Talk:Maurice Bucaille

Comments added by an anonymous editor at the top of the article

These comments belong here. They're reprinted without any bias toward endorsing them or otherwise:

This article fails to have a neutral Point of View - and lacks citations for key statements.

Eg, Despite googling for an hour, I can find no support that he ever did address the French Academy of Medicine - their own website is silent on the subject.

Nor is any detail given as to his role at the University of Paris - the University has many parts, and it's not clear whether his role was important or not (was he just involved in routine medicine care of students?)

BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asorbonne.fr+%22Maurice+Bucaille

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aac-paris.fr+%22Maurice+Bucaille

no result. --tickle me 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/frcont15.htm

Full copy of the Quran and Modern science book. I find at least some of the arguments to be rather compelling.Taharqa 02:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Critisism

Does this paragraph belong here oor on the section about his book? Why is this considered critisism?

Bucaille not only suggests that Islam is not incompatible with modern science - he also claims that many contemporary developments are predicted in Quranic prophecies : he claims, for example, that the Qur'an predicted space travel 1400 years ago.212.122.233.234 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

^^Also, what's up with the "crude Islamic propaganda" remark? Seems worded in your own way (who ever wrote it) and in pretty harsh terms.. In addition, I don't see that claim as being criticism either, is this so far-fetched by its self?Taharqa 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this criticism content from the newly inserted material will have to be trimmed. Very little of it actually discusses "Bucaillism" itself. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The criticism concerns both the book itself and the concept of Bucaillism expanded on elsewhere --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Some of the sources mention neither Bucaille's book nor "Bucaillism". In fact, most of it is a response "to general claims of prophesy from the Quran." To link them in here is original research. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, Bucaille believed that the Qur'an is divine? That's not a mark of "Bucaillism". That's a tenant of Islam that the majority of Muslims believe - both Sunni and Shia. So it's misleading to say that it's unique or something to Bucaille or his followers.196.210.147.201 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion pasted from Talk:The relation between Islam and science

What to do? WP:UNDUE and proposed fork article

Should we spin off a new article on Bucailleism - since it is such a big issue in the Muslim world - and put all the information on (alleged) scientific facts found in Quran in it? We could restore the list of (alleged) scientific facts found in Quran that was deleted earlier so that the criticism section won't be WP:UNDUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to create a new article, but the section on the tenets of Bucailleism would have to be sourced to reliable sources. Arrow740 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources using this neologism or explaining it in any great detail to justify an article on the topic. Just my opinion. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is Scientific facts believed to be supported by the Qur'an or similar wording, i.e. not claiming the facts were or were not actually proven to be predicted by the Quran, all we would need for sources is some of the Bucailleist web sites or books or what ever, agreed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the current criticism section poses a WP:UNDUE issue is because instead of directly commenting on specific examples it transforms into a discourse about the apparently suspect methods of "Bucailleists" (If we're referring to Zindani, then let's please just use his name), as if that's even central to the topic. I think it does little other than poison the well. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I'm going to start an article on Bucailleism and shorten the criticism section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a post on Jan 9 23:35 UTC related to this (the second reply to your comment). ITAQALLAH 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If people don't like the term Bucailleism, we can change it to something like List of alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, but it is a big controversial subject, a natural for a wikipedia article.

I hope my trimming down of the criticism answers your complaints about undue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by Bucailleism and what you intend to write in the new article, if you are willing to list the claimed miracles there is already an article doing that (Imad marie (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Definition: Bucailleism, the belief that "the Qur'an prophesied the Big Bang theory, space travel and other contemporary scientific breakthroughs," --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a page that lists the alleged miracles. List of Qur'an scientific miracles (Imad marie (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

We'd need a more NPOV sounding name. If believers object to Bucailleism how about Scientific facts allegedly supported by the Qur'an or Scientific facts believed to be supported by the Qur'an or hopefully something shorter. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about (List of alleged Qur'an scientific miracles)? and I think this section must not list ALL the alleged miracles, just the miracles that were claimed by the most known and credible sources (Imad marie (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Complaints about fork article

BoogaLouie, you have ignored ITAQALLAH's and mine comments and created the new article. first you used unreliable resources in the new article content. second you created a new article when there are old articles talking about the same subject (Imad marie (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

I must protest. What unreliable resources?

This article is a classic case of one aspect - whether the Quran predicts scientific discovery - overwhelming other issues - the development of science in Islam, the philosophy of science in Islam, etc. It is a natural for a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many Islamic websites alluding to the predictive miracles of the Quran (and Sunna). I venture to say most Islamic websites talking about Islam and science talk about the predictive etc., maybe almost all websites. Most of this article is or was about Bucailleism, not general issues of Islam and Science, especially before I started editing it. A google search for

International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an 

yields 54,800 hits.

PS, I have added the sources from your article that is up for deletion to Bucailleism.

Itaqallah, upon rereading your comment I see you are opposed to the Bucailleism article (although not very passionately it sounds like), not just the name Bucailleism. I hope that having deleted from this article the issue of "the apparently suspect methods of `Bucailleists`" gathering endorsements of Western scientists, (those alleged endorsements often given much prominence on Bucailleists websites), you aren't now in favor of deleting an article where the issue is discussed more appropriately. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, have a look at WP:NEO. I'm concerned that, barring this one discussion in this 'Strange Bedfellows' article, that this neologism hasn't received substantial discussion in other reliable source material (and I mean the word itself as opposed to the notion of science+Islam). ITAQALLAH 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not comfortable with how Bucailleism is being used as a placeholder for any material associated with Islam and science by people not necessarily associated with Bucaille or Zindani. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Defense of Bucailleism article title

Bucailleism, is nice and concise - one word and specific.
The obvious alternative, Allegations of Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah is

1. long
2. uses the word "allegation" which in English usage carries the connotation of accusations of wrong-doing, as in "alleged murderer," something I don't think Muslims would find appropriate in connection with divine miracles in general or the Quran in particular. This could be changed to "belief in", but I don't think that has a wikipedia precident
3. Too vague. What are "scientific signs" or "miracles"? The miracles or signs are not "scientific," the alleged miracles are the predictions of scientific facts. Muslims who have been brought up with these teaching know immediately what it refers to, non-Muslims do not. To be accurate the title should be something like Allegations of Scientific Facts Predicted by the Quran and Sunnah --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to popularise neologisms. Discussing any claim of scientific miracle under the umbrella of Bucailleism is also original research, and it poisons the well. There's many title alternatives we may consider, but the issue is whether or not we should have an article discussing this neologism specifically as its topic. ITAQALLAH 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Scientific facts allegedly found in the Qur'an"

A major part of the article - itemizing some of the major claims of bucailleism - was deleted by Yahel Guhan on the ground that the "entire section consists of unrelaible sources and original research."

The sources are not cited as proof that the Scientific facts are found in the Qur'an, they are cited as Bucailleist claims. They balance the criticism section which now has references to claims that were deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Question from anon: Why are these quotation marks so ubiquotus whenever the editor happens to disagree with the portrayed? It looks belittleling in this manner, lets either keep them for all articles or...)

This is a very controversial subject with some editors watching the article very carefully for anything they do not like. The quotes are to indicate this is a quote of the source - When Science Teaching Becomes A Subversive Activity By Pervez Hoodbhoy - not to suggest skepticism or disagreement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

== Bucaille died in 1998 ?==

According to the (horribly written) Bucaille article in German wikipedia, Bucaille died in 1998.

Any confirmation ? Giordaano (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source. Why should its comment on the "Mummies of the Pharaohs" be deleted ? please, discuss before proceding to deletions .Giordaano (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You state "According to the (horribly written) Bucaille article in German wikipedia, Bucaille died in 1998. Any confirmation ?"

Dr. Maurice Henri Jules Bucaille (his full name) died in Paris France on 17 Feb 1998. How do I know this? I have his OFFICIAL death certificate. The document can be viewed in both French and in English in my book.

20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Person Behind The Mask (talk)

References

Deletion of criticism section

Edit summary of 3000 byte deletion by 92.232.160.147: (→Bucailleism: The criticism section is not for criticizing Islamic Science but for pointing out criticism of Maurice Buccaile and his work. The deleted sections are irrelevant.)

The criticism section does criticize Buccaile and his book. --22:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Buccailleism is not a widely used term. A google search for Buccaileism lists just 177 results and these consist of wikipedia, discussion forums and blogs. These are not reputable sources. I suspect that this term was coined here on Wikipedia by people who are prejudiced against Dr. Buccaile's work. The article listed sources which falsely claimed to be from the Wall Street Journal but were instead links to public discussion board Cafe Arabica.

All the unverifiable content has been removed. If you're gonna post it back, atleast check the sources and find some proper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worshipfulmaster (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Worshipfulmaster, the article, as it stands now, is ridiculous. Your intervention was destructive and unbalanced. Content will have to be reverted to it.

On the sources : it is quite sufficient to quote an article on the "Wall Street Journal"¨as a source, even if there is no direct link to the article available. The WSJ is a verifiable source.

Do you think that all sources quoted on wikipedia are online ? No, of course.Giordaano (talk) 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the Cafe Arabica-article can also be found at [1], I guess the site of the California State University is more reliable than the "public discussion board Cafe Arabica." Anyway, I am not reverting this: I just reverted some rudimentary external links, and the article is nicely small this way.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is not nicely small. It is missing a great deal of relevent material which will have to be reverted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Giordaano. Worshipfulmaster is not deleting text based on comment found in cafearabica, but text based on an article in a very large and respected newspaper that was pasted on cafearabica. There is no excuse for deleting it.

Buccailleism is not a widely used term. There are not a lot of google hits for the term (in part perhaps because english speakers have a hard time spelling it, in part because most people who embrace it prefer to call it "miracles of the quran" or a similar term, and in part because most people who don't embrace it also don't take it seriously and ignore it). Nonetheless it is "a fast-growing branch of Islamic fundamentalism," is named after the man the article is about and is used by at least the Wall Street Journal and Malise Ruthven (author and ex-professor of comparative religion). It is not, however, "a completely dreamt up term," as Worshipfulmaster claims and should not be deleted from the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi BoogaLouie

I would agree with you that "Bucailleism" could be mentioned, if I didn't fear that this would reopen the article to numerous other additions of irrelevant content.

The main problem is the contemporary trend in some Muslim circles to find proof of the Quran's authenticity (as God's word) in "scientific miracles" produced via new translations, arbitrary interpretations etc

But this issue cannot be treated adequately in this biographical article which, in my views, should be kept short. Best regardsGiordaano (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boogalouie,

Re your quote:

Nonetheless it is "a fast-growing branch of Islamic fundamentalism,"

I'm sorry to inform you that your comment is not only insensitive but also factually incorrect. The vast majority of Muslim's have never heard of the term "Buccaileism". And its mostly moderate Muslims who are concerned with issues such as the scientific significance of the Quran. I agree with Giordaano that this is a supposed to be a biographical account and must include information that is relevant and deemed totally accurate by the Wikipedia community. I don't have the time to go over every Wikipedia article and ensure that all the references are accurate.

However, when the Wikipedia community finds a reference that is not what it claims to be, proper action must be taken. The Cafearabica forum cannot be treated as a reference. There is no proof that the article on it is sourced from the Wall Street Journal. Whoever claims that it is must produce a reference to that article.

I'm happy with the page as it stands. It provides information that is accurate and if the user needs more information, I'm certain that they will be able to investigate further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worshipfulmaster (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Worshipfulmaster, if you doubt the source, you can always ask Daniel Golden, the writer of the article, if he really wrote it. His mail-adress is daniel.golden@wsj.com. Nevertheless, there are plenty references on the net to the WSJ-article, so I think that it is not neccesary to question it. But for the record: I like this Wikipedia-article as it is as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of Muslim's have never heard of the term "Buccaileism". No doubt. As I said, the term is not used by supporters of Buccaileism. But while the vast majority have not heard of the term, they have heard of heard of "miracles of the quran," which is what Buccaileism is.

The Cafearabica forum cannot be treated as a reference. There is no proof that the article on it is sourced from the Wall Street Journal. Whoever claims that it is must produce a reference to that article. I have read the article on a subscription database that includes the Walll Street Journal. Where is there a wikipedia regulation that says all sources must be available on the internet?

Finally, much of what Worshipfulmaster deleted is unrelated to this dispute about Cafearabica:

Bucaille is best known in the Muslim world where his book The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, book was immensely popular, sold millions of copies, and was translated into several languages.

Bucaille's later book, Mummies of the Pharaohs, was laureated with a silver medal for the "Prix Diane Potier-Boès 1988", one of the history prizes from the French Academy. In 1991, Bucaille won prize from the French National Academy of Medicine . as well. The New York Times, in its review, considered the book "so severely flawed that neither specialist nor casual reader will find much to savor." --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think that this deleted part should be reinserted :

"Bucaille is best known in the Muslim world where his book The Bible, The Qur'an and Science, book was immensely popular, sold millions of copies, and was translated into several languages.[1] Bucaille's later book, Mummies of the Pharaohs, was laureated with a silver medal for the "Prix Diane Potier-Boès 1988", one of the history prizes from the French Academy[2]. In 1991, Bucaille won prize from the French National Academy of Medicine .[3] as well. The New York Times, in its review, considered the book "so severely flawed that neither specialist nor casual reader will find much to savor."[4]"

Any other views ?Giordaano (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the insertion of that fragment.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be deleting the criticism section because it is not relevant to the book discussed, and links to a missionary website. (User talk: Noman953) 9:31, 30 September, 2009

I do not see why it should be deleted. After all, the book on the website DOES discuss the book of mr. Bucaille. And otherwise, we should delete all external links, for they link to missionary websites as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Did Bucaille convert to Islam?

User:Larkusix has sources that says that Bucaille converted to Islam, check here, at first sight the sources seem to be not very solid. Personally I think that his conversion is doubtful, and should not be stated as a fact in wikipedia. Any ideas? Imad marie (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Claim repeated and removed 23 June 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.96 (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Did Dr. Maurice Bucaille convert to Islam? There exist no evidence of this that I have seen in my research. There are no pictures of him on Hajj, no pictures of him at prayer, no pictures of him even in a mosque. There are no first hand accounts listed (named) that attest to this conversion. No indication that he ever recited the shahada. Dr. Maurice Bucaille himself never professed to being a convert to Islam. In an interview with the Islamic Bulletin Vol 6 dtd 01/1992 he was asked specifically if he had "embraced" Islam. This was his response:

Q: Have you embraced Islam? A: I wanted to make it quite clear in the very beginning that even before I learnt the first letter of Bismillah, I was convinced that God was unique and all- powerful and when God guided me to undertake a study of the Quran, my inner soul cried out that Al- Quran was the Word of God revealed to his Last Prophet Mohammed (S.A.W.). In my book "Quran, Bible and Science," I have mentioned these facts and the book has met with instant success in the entire Christian world. In this book I have devoted myself to discuss all problems from purely academic angle, rather than that of faith or belief which would have revealed only my personal convictions. This was because I desired to be treated by the world as an academician rather than a theologian. About my faith and belief, God knows what is in one's heart. I am convinced that if I identify myself with any creed, people will invariably dub me as one belonging to such and such group and feel that whatever I say or do, I do so from only the angle of such and such creed group. I know my fellow beings very well and understand their mentality only too well. I wanted to assure them that all my pronouncements are based on scientific knowledge and not on any religious dogmas.

Person Behind The Mask 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I also call this into question with evidence of his burial in my book. I provide detailed links to the actually site of his burial to include photographic proof. I also explain burial procedures under French law in case folks attempt to claim that his family acted against his expressed wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Person Behind The Mask (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I see that this has gone back to a crude evangelical Islamic puff piece . Bucaille was always careful to hedge his words so that he never actually said he converted . No one can deny the many public statements he made in favour of Islam , but he never publicly stated that HE converted. How was it surprising to find salt inside a mummy, when that was a common practice ? Why tell lies? Sorry to be so blunt but this has to stop Yesihavereadit (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Rebuttal

There was a great live debate between Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on the book of Dr Campbell. Dr Campbell admitted the errors in the holy Bible and said he had no answers for those errors. At the same time Dr Zakir gave logical and convincing answers to all the alleged inaccuracies in the holy Quran. Without giving any counter arguments, all Dr. Campbell could say was " I do not agree to these explanations". This great debate gets on air on Peace TV from time to time, and is worth watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.234.230 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that debate. They told Campbell that this "dialogue [was] being held in a spirit of friendship." Nevertheless, in his rebuttal Naik changed this "friendly dialogue" into a Gung-Ho debate. Although this debate might be interesting from the viewpoint of Rethoric, I fail to see what this has to do with this article.(and see also [2]Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If the debate doesnt deserve mention, then william campbell doesnt deserve mention either...And when is a debate supposed to be friendly..Willy couldnt rebuttal as he was fighting truth with falsehood. Where is neutrality here mentioning campbells criticism with no mention of his debate..Purely using wiki to promote lies..Dont you think?

More about Maurice bucaille could be added in a book published by Trafford Publishing

Dr. Maurice Bucaille is an eminent French surgeon, scientist, scholar. An impartial scientist like Dr. Bucaille, who (being also a Christian) was converstant with the Biblical version of Pharaoh's story as being drowned in pursuit of Prophet Moses. He was pleasantly surprised to learn that unknown to the world till only of late, the Holy Quran made definite prediction about the preservation of the body of that same Pharaoh of Moses time. This led Dr. Bucaille to study the Holy Quran thoroughly after learning the Arabic language. "[The Prophecy and the Warnings Shines Through the Mystifying "Codes of the Holy Quran. Trafford Publishing. 2004. {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help)]"

That book is hardly a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "an eminent French surgeon, scientist, scholar. An impartial scientist like Dr. Bucaille..." is unacceptable. What you're trying to say there is "all this stuff must be true because X says so". Try to work towards NPOV language, taht isn't even close William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reason for deleting source regarding "all statements scientifically accurate" statement

" Islam and Science, Pervez Hoodbhoy , Zed Books Ltd., 1991 ISBN 1-85649-025-4 (Paperback), Foreword by Prof Abdus Salam."

Citing this book as a source to validate the claim that Bucaille's work has been disputed makes no sense, given that it is pro-Islamic. Surlyduff50 (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (GMT)

I believe you are wrong.Please take a look at the excerpts from Hoodbhoy's book here. Maybe we can include some of it in the article. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting this book as a credible source? It's talking about jinn as if they were real, and actually cites the conclusion of Muslim scientist Mohammed Muttalib (that mountains are like pegs) as valid! Granted, Bucaille's methodology is disputed in the link you've given me, but any sources used here are supposed to show dispute of scientific statements in the Qur'an themselves, not merely the manner in which Bucaille carried out his work. :)

You are citing the appendices with the title "They Call It Islamic Science." That "they" does not include the author. The appendices are not about Pervez Hoodbhoy's own conclusions. I hope you can understand the irony of a sentence like "one of these was advertised as a Panel Discussion on Things Known Only To Allah.... I was unable to attend, but subsequently have often wondered what secrets the panelists were privy to." Please do some research on mr. Hoodbhoy and his ideas. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely don't mean to be rude, but I'm not at all interested in the work of Hoodbhoy; I care more about references validating the idea that Bucaille's conclusions regarding Qur'anic science are likely invalid. I realise that Hoodbhoy is by no means supporting Bucaille's work, and I realise that in writing the "They" in "They Call it Islamic Science", Hoodbhoy is not attempting to refer to himself. None of this changes the fact that Hoodbhoy is Muslim, and clearly not arguing against the idea that all scientific statements in the Qur'an are accurate (which is what we're after in a reference here), but rather, against the manner in which Bucaille has tackled the subject. :) Surlyduff50 (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2012 (GMT)

So in short, you dismiss Prof. Hoodbhoy's book as a credible source, just because the author "is Muslim"? And for the rest you are not at all interested in the work of Hoodbhoy? I do believe I am wasting my time here. And for the record, the discussed reference DOES validate the dispute around the validity of Bucaille's arguments, as anyone can see.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"So in short, you dismiss Prof. Hoodbhoy's book as a credible source, just because the author "is Muslim"?"

No. One who does not accept apparent scientific revelations in the Qur'an as genuine is not Muslim. As Hoodbhoy is Muslim, Hoodbhoy considers any apparent scientific revelations in the Qur'an to be from God. Hoodbhoy is, by no means, trying to dispute the claim that all Qur'anic science is accurate. Therefore, his work has no place at the end of the sentence we are discussing.

"And for the record, the discussed reference DOES validate the dispute around the validity of Bucaille's arguments"

That'd work nicely, however we are not trying to validate the dispute around the "validity of Bucaille's arguments". We are trying to validate the dispute around the "validity of Bucaille's arguments that all scientific statements presented in the Qur'an are scientifically accurate". Let's not start an edit war. Surlyduff50 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (GMT)

Zed Books are not renowned academic publisher and Hoodbhoy's opinion are not published in repputable jounrnal either (afaik). Judging from the excerpts from book given on the website above it doesn't look like a reliable/reputable source at all. So given what we have so far Hoodbhoy is no credible source (no matter what his personal religion is). In addition citing a believer for an neutral outside perspective is generally a bad idea as well, this caveat might be outweighed by an exceptionally reputable person publishing in an exceptional reputable journal but we don't have that either here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

So I guess that only atheists may be quoted in this occasion? And then only those who got their opinion "published in repputable jounrnal "? Well, I believe that dr. Campbell's book (published by Arab World Ministries) doesn't fit those standards either. I will see how I can edit it out.Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresented sources in the "Reception" section

Some of the sources used in the "Reception" section are not explicitly discussing claims made by Bucaille. Instead, they discuss the topic of Quranic predictions/scientific miracles as a whole. But the literature on this subject is huge, with many fringe theories that may or may not be related to Bucaille's book. Reception sections in other articles tend to be more specific to the work/author being discussed. Shouldn't the reception section be more specific to Bucaille's works? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I don't find recent edits by to be helpful. For one, this edit introduces WP:OR into the article. I think its best that the edits be reverted. We have scholarly sources (eg "Veiling Esther, Unveiling Her Story" page 21) that say Bucaille converted to Islam.VR _talk 08:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In "Veiling Esther, Unveiling Her Story", page 21, it says:

For Bucaille this impossibility was clear proof that the Qur'an is divine and it contributed to his decision to convert to Islam. [17]

Source for the above quotation: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=UM90DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Veiling+Esther,+Unveiling+Her+Story+maurice+bucaille&source=bl&ots=4JWaH71WDE&sig=ACfU3U0KERDtpQ3ZgIdS7gE5cF9NKrW8_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUxYz1n4n1AhW0LqYKHS4vDwcQ6AF6BAgkEAI#v=onepage&q=Veiling%20Esther%2C%20Unveiling%20Her%20Story%20maurice%20bucaille&f=false

What source did the author of the "scholarly source" present? Hint: none. The 17th citation mentions no credible source where Bucaille adhered to an Islamic creed (stated shahadat in front of witnesses, under their local imam). I'll state the 17th citation provided by Adam J. Silverstein, it is as follows:

[17]: The "miracle" of Haman's existence in the Qur'an has been widely circulated online. In one case, the fears of a distressed, Arabic-speaking Muslim who was exposed to "Christian” arguments that Haman's appearance in the Qur'an is ana chronistic, are assuaged by his respondent, who points out not only that it is the Bible that is wrong, but also that Haman's appearance in the Qur'an is miraculous. The respondent adds that the Qur'anic verses concerning Haman were recited in the presence of Jews, who did not object to the reference to Haman. One of these Jews, the respondent says, was 'Abdallah ibn Salām, who subsequently converted to Islam. According to this, 1300 years before Maurice Bucaille, an Arabian Jew converted to Islam on the basis of Haman's miraculous appearance in the Qur'an (http:// shubuhat3arabic.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/6.html -last accessed 15 February 2017).

Source for the above quotation is the same, page 21.

A blog article is not a credible source, it does not even mention Bucaille having credible witnesses for confirming the conversion (which in Islamic context is called "reversion"). It also violates WP:BLOG, and, therefore, it is classified as an unreliable source. 182.58.189.43 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Wikipedia article content is based on what reliable sources say, not on the arguments of Wikipedia article editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Maurice muslim name

Maurice Muslim name 119.152.72.187 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

2020-21 edit war re conversion to Islam - truce?

We seem to be in an edit war concerning whether Bucaille converted. Bucaille was one of the first western doctors/scientists to actively promote the "scientific Miracles in the Quran" narrative and this page is important in that history. As such I think its important that an accurate and NPOV article on his life and views should exist on Wiki. No one could ever say that Bucaille did not make very positive statements in his books , in articles and videos regarding science , Islam and the Quran. However it also cannot be denied that he never actually publically declared that he had converted and (see the the Islamic Bulletin article and as some has pointed out, he was never photographed at a Mosque praying etc) . He also was employed by the King of Saudi Arabia (and president Anwar Sadat) and therefore any positive statements must be tinged with the thought that he might soon lose that well paid job if he ever said he wasnt a Muslim. Also his book sales might suffer.

Surely we can come together and come up with an article that covers the above without it becoming a crude Dawah page or an Islamophobic rant? Yesihavereadit (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is neither at the moment. Anyhow, we don't normally focus on subjects' religion, unless plenty of reliable sources show it as important. Even then, religious controversies alone are not usually sufficient to establish a person's notability. Bucaille is known primarily for his book, and so that part of the article would do good with more details. But frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable to speculate about his religion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence

Hello. Since there has been a content dispute and slow edit warring over the last sentence I added, then I invite anyone concerned to make a case here. They can suggest sources and viewpoints, or even a potential re-wording of the sentence, but either way, content should not be removed without a valid reason or because of WP:JDLI. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 I've removed the controversial sentence as it's been challenged by several editors. Read WP:BRD. I'm also not too comfortable with the wording "virtually all serious scientists" (I know a few serious scientists who did not dismiss the book; they even don't know of its existence). I suggest the sentence is reworked here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 04:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)