when it's put up for deletion again, which will be very soon, at this rate. — Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should be moved to a book page "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science" as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I do not see that this article can seriously stand on its own under the title "Quran and science". -- CltFn 21:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
--His book was based on The QURAN. Not the bible. His main source is the Quran. MOI 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have labeled a criticisms section and created a history section. As I learn more about the subject I will be adding to the article Ratherhaveaheart 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure about this article being from a non-notable resource. The Quran is very notable in the muslim world, and is now a topic of much research. MOI 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
--I am sorry but i made Absolutley NO changes. I wrote my opinions on the talk page though. Which you probably read. I have not added anything to this article okay. Where did yuo get that from? MOI 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What if we take all the science sections that do not have references and put them on the talk pages as areas for further expansion. Ratherhaveaheart 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Nearly all specific area sections should have referenced arguments that science is not supported by Quran. I personally think the metalevel sections are more important for the article rather than the specific scientific areas. Ratherhaveaheart 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've expanded the definition of what is science, added what a scientist is and added Category:Pseudoscience as any science in the Quran will always be just that as it is obtained through revelation and yet claims to be scientific. This is at odds with other Muslim involvement with the Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method and Early_Muslim_philosophy. The Revelation of the Quran and say any science within Hadith are very different subjects from the definition of science or rather pseudoscience point of view. Well unless people want to argue that the revelation in Quran was actually observations of man ?. I think it's clear that the Quran is stated as being revealed and not observed and yet if we look at our own Wikipedia article on Pseudoscience we do find that Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that a pseudoscience claims to offer insight into the physical world obtained by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that derive from "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Thus whilst the attempt is made to claim to be scientific and yet firmly claim revelation this article will always be in the category of pseudoscience. Ttiotsw 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Ibrahimfaisal deleted the introduction sentence I put on the Quran and Science article. I used the same sentence that is on the Science and the Bible article. He mentioned in his edit summary that Quran and Science don't have to agree, which I think is a true statement. However the purpose of the article is to study the relationship between the Quran and Science. I think that the discussion that has occurred on the article Talk page and the AfD's show that there is dispute regarding the relationship between the Quran and Science. I feel that it is important to state the overall purpose of the article in the beginning and if you have another sentence that speaks about the relationship between the Quran and Science then please insert it in the article. Ratherhaveaheart 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My analysis:
i think we need to define (and discuss here) what exactly the article is about and what it aims to expound upon, because through that we can work towards a more precise introduction and more coherent (and structured) presentation. certainly, the article is not about whether or not the qur'aan itself is scientific (or whether they are in harmony), as quite clearly there will be things in the qur'aan not consistent with current trends of scientific thought, and vice versa. that suggests the article may be more focused on particular passages related to scientific study claimed to be (un)scientific. the problem i see with merely identifying and discussing all statements percieved to be scientific or unscientific is that it opens the floodgates to mass polemics from both sides, and really in my opinion there's no need for it to be regurgitated in an encyclopaedia since we'd just be telling the story of endless rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. if we stick to books from good publishers (or at least "publications"), that lessens the problem somewhat i think, although in the interests of NPOV it (i.e. partisan websites) may have to be stooped to in order to obtain some critiques (or apologetics), valid or not. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
On Tuesday, May 16 2006, Jimbo Wales wrote:
Jimbo is talking about statements which would be
libel if false, in accordance with policies like
WP:BLP. read the other comments in that thread too.one should
WP:AGF of the editor who inserted it, assuming that they do have a source for it (even a poor one, NPOV trumps RS), and at least finding out from them about it before proceeding to remove it.
ITAQALLAH
01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
i have been looking through more discussions in that thread, the context seems to be mainly around BLP, companies or personal safety. has this issue been discussed elsewhere in wikipedia, assuming from the connotations from such a statement (although he said it is not a policy statement), it surely must have been. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Who changed it from semen to sperm? There's no way they had a word for sperm back then. Western scientists didn't discover it for quite some time. Arrow740 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
--my goodness! I added an opinion here and now that I come back it has been removed! Cant a person feel free to stay away from the computer with the knowlede that their opinion will be valued? MOI 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this twice now, and received no answer. Anonymous or unknown writers cannot be sources for Wikipedia articles. If no one knows, I will remove all references to his work. Observation Post 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you point out where he's referenced in the article? I couldn't find any mentions... -
Valarauka(
T/
C)
07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Valarauka(
T/
C)
08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)in his analysis of this verse, he states that the next stage (which mentions formation of bones and flesh) is also in accordance with the stages of embryological development, as first the bones form as cartilage models, after which muscles develop from the surrounding somatic mesoderm
Valarauka(
T/
C)
16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)i managed to get some scans of pages 8-11 and page 14, because these are the pages which discuss in depth the history of embryology. page 9 is the only page on which the qur'an is mentioned. this is what Moore states, under the heading "Embryology in the Middle Ages", right column on page 9:
Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryological investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. It is cited in the Quran (seventh century A.D), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and the female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearence of the early embryo. Later the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance".
that is all Moore(/Persaud) state about the Quran. before this quote in the previous section, he talks about Aristotle, Galen and talmudic scholars and their theories. he states absolutely nothing about the relationship between Galen and the qur'an. he states nothing about the qur'an except in that paragraph. he says nothing about B. Musallam either. he lists GR Dunstan's work on page 14 under the header "References and Suggested Reading" along with just over two dozen other books/articles. and guess what else is on that list? i quote:
either Moore had a significant change of heart between the sixth and seventh edition or "Brother Andrew" has been extremely economical with the facts, attributing an opinion to Moore he never had. i don't even think that Moore even cites Musallam anywhere in the sixth edition either (see below), and as shown above the quote of Musallam given by Dunstan has been deceitfully misinterpreted.
ITAQALLAH
14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, i checked the sixth edition also (page ten, left column). he says exactly what he says in the seventh, though here he mentions Musallam at the end of the paragraph (after he says '.. chewed substance'):
For more information about embryological references in the Qur'an, see Musallam (1990).
how on earth this amounts to "Moore changed his opinion" or "Moore is being misrepresented" (as claimed earlier) is totally absurd. he is referring to Musallam to support what he has already said about the qur'an (see above). as we saw, the Musallam quote given in the other link was a devious misrepresentation, plain to see for anyone who read the passage without the distortion of context provided by 'Brother Andrew'. ITAQALLAH 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Though the Moore material is of questionable value we cannot eliminate it. The rest of the "sources" are a different story. However since the journal that published Moore's material is not carried anywhere, I cannot find it. Where did you find it, Ibrahim? Itaqallah? Arrow740 23:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arrow, is the Moore material of "questionable value" now? first, you didn't seem to "care" who he was. then, he became "unimpeachable", now the value of his work is "questionable"? we have already concluded that he is totally applicable here and his observations are noteworthy. did you verify for yourself what Moore says in "the developing human" by the way? as for the article from the respective journal, it's literally all over the internet. for example: [5], [6], [7], [8] and many other places if you search for it. this same work is cited in other publications such as "The Embryo: Scientific Discovery and Medical Ethics" (p. 57, ISBN 3805578024) and in Moore's other books on embryology, as you might have discovered on checking the sixth or seventh edition of "the developing human". ITAQALLAH 13:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The section in Astronomy which is titled, Creating of Galaxies, is original research. Why ?. Because the quotes of Commentary by Maurice Bucaille do not mention the word "Galaxies". Also the two verse 21:30 and 41:11 which are mentioned talk about coming together and also being torn apart. Which is it ? We also won't mention the Quran ignoring the basis of all living things on Earth - Carbon or that to create either Oxygen for the water mentioned in 21.30 or Carbon for organic chemicals you need supernovae - type II helps I think. Well hey, kind of a clanger not mentioning some of the most catastrophic events in the Universe. Maurice Bucaille says "that constituted the basic process of the formation of the Universe " and that may be true to him but we can't simply discribe what we know today about comology and how stuff in it was formed in the same space that the Quran is described hoping for some sort of halo effect to have science rub off into the Quran sura. Ttiotsw 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In the section "Fossils of human ancestors" it talks about "According to first two verses, Adam and Eve were directly created by the God from clay. They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin. The rest of mankind is the progeny of Adam and Eve. The third verse implies three stages in their creation." This whole section seems to be copied from http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq202.htm so copyvio may be in hand, but copyright aside, who exactly is this person Shehzad Saleem. I'm not going to judge his advice on beating your wife ( http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq203.htm ) but for him to say that "They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin" without presenting evidence goes against all science we know today with respect to common ancestry and the genetics of the human genome. Ttiotsw 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Suspected WP:OR here too by contributor. See last sentence of Wikipedia article, "The fossils which we find today might belong to forms of the first and second phases" (my emphasis) and what http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq202.htm has with "The fossils we find today are those of these forms of the first and second phases." (again my emphasis). Notice the change in meaning with the words "might belong" in Wikipedia. Please confirm the actual text is accurately recorded here and the authority of the person who said it WRT biology else the whole lot of this section needs to be culled. Ttiotsw 10:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
the question is, whether the source is a reputable (or should we say accurate) respresentation of Muslim interpretation of such verse. if it is, it easily passes WP:V. the only tweaking that would need to be done with it would be allowing it to conform to NPOV by stating that "[Some] Muslims believe that such and such refers to ...", as well as making sure that it has been written in our own words instead of being a possible copyvio. for now, i will re-include it so that it can have these minor adjustments made. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made a much needed POVing of the section titles. Now the article makes a lot more sense.-- CltFn 16:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No other article requires reference to a "section title," which is not an "arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories," it is a description of the subtopic of the article. As stated before the section title is general enough to includes material both why the Quran is AND is not related to the scientific topic. The section titles you have proposed are violate NPOV by putting forth the POV of skepticism. Now I have fully answered to supposed objections to the section titles and since they are correct as they are you can go through every WP guideline and state the section titles are a violation , but I will be able to logically refute all. Ratherhaveaheart 19:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Should we fix the quotation style used in this article as it is waste of space and makes the article hard to read, using up to 6 lines of that article for a one line quote.-- CltFn 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The section titled "Evolution of Universe" is based on a paper by a certain Kamel Bin Salim who from the paper is a Professor of Data Analysis for the Department of Computer Science at the Faculty of Science, Tunis, Tunisia. Please advise how he is relevant to cosmology ? I'm happy for computer people to process numbers but it's the origin of the numbers that concerns me. Where the heck does a "day" or "period" get mutated into 2.3 Billion years ? This reads like the Quranic study showing the speed of light (correctly I might add). As an aside, have ANY of these people read Sagans The_Demon-Haunted_World ? How the heck can people write "However, some details of this model contradict known scientific knowledge, such as stabilization of Universe after 4.6 billion years and beginning of Big crunch.". There is no way that the stuff of this CS Professor is going to be stay here under the title of "Evolution of Universe". Given the model is stated as being in error it should be "Errors in Quranic Interpretation of the Model of The Evolution of the Universe". Ttiotsw 07:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Saleem stuff should be allowed. It is referenced, so it's not plagiarism, and the wording is different from the original piece. And as Itaqallah said, it is published in what is probably a reputable Muslim journal so as a source of Muslim (clearly unscientific) opinion we can allow it. Also see my comments a couple sections up about this (in respone to Ttiotsw). Arrow740 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The section titled, "Reflection of light by heavenly bodies" has numerous technical errors. Firstly it quotes part of Qur'an, 24:35. There are two errors here. The quoted sura do not match the exact text of the links provided. The use of the word "similitude" would indicate Pickthal is the closest. The section point is that the whole sura is not quoted but extracted. It leaves out the last bit of the sura that mentions the rather unscientific source of the light i.e.,
"...(This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things. "
This is just plain wrong to not only misquote just the small part of the sura as if it was the whole sura but then to present what is clearly stated as a parable in other versions of the sura as some evidence of science. Last time I checked very few olive "trees" (actually Olives are bushes) are found on the Sun or moon or probably neither on any planets other than Earth. Don't people understand parable ?. The second issue is that the use of the word "lamp" also progresses in Sura 25:61 which is also misquoted, through an edit to have the word (Sun) in it in Wikipedia !. The closest seems to be by SHAKIR but the three translations reference are as below and neither mention "Sun", 025.061 YUSUFALI: Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
PICKTHAL: Blessed be He Who hath placed in the heaven mansions of the stars, and hath placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light! SHAKIR: Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon.
They all mention "lamp". Maybe the same olive oil lamp mentioned in 24:35 ?. We can only guess but we cannot add the word sun simply as this is original research. We can't reference something unless it is quoted exactly. This is a fatal flaw in this section. Ttiotsw 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid removing contents from this Journal. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (PJST) is a peer-reviewed electronic journal of interdisciplinary scientific research, theories, and observations. It is considered vandalism-- Aminz 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Good job on the links Aminz. This Golshani may finally be the source we have been looking for on the pro-Quran side. Maybe we can eventually get rid of the Bucaille and Yahya stuff. Arrow740 08:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The book is published by the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran. Again, Golshani is a also a philosopher of science, and that quote is quite relevant to that. It is not saying anything controversial furthermore. -- Aminz 07:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks -- Aminz 07:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
i would like to see the full passages being used for the following statements in the article, so we can see what is being said in context:
In his book A History of Embryology, Professor Joseph Needham dismisses the embryological surahs in the Quran as "a seventh century echo of Aristotle and Ayurveda," [1], and in referring to the wider Arabic contribution to embryology, he concludes that: "Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and atronomy, was not of great help to embryology."
and
Basim Musallam writes that the scienfitic tradition of Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen "was native to the Middle East for centuries before Islam."[14] He further opines that "the Quran described the development of the foetus in the language of the biological sciences of the time. There was little difference between the language of the Quran and that of Galen on the stages of foetal development."[14]
i have removed a portion of the OR inserted by Arrow. i would also like to state that the references being given are extremely sub-par. provide the publisher, journal/book name, date, id (OCLC, ISBN or other) number, page, and so on. material on WP is supposed to be verifiable, so that readers can actually look up the refs themselves. ITAQALLAH 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact there is evidence that one of Muhammad's close companions was a student of Greek medicine, and I'm hoping to find a good source on that. Arrow740 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)The scientific sources of biological knowledge in the pre-modern Middle East were medicine and natural philosophy, two clearly defined disciplines with their own literatures and leading authorities, primarily Hippocrates and Galen for medicine, and Aristotle for natural philosophy. This scientific tradition was native to the Middle East for centuries before Islam, and by the tenth century the whole of this heritage had become available in Arabic. Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen were as much part of Arabic Middle Eastern culture as anything else in it. This was so much the case that it would be possibe to write a decent history of ancient Greek biology from medieval Arabic sources alone.
The extent of human knowledge of embryology stretched back to the second century, where Galen had described the placenta and fetal membranes. Discussing the "stages" mentioned in this verse, Moore argues that it was probably known to the seventh century doctors that the human embryo developed within the uterus, though their knowing of human embryos developing in stages would have been unlikely. Aristotle noted the developmental stages of a chick embryo during the fourth century, but it was not until the fifteenth century that developmental stages of human embryo had been the subject of discourse.[10
Arabic science, so justly famed for its successes in certain fields such as optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology. My friend Professor Reuben Levy has collected for me the following embryological excerpts from the Koran: XXXIII(12ff) We created man of a choice extract of clay, then we placed him as semen in a sure place, then we created (?) the semen into clotted blood, then we formed the clotted blood into a morsel of flesh, then we created the morsel into bones, and we covered the bones with flesh, then we produced out of it a new creature. XXIV(44) God created every beast out of water. XXXV(12) God created you from earth, then from a clot, then he made you pairs. LXXV(36) Does man think that he shall be neglected? (37) Was he not a clot of emitted seed? (38) Then he was congealed blood, then God created him and fashioned him. (39) And made of him the pair, male and female. LXXVI(3) Verily, we created man out of a clot of mixtures. A seventh-century echo of Aristotle and Ayur-veda.
Note that some of the numbers are off a digit or two. This is inconsequential as he included the text. Arrow740 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
He is a medical doctor, nothing more. He is not a reputable source for Quranic interpretation or for non-medical science. Those of you who wish to keep his work in this article, please give a reason why we should. Arrow740 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The following is a conversation itaqallah and I carried out on our talk pages:
"it seems that these are not merely Bucaille's own interpretations as he himself claims to have met with specialist linguists and qur'anic exegetes, Muslim and non-Muslim, before ever considering writing on the topic." : Please back this up with citations. If you can't I will take note of your lying for the RfD you have threatened me with and delete all references to Bucaille. Arrow740 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
and here it is[1]. Bucaille says: It was not until I had learnt Arabic and read the Qur'an in the original that I realised the precise meaning of certain verses. Only then did I make certain discoveries that were astounding. With my basic ideas on the Qur'an - which to begin with were inaccurate, just as those of most people in the West - I certainly did not expect to find in the text the statements that I in fact uncovered. With each new discovery, I was beset with doubt lest I might be mistaken in my translation or perhaps have provided an interpretation rather than a true rendering of the Arabic text. Only after consultations with several specialists in linguistics and exegesis, both Muslim and non-Muslim, was I convinced that a new concept might be formed from such a study: the compatibility between the statements in the Qur'an and firmly established data of modern science with regard to subjects on which nobody at the time of Muhammad - not even the Prophet himself - could have had access to the knowledge we possess today. Since then, I have not found in the Qur'an any support given to the myths or superstitions present at the time the text was communicated to man. This is not the case for the Bible, whose authors expressed themselves in the language of their period. In La Bible, le Coran et la Science (The Bible, the Qur'an and Science), which first appeared in the original French in 1976 and which subsequently appeared in English in 1978, I set forth the main points of these findings. On November 9, 1976, I gave a lecture to the Academie de Médecine (French academy of Medicine) in which I explored the statements of the origins of man contained in the Qur'an; the title of the lecture was Données physiologiques et embryologiques du Coran (Physiological and Embryological Data in the Qur'an). I emphasised the fact that these data - which I shall summarise below - formed part of a much wider study. -- ITAQALLAH 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Not one name? This book is written by a man with no quranic, astronomy, or physics qualifications, he doesn't cite a single Quranic expert, and his book is not published by an academic publisher. It's out. Arrow740 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You have altered my quote of Musallam regarding Ibn Qayyim. It is now incorrect. Do not do such things in the future. Get the source and stop this childishness. If you continue to be disruptive I will take action against you. Arrow740 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Basim Musallam quotes the Damascene Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim (1291-1351) as reporting a different interpretation: "Most commentators explain, it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta." [2]
Basim Musallam quotes the Damascene Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim (1291-1351) regarding the interpretation of the phrase "three veils of darkness", who states it refers to "the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta." [2]
so ibn al-qayyim states: "Most commentators explain, it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta", yes? ITAQALLAH 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
We need more sources like Golshani. There have to be more people out there writing on this topic with good qualifications. I have Hodgson, Edis, Ziauddin Sardar, God, Life, and the Cosmos edited by Peters, Iqbal, and Haq, Islam without Illusions by Ed Hotaling, and some less useful sources, with more coming to my library soon. But anything and everything else with a good pedigree would be very helpful. Arrow740 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked the text of the article in a few days. What happened to the part about the history of scientific study in Islam? I thought it was a good section. Ratherhaveaheart 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is quoted from the wikipedia article on Harun Yahya:
Even though he often writes about science, he has never actually studied any science at a university level. ( [15], [16], [17])
If we are to keep his work in this article he needs to be demonstrated as having some standing as a Quranic scholar. Is he so received in the Muslim world? Is there any evidence for this? Arrow740 06:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to know what people think is wrong if I quote from Zakir Naik vidoes. We know he is good in Quran and Islam. He is also a MBBS doctor. --- ابراهيم 14:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Arrow740 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we can have another article particularly on Qur'an and science. I have found articles from Encyclopedia of Qur'an and from Oliver Leaman on this topic. This article is focused on "The relation between Islam and Science" in general. -- Aminz 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
"The Quran and science" was not inspired by this book as at that time I have not read his work. -- ابراهيم 09:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"The conception of an omniscient and omnipotent personal God, Who made everything in accordance with a rational plan and purpose, contributed to the notion of a rationally structured creation." "The notion of a transcendent God, Who exists separate from His creation, served to counter the notion that the physical world, or any part of it, is sacred. Since the entire physical world is a mere creation, it was thus a fit object of study and transformation." "Since man was made in the image of God (Gen.1:26), which included rationality and creativity, it was deemed possible that man could discern the rational structure of the physical universe that God had made." "The cultural mandate, which appointed man to be God's steward over creation (Gen1:28), provided the motivation for studying nature and for applying that study towards practical ends, at the same glorifying God for His wisdom and goodness."
What exactly does God has to do with science . Is there anything in this section that science is ever gonna prove ( untill unless humans invent some "God detectors") F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 02:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
With respect to Mr. Golshani, I am shure, that he isn't the only scientist doing research on this topic. Perhaps his theories can be discussed on his article page in depth and there for shorten his view here slightly and use the space to present further opinions.
I would like to put the article on the lack-of-quality page too, but can't find a matching templete. I think the structure of this article desperatelly needs wikinizing. It's a sheer caos right now.
Might be, the best thing of all would be to delete it.
Reguards.
Article give undue weight to Mehdi Golshani. First three sections are just big quotes from him. Probably should make these one small paragraph, the view of Golshani. Opiner 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What most of the article is really about is if the Koran predicts modern scientific things or not. It is the controversy over this that really makes it interesting, so what we should be talking about is not the "Facts" themselves but the claims (there is a subtle difference). Perhaps the article should be renamed to explain this.
Should we do things this way?
The danger with doing this is that the article will turn into a series of "X says Y, but Z says not Y" articles. What do you think? Mike Young 23:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a good subject, but I think there are some serious issues in this article.
Again, I think the subject is encyclopedic, but the article is still in need of tight, neutral editing. MARussellPESE 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There's more:
Given all these, I think the {{totally-disputed}} tag is warranted. Most disappointing.
Please note, I voted twice to Keep this article early on; but that was based on my personal expectation that the editors would be able to produce an encyclopedic article worthy of the subject. Islam's role in stimulating modern western civilization is a concept I accept with gratitude; so I expect more than coincidental overlap. But, I don't think this article is anywhere close. MARussellPESE 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, what more could I talk about here on the talk page? {{totally disputed}} is totally justified. I have problems with every section, and I've detailed them all here. There's a lot of ground to cover before we can call this article anything remotely neutral or comprehensive. Frankly, unless somebody can get in here and rescue the Islamic perspectives, I expect to have to nominate it for deletion. MARussellPESE 04:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the neutrality/factual accuracy tag and replaced it with two POV tags on the sections MARusselPESE labelled biased. Please, work on the external links, someone. It's better if an outside party does that as I've been involved in serious conflicts in this article. I will get the Musallam book again for the specific page numbers. Though I gave page numbers on this talk page previously I don't think I gave a 1-1 link. Arrow740 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I object to the neutrality of the entire article because it's failings are pervasive as noted above. First and last: it provides no scientific viewpoints on several of its subjects. Ttiotsw's observations about this subject being pseudo-science are right on target.
In addtion to the points I raised above, I object to the factual accuracy on various points:
The "Embryology" sub-section is the only one of use; however, I'd like to see more than a two-page op-ed piece. I have a very bad feeling that a lot of this relies on selected passages that are out-of-context.
The article is trying to make the case that literal readings of the Quran conform precisely to some degree to modern science. While any affirmative statement is inherently POV, that does not necessarily mean it should be excluded.
But affirmative statements need proof and corroboration. Without them, and this article lacks both in abundance, the POV position remains nothing more than a POV statement. And those are to be called out, if not excluded. MARussellPESE 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
But in Christian apologetics a contempory of Darwin argued another possible explanation on creation... It runs (mutatis mutandis) "Allah did not create Adam as a baby but created him as a man, therefore Allah created something already "old". The same with the rest of creation: trees not seeds etc. If Allah can create a man with an age why should he not also create him (and the world) with a history? So the whole of pre-creation History that we study and try to understand in Evolution: that should also be regarded as a creation of Allah." Of course philosophically this becomes unfalsifiable meta-physical speculation but it made a lot of Victorian clergy feel better and I wonder if Islamic scholars followed the same debate? -- BozMo talk 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I got rid of the links to polemical sites; I'll remove the tag. Arrow740 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
This article shows a lack of historical perspective. Islamic culture was more scientific than the Christian world for most of the time that both have existed. That only turned around in the Age of Reason. 4.250.168.22 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (User:WAS 4.250)