Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference for Correlations between the Quran and science

• [http://www.islam101.com/science/quran_sc_tv.html The Qur’an and Modern Science

Extracts from the video "The Truth"]

• Scientific Miracles in the Glorious Qur'an
• Science in Islam
• The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science
• The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
• THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
• Qur'an and Science (unsigned comments from User:Ratherhaveaheart

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).

1. [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Science-M-H-Syed/dp/8126113456/sr=8-7/qid=1159834580/ref=sr_1_7/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books Islam and Science]
2. [http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Science-Ashgate-Religion/dp/075460800X/sr=8-8/qid=1159834580/ref=sr_1_8/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books Islam and Science (Ashgate Science and Religion Series)]
3. [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Quran-Science-Maurice-Bucaille/dp/8172311613/sr=8-5/qid=1159834655/ref=sr_1_5/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books The Bible, The Quran and Science. (Paperback)]
4. [http://www.amazon.com/holy-Quran-sciences-nature/dp/B0007BS95A/sr=8-17/qid=1159834708/ref=sr_1_17/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books The holy Quran and the sciences of nature]
5. [http://www.amazon.com/Universe-beyond-Spiritual-interpretation-scientific/dp/B0006F6WZ6/sr=8-29/qid=1159834708/ref=sr_1_29/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books The Universe beyond: Spiritual interpretation of the universe : a scientific study in the light of the Holy Quran and the modern sciences]
6. [http://www.amazon.com/Some-Secrets-of-the-Quran/dp/9756426411/sr=8-24/qid=1159834708/ref=sr_1_24/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=office-products Some Secrets of the Quran]
7. [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Quran-Science-knowledge-Monograph/dp/B0007KDY1U/sr=8-21/qid=1159834708/ref=sr_1_21/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books Holy Quran,: Science and modern knowledge (Monograph)]
8. [http://www.amazon.com/holy-Quran-science-modern-knowledge/dp/B0006CC35M/sr=8-19/qid=1159834708/ref=sr_1_19/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books The holy Quran, science and modern knowledge]
9. [http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Science-Islam-Perspectives-Technology/dp/0262194821/sr=8-16/qid=1159834580/ref=sr_1_16/002-2777538-5708064?ie=UTF8&s=books The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives (Dibner Institute Studies in the History of Science and Technology)]

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)

They might be. But according to my previous experiences with Islamic articles, they ask for books only. Even some people reject books written by Islamic scholars (only western scholars). I had many long fights with this things. You know that things changes when applied on Islam articles. --- ابراهيم 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly OK to use reputable sources -- that is, for example, online essays, as long as they represent majority views within their field and are not the rants of some wacko. Do not assume that non-Muslims will try to suppress Muslim opinion, since that's not a good attitude to work here. I'm trying to be fair and restrict myself to good reviews of the Qur'an, both from believers and non-believers. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another fairly reputable site I found with some good Quran/Science information

A History of Muslim Philosophy Ratherhaveaheart 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

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)

Just started... Does the belief that the Qur'an is "the literal word and the final revelation of God" mean that it is unchanging and infallible? If scholarly Islamic sources say so, please provide them; it would be better to make it explicit to contrast with science.

I removed this: "However, this article tries to collect of 100s of instances where Quran -- a book more than 1400 years old -- talk about scientific facts." Such declared intentions are apologistic; the article needs to compare scientific facts with the Qur'an, not collect coincidences. Again, this needs scholarly sources. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. It will be great if you could work on it. "the literal word and the final revelation of God" is copied from Quran article. Yes Muslims (not non-Muslims) believe it is unchanging and infallible. I will find some source about it soon. --- ابراهيم 12:18, 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)

I will be really great if you could help here Islami. I know you could add some good stuff in this article. --- ابراهيم 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bucaille et al

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)

I found many things that Bucaille said doubtful and leading towards original research. However, you people do not like if I present pure Quran and pure Science making no connection between them. This way a reader could decide itself. So now let have Bucaille and others. I need to put few more things from his writing then I will concentrate on others. Also he was a long time doctor most of this life and head surgeon too. At least thats what his page on wikipedia claims. --- ابراهيم 19:49, 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)

That's what I meant. For example, it's a well-known fact that ants have a "language", as your scientific cite points out. But I think it's a stretch to link a passage that says "the ant said..." to the scientific fact that "ants can communicate among themselves". "Letting the reader decide" is fine, but when you put A and B together, sometimes the intended connection is obvious.

But in any case my opinion doesn't matter (and neither does yours) -- what we need (in this example) is a scholar who has argued that that passage of the Qur'an predicts the modern scientific discovery that ants have a form of communication. "Original research" means you (the editor) are making deductions and associations by yourself.

I think the article is not going to be deleted this time, but it will be put up for deletion again if those issues are not addressed. Ironically, maybe the best way to save it from deletion is to delete most of it, keeping only what is verifiably not original research. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No please do not delete. We are working to find references of stuff hence soon more refernces will be there. Do not delete anything please. --- ابراهيم 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He isn't threatening to do so; simply making an observation about what is likely to happen if the article stays like it is. I think it's pretty clear it's already passed this initial AfD. Hopefully the improvements will soon be good enough that it's not an issue anymore. - 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)

The sun has an orbit?

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)

As well as I know sun is also moving and obviously all the planets (circling around it) also moving along it. I will try to find some references for it. --- ابراهيم 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does! the Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy. Here's the line from the Sun article: "The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 25,000 to 28,000 light-years from the galactic center, completing one revolution in about 225–250 million years. The orbital speed is 217 km/s, equivalent to one light-year every 1,400 years, and one AU every 8 days.[3]" - Ibrahim, you could get the ref from there. - Valarauka(T/C) 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank Valarauka I am going to add this in the article with the reference (# [3] from sun page). Can you please have some contributions on this article as it needs lot of work. More people working here better it will be. --- ابراهيم 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where the Qur'an and science diverge

• The Qur'an claims that ants can talk:

At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

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.

• The Qur'an teaches that there are seven heavens one above the other [67:3, 71:15], and that the stars are in the lower heaven [67:5, 37:6, 41:12], but the moon is depicted as being in/inside the seven heavens [71:16], even though in reality the stars are much further away from the earth than the moon.

• The Qur'an says that the sun sets into a muddy pool:

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 Qur'an claims that mountains prevent the earth from shaking:

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.

• The Qur'an claims that all things come in pairs:

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)

I think mentioning somewhere the very basic idea that the Qu'ran and science disagree on creationism is also quite relevant. --Nehwyn 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some bogus things in the Qur'an that sufficient mental effort and self-deception will enable one to believe. I tried to only include things which you have to be crazy to believe. 24.7.89.173 07:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will address above mention stuff soon. --- ابراهيم 06:19, 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)

Well argued, and a good point, though I'm not sure what allegories in the Bible and what (modern, please) Christian extremism you're referring to. Also if the people writing this article were to accept that large parts of the Qur'an are, as you say, Arab storytelling, they might not have written this article, but then again, they wouldn't be Muslim.

However aside from the talking ants passage, it would be difficult to argue that the passages I quoted make no claims about the natural world, or do not have definite underlying conceptions about it that are wrong. If the Qur'an were from God, it would be, in its own words, free from error (the more glaring contradiction in my mind is that the Qur'an says that Jesus is in heaven, but that everyone besides God who is worshiped is damned along with those who worship him). So it is not from God. Also when you said Torah you probably were trying to say Tanakh; save us all the trouble and say Old Testament next time.24.7.89.173 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Quran is a story. I said that its context sits in that tradition. Muhammad's work would never have been effective if he'd ignored his audience.

Actually, I expect that there are a sizable number of Muslims who are perfectly comfortable with the idea that portions of the Quran are allegorical. Just as many Christians are with the Gospels. That doesn't mean that the teachings are any less significant to either; or that those teachings that do collelate with science are any less interesting.

I'm referring to creationism, the apocalypse, and the rapture. A significant amount of U.S. support for Israel comes from right-wing extremists trying to stimulate that at hasten the second coming. This support leave Israelis, at best, ambivalent. This "lets hurry the apolcalypse along" attitude is shared, almost word-for-word, by some Muslim extremists. "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." Crikey!

You must understand the monotheism of Islam to understand the damning of those who worship Christ. The statement "those who join partners with God" is a very strong epithet indeed. In Islam, Jesus is not God. The trinity is absolutely rejected. Muhammad had to state monotheism this strongly because the pagan Arabs would create "gods" out of just about anything. In the Islamic view, if "There is no God but God", then worshiping anything else is forbidden. To Muslims Jesus is a prophet, as true a servant of God as Muhammad, and didn't teach the Trinity. When Christians created this idea themselves (again, in the Islamic view) they in effect damned themselves.

This is internally consistent. As consistency is the first step to being true, it can not be demonstrated that the Quran is in error on this point. You're perfectly free to disagree with the outcome and consider it extreme or unjust, but you can't argue that it's erroneous from this position it takes.

Actually, I meant the Torah. Jews have the full range of thinking with respect to the meaning of their scripture as Christians and Muslims do. Genesis is in both, is treated as literally true verbatim by some, and has been the source of a lot of confusion over the creation. Psalms, The Song of Solomon, etc,. haven't been central to similar arguments.

We do seem to aggree that the sourcing for this article will make or break it. And that's what wikipedia is all about; if it doesn't get there as often as it should. MARussellPESE 15:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, while being very lucid you manage to fail to address my main points. While you are technically correct that there are Christian "extremists" today, they do not do anything which is morally objectionable. It seems like your point is to say that, yes, Muslim literalists behead people and blow up buildings, but Christians give financial and moral support to Israel, so there...I fail to see your point. My point is that if you take an almost entirely literal interpretation of the Qur'an, as I suspect all major Muslim schools of thought do (correct me if I'm wrong), you get inconsistency. The idea that these questionable passages in the Qur'an can be taken to be allegories is a new one to me. Do any of the major Sunni or Shia schools of thought take this view? When did it arise? Did Muhammad himself indicate that his words should not always be taken literally? I think you're going out on a limb, here, MA.

As regards the Qur'an's statements about Jesus, I was referring to specific suras: Sura 4:158. Nay, Allah raised him [Jesus] up unto Himself; ...

Sura 3:45. ... Jesus, Son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to Allah.

These contradict the following sura (hence rendering the Qur'an inconsistent):

Surely you and what you worship besides Allah

are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98

There are following suras which Muhammad uttered after someone had raised exactly this issue. It says in the Sirat Rasul Allah that Muhammad in response to a critic basically said, well they only go to hell if they wanted to be worshiped. Well then this new correction contradicts Sura 21:98!

Also the Qur'an clearly states that everything comes in pairs, which has been disproven by science, and it implies that the moon is farther away than the stars, also contradicted by science. Not to mention the fact that it says that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, which is not true, and which is not mentioned in this article. At least Christians and Jews admit that creation took longer than 7 days.

One final point. The title of this article is The Quran and science, not Islam and science. We're only looking at the text here. Allegorical interpretations should be minimized. 24.7.89.173 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The 6 day creation is better explained in this site: speed-light--Russoue 19:42, 18 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)

Surely you and what you worship besides Allah

are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98

According to the Quran, Jesus is in hell. Arrow740 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is there is a difference between who and what. What may refer to the idols which one worships, not any person.--Russoue 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a story in the sirat rasul allah that when muhammad said sura 21:98, someone caught him, saying, well Jesus is in hell then. The Muhammad immediately had another revelation where he said, well Jesus never asked to be worshiped, so he doesn't count. But then this also contradicts sura 21:98. Arrow740 21:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dating Science and Technology.

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)

For me reading Quran is always a proof that it is book of God. Because it is preserved since last 1400 years and even it language is still alive (unlike other books). There is no book that is preserved since so long, in its original form. Furthermore, many things in Quran (including scientific facts) are also impressive me a lot and cannot be written by a man 1400 years ago. But you are right it is decision of a person because if it is clear-cut then there will be no Test. If God prove itself like 2+2 then nothing would be left on us to decide and no heaven/hells needs to exist. --- ابراهيم 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

His point is that as regards science there's nothing in the Qur'an that Muhammad's contemporaries hadn't already figured out, so there's nothing "new" there, and so this article is kind of pointless. It's basically you guys observing that the Qur'an isn't wrong about certain stuff, and that if you try really hard you can interpret some other stuff to be predicting modern scientific developments. 24.7.89.173 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the quran was not written by a man - The quran was scribed and transcribed until it was collated into todays version. If this is wrong then wikipedia articles on the providence of the quran need updating. As for unchangability - the heiroglyphs of Egypt are unchanged (chiselled n stone after all) and yet record details of people and gods long since dead that predate the quran by millenia. The language of the quran can not be unchanged and yet still alive. All languages that are alive change as society changes. The earliest know copy of the quran is uncertain according to our own wikipedia (reading Origin and development of the Qur'an but don't worry neither is the existance of Jesus or the Bible equally clear). Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a creation-science soapbox. Ttiotsw 14:08, 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)

This is not a forum...

... 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)

Thus it is valid that the scientific credentials of the authorities who we are reporting about will be examined. There will be no argument with religion and science; one is faith and one is reason. Though the Catholic church may convince itself that they can be reconciled it is pleasing to see that no such delusion is expected to exist here. Ttiotsw 13:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this article exists? It is a few Muslims trying to convince others that their faith can be reconciled with science. Also, for you to so disdainfully dismiss the reasoning of the Catholic Church on faith and reason is exceedingly arrogant. Those ideas have been developed by some of the most brilliant men in history. If you want to get informed I can give you some reading suggestions. 24.7.89.173 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: we should examine the scientific credentials of scientists speaking for science (lest we quote wackos or pseudo-scientists); and we should examine the and theological/scholarly credentials of those speaking for the Qur'an (lest we quote bad Qur'anic academics or unrepresentative fanatics).

What you, Ttiotsw, have to say, please find sources that say it, and integrate them into the article. If you're saying that religion and science cannot be reconciled, be aware that, with regards to me, you're preaching to the choir. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw man or irrelevant conclusion within Quran WRT Big Bang

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)

Dear Ttiotsw, I will try to improve that section. I just changed my city and have to get new library card in this new city. I will try to search any book possible in this regard and will try to improve it. In the mean time I am going to search Google with "Big Band and Quran" and its variation. I hope to get few URLs to add there and improve it. No body is claiming that it is Big bang 100% sure. It might NOT BE at all big bang. However, it could be. So we have to give different opinions. May be there are some people have to prove it wrong, you can put those people comments there too. You are welcome to do that. --- ابراهيم 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad could have proved to future generations that he was speaking God's word by actually coming up with something new. Why didn't he? The "there has to be some room for faith" argument I've heard Christians say doesn't work here (and is tenuous there) because, the Quran to the contrary, there is compulsion in Islam; if you renounce it, you die. So faith isn't really that important; being a member of Islam is. Arrow740 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

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)

Speaker POV Question

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)

It is "quoted" from an article that is why it is like that. Secondly Quran is the words of God. --- ابراهيم

You can change it as for me Quran and God word is equal and it does not makes any difference for me. But article says God word. --- ابراهيم 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Human Birth

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)

As it is written this section is stupid. You take the line "We created man out of a single drop of semen" and say aHA, this is the same as saying all you need is one sperm cell to conceive a child. In fact it says drop, not cell, and that isn't all you need. YOU NEED BOTH AN EGG AND A SPERM CELL. AND THAT'S ALL you need to conceive. Your analogy "well if I put sperm on a bed that won't make a child" is also dumb. The womb of a woman is clearly very different from a bed when it comes to babies. In fact what this passage ACTUALLY shows is that Muhammad thought that if you put sperm in a woman, it will change into a child. That's not true. If it penetrates a human egg, then the resulting cell will.

I am going to change it back. If you change it again you will approaching the three revert rule. I'm also correcting your spelling and grammar when I do these things. Why don't you just concern yourself with the Urdu or Panjabi wikipedias? Arrow740 00:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a single spelling or grammer you have corrected . However, that might be the 10th time you have abused me on it. Keep abusing as you encourge me a lot. --- ابراهيم 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll leave you alone about the spelling and grammar; you're able to get your message across either way, and that's what I'm really critiquing. And what have I been encouraging you to do? Arrow740 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

May I make a point? If you have done detailed reading of the quran, it states, that the a single drop of sperm penetrates the womans womb and it then turns into a zygot. If you wish I will look for the ayaat for it. Kk? good. ibrahimFaisal your argument was very weak. The Quran states that a sperm cell+ egg make a zygot.MOI 21:53, 13 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)

This is what we charitably call Original Research. Arrow740 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--I got this from my Quran translation.MOI 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When you interpreted "clot" to mean "egg/sperm clot" that's something you came up with on your own. It's not what it says in the Quran. In the Quran it just says clot. Arrow740 22:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

oh sorry. I thought you were trying to say that my quote was based on original research. Okdokey then. I wont add anything withought a source from now on. I am in a good mood.MOI 18:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what? The quote that i had placed here several days ago was actualyl translated as (96:2)God has created you from Min-alaq (or a clot of blood) I did some research on it from several English Qurans. You were right Arrow740. Next time I will research before pastign anythign on here.MOI 18:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Help keep this article accurate

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)

Sources

• Harun Yahya is not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an. Read his article.
• Dr. Zakir Naik is literally a medical doctor, not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an.
• Dr. Maurice Bucaille, again a medical doctor (employed by the Saudi royal family), not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an.
• Who is A. Abd Allah?
• Ibrahimfaisal himself.

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)

That guy Naik is an expert on the Koran. Not on science though. 24.7.89.173 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Arrow)

--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 outta here

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)

Too bad. You seem to spend a lot of your life on wikipedia; don't you consider it your duty to prevent people of faith from using wikipedia as a platform to spread their beliefs? -Arrow

Quite the contrary, Wikipedia is a platform to spread knowledge and beliefs. I would come to this article to learn about muslim faith just like I would go to the atheist article to learn about their 'faith' and what would drive different people to believe different things. I just believe that the reader shouldn't be 'duped' by false information. As long the information presented isnt false or biased I have no problem. --FK65 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be a platform to spread knowledge, not beliefs. Once that becomes part of its mission it will obscure the truth more than it already does. Arrow740 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia is not a platfor to talk about beliefs then I think every article related to Islam (and all other religions for that matter) should be deleted. I think it is not a bad way to prevent dispute.--Russoue 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be moved to a book page

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)

As it stands, that is the only reasonable way to save this .... Arrow740 06:34, 9 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)

History and Criticisms Section

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)

Critism of non-notable sources by other non-notable sources? Is this what we've come to?Proabivouac 05:19, 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)

You are obviously new to wikipedia. Please read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS before you make any changes. We're all working hard on this (Muslim and non-Muslim), and we're all following the rules. Arrow740 01:00, 14 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)

Suggestion for avoiding constant reversions

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)

I am with you (because I assume good faith towards you) but I am afraid that they will use that chance to delete whole sections. Then it will become difficult to restore those sections. Have you seen these books  ? They have useful stuff for this article and many of them are available on amazon.com. They are reliable sources (with ISBN etc) according to wikipedia standards. If you could fill some sections then it will be great. --- ابراهيم 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Other then above books this URL is also good http://www.islamvision.org/Physiology.asp . --- ابراهيم 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya) is certainly not a reliable source, as he has no acknowledged area of expertise related to any of subjects to which this article refers (anymore than he does on the Holocaust or Freemasonry, other subjects upon which he expounds.)Proabivouac 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:RS his books are reliable sources. --- ابراهيم 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mixed up ideology Mr Oktar has! With due respect to you, Ibrahimfaisal, reliable sources for history/religion/social science articles are books and scholarly articles published with reputable publishers by people who have relevant academic qualifications and are working as academics conducting original research. It is not enough for a book to have an ISBN. See the discussion on Bat Ye'or on talk:dhimmi and discussion elsewhere on Koenraad Elst. On the relationship between religion and science, I don't think anyone has yet improved on the non-overlapping magisteria view of Stephen Jay Gould, as Mary Midgley says in this week's New Scientist, in her review of the latest book by Richard Dawkins. Itsmejudith 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not care about discussion on some talk pages. As long as he is defined as a reliable source according to WP:RS he is a reliable resource for me. Otherwise, you must change WP:RS or prove that according to it he is not acceptable. --- ابراهيم 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To respond to your first point good faith is to be assumed for everyone. Whether the sections are on the talk page as areas to be expanded or within the article proper there is a chance that they will be wrongly deleted and such deletion will be dealt with appropriately. In order for this article to be done properly in line with NPOV, EVERYONE needs to put their personal POV/agendas aside, be it religious, scientific, or political. If you are editing here your motivation should be to create a quality article about the relationship between the Quran and science. Ratherhaveaheart 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think these sections should be moved to the Talk Page as sections for further expansion, since they currently do not have referenced sources for the relationship between the Quran and Science.

• Big Bang
• Motion of Sun and Moon
• Shape of the Earth
• Formation of Night and Day
• Water Cycle
• Sex of Plants
• Geology
• Medicine
• Oceanology
• Physiology
• Zoology

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)

Agreed. Perhaps a subpage might be appropriate? It's rather a lot of stuff. Ibrahim, you may want to consider the more unsourced / OR-ish / objectionable material there is in the main article, the more likely it is that it won't pass a second AfD. Ratherhaveaheart's suggestion is the best way to move forward on sourcing the content while also ensuring that the article itself is worthy of inclusion. - Valarauka(T/C) 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree, keep whatever is verifiable in the article for now and then gradually work the other points in after they have been worked on and referenced. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agreed however now I feel for me it increasingly difficult to assume good faith towards couple of people who had openly told their enmity towards Islam to me many times. Even at my talk page. I just wish that they do not use that event in wrong way. Furthermore talk page is also ever changing thing and it is better to shift on your User page (or to somewhere else) than to talk page. Because who will keep track of changes on talk page all the time? --- ابراهيم 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go a step further and suggest that all material not based upon reliable sources with expertise in the fields being discussed - both the Qur'an and science - be removed. Of course, nothing would be left.Proabivouac 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Of course, nothing would be left." Here we go. I hope now you could know that what I am afraid of... --- ابراهيم 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page at Talk:The Quran and science/Temp, to hold sections under consideration. Proabivouac, realize that this article isn't about Quranic or scientific fact, it's about the view some hold that the two are in harmony (or discord, depending on POV). As such, articles and books by people who hold those views are perfectly natural and valid sources. - Valarauka(T/C) 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the unreferenced sections into the temp page created and will now delete the sections from the article. For those who object to this article, this is a major concession, which we hope you will consider in the AfD. Ratherhaveaheart 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a "major concession" to follow WP:NOR?Proabivouac 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps concession was not the exactly right word. I think POV is suseptible to enter when people become too rigid on any position, even WP policy. If I remember my new user WP guideline page, the last statement is IGNORE ALL RULES, if they get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, the point I was making that given that the article is under major construction with new additions everyday, moving all the working parts to another page and going back and forth is a bit of an inconvenience. Part of consensus is compromise. All I am asking is that those who object to the article keep an open mind while it is a work in progress.Ratherhaveaheart 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Science and Pseudoscience

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)

Before I get reverts to what I have catagorised thought I'd add a reference to a notable scientist in the relevant field of science in Islam, Pervez Hoodbhoy who also thinks "...Although genuine scientific achievement is rare in the contemporary Muslim world, pseudo-science is in generous supply." http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=4244 The Prospect magazine is notable within Wikipedia in that it has it own page Prospect_(magazine). Ttiotsw 02:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know Hoodbhoy very well and attended his lectures at LUMS. He does not believe in God as well as I could tell. He told us at LUMS that Muslims are not doing well in science because they believe on things like prayer and its effect on our lives. He said that if we get away from Islam then we could be better scientist. For me his views are funny because I have already published many papers including 4 of them only last year and Islam always been a source of encouragement for me. But you are welcome to add his views in the article (as criticism against Islam). My believe say that Quran can NEVER be wrong even in next 5000 years as it is God's words. You could say things mentioned in Quran as pseudoscience or something else, it does not matter. I am not ONLY interested in adding good referenced stuff in the article and improving it. --- ابراهيم 07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're mentioning personal believes, I believe that this article is pathetic. Oh yeah and the Quran is demonstrably wrong about the natural world, as I've demonstrated over the course of this debate. So if it is from God, then God is wrong. By the way if you read that book that itaqallah linked to, by Peter Hodgson, you will see that most Muslim schools of thought do not believe in the law of cause and effect. In fact that book gives a detailed explanaton of while Islam itself caused the swift disintegration of Muslim science. It is interesting to note that Islam is entirely against the concept of free will. I think these ideas imply that Islam itself is inimical to science. Arrow740 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will answer on your talk page when I have some free time. I know that you might not change your views at all but I will still convey my views on the things mentioned by you above. --- ابراهيم 09:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will change my views, if you can convince me. Arrow740 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoodbhoy's issues aside, I think "Quran-Science" (at least, the stuff I've seen) is not pseudo-science per se. For one, the Quran itself doesn't claim to be scientific in any way. For another, most of the claims I've seen are people arguing that certain verses in the Quran agree with certain scientific discoveries; sort of a validation of correctness, so to speak (dubious goal though that is), not a means of 'offering insight'. If people were to start taking verses and using them to propose new or different theories, then that would qualify as pseudoscience. - Valarauka(T/C) 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There are Qur'anic claims for knowledge of the origin of natural events and yet the Qur'an is offered as revelation e.g. our own article has Qur'an, 71:15-16 and Qur'an, 24:43; both of which have words (translation errors aside) like "See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens..." or "Seest thou not that Allah makes the clouds move gently...". Pseudoscience is when anything divinely revealed attempts to be deemed scientific by asking the observer to have the cause of the natural event be a supernatural cause (as with the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design). If the Qur'an didn't ask the observer to attribute the natural events to Allah then it would not be pseudoscience it would simply be a matter of faith which even I have no qualms about. As it does it matches the definition. The Qur'an itself is proposing the existance of a supernatural (in this case Allah) and offers certain evidence as proof. Science is very clear about the existance of supernatural entities. That's not to say that there isn't any wikipage to create. I have replied on the recent AfDs with "weak keep" because of the writing style is at odds with how the Bible and Science article evolved to what it is today. Ttiotsw 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not much of a stretch to read this as a claim of indirect causation. Alternatively, as I alluded to above, major Muslim schools of thought disregard the law of cause and effect, saying that everything happens because God makes it happen and for no other reason. Science cannot disprove this. As such, pseudoscience or not, these quotes are appropriate if they have been the subject of a published attempt by a respectable scholar to study the coincidence of science and the Quran. You say science is very clear about the existence of supernatural entities; nothing could be further from the truth. Science does not address such questions. Arrow740 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Err yes and ?. I was arguing against the someone who said that the Quran made no scientific claims. It does. This is a pity in some respects as it sort of damages what is ostensibly the message of a faith. I'm not arguing that they be removed; very much the opposite given they really are like dead albatross hanging around the neck of this faith. I suppose I could have reworded what I said about science and supernatural but what is clear is that there is no room in science for anything supernatural. That you have a particular hangup about the supernatural isn't relevant to the issue of the Quran and Science. Science uses many tools of which one, Occam's Razor, is used to remove any unneccessary entities and to date the supernatural is unneccessary to understand all and any natural phenomena. The concept of falsifiability is also extremely useful (well at least to me). Carl Sagan's The_Demon-Haunted_World is a great introduction to the idea of what is scientific and what isn't. I suspect the typical Islamic apologist hasn't read that (though I'd love to be corrected on this); do you place yourself in the same camp as them ?. Answering your question - I have no issue if any study is published which compares what the Quran and Science and I'd love to see at least some peer reviewed studies, written or refered to by any notable (by even the most basic level of at least having a Wikipage). So far very little. Ttiotsw 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Quran makes scientific claims. Some of them are false; mountains do not prevent earthquakes etc. I don't need to be told what is scientific and what isn't.

What I'm trying to tell you is that science is and always will be of limited power. Your claim that to date the supernatural is unnecessary to understand all and any natural phenomena is problematic. We don't understand all natural phenomena so we clearly don't know what is necessary to understand them.

You may be interested to read [[1]] on the limits of any formal logical system of sufficient complexity. Basically, in mathematics, no matter what consistent axioms you are assuming, you won't be able to prove all truths using those axioms alone. By analogy it seems likely to me that there would be such things outside of mathematics as well. For example, we may never be able to prove that the universe was created, and we may never be able to prove that it wasn't. In this case, if you want an answer you have to accept one on faith, as atheists and other religious people do. If you want to continue this we can use my talk page; if one of the other editors of this article disagrees with anything I've said they'll cite wikipedia rules and tell me to shut up.

You are right about the sources for this article. The only one which is acceptable is Moore's (though it is suprising for a scientist of his caliber that the article was only published in Saudi Arabia). Arrow740 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

mm.. i didn't know the IMANA publishes in saudi arabia. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I actually question if Moore should be included. Initially I thought yeah but then reading on http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science.htm I question anything said that is attributed to Moore. Using his work to support what the Quran says is WP:OR unless he said that and people can confirm that and NOT any co-authors. Certainly using newer editions is WP:OR. Ttiotsw 08:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to look again at what is actually being cited in the article, because it certainly is not "the developing human". the only reason we are talking about "the developing human" was that Arrow believed Moore's position may have changed due to some missionary claim about what is alluded to in this book. it is not being used as the source to present Moore's research or views, although even then he does very briefly summarize it in the mainstream version of the book (i.e. sans islamic additions), in editions six and seven (as quoted below), and probably the previous editions too. certainly, FF isn't any basis on which to raise doubts either. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Quran and Science

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)

To prove Quran truth, science support is not required. I named the article "The Quran and science" instead of "Science and The Quran" because of some reason. If you could understand that reason then you could understand that why I do not like that start. Read the introduction that was there previously.

<quote>Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God and for the guidance of Man kind. Science on the other hand is ever changing and improving body of knowledge. Both Quran and Science do not need approval of each other to be correct and exist in their own separate domains. However, this article tries to collect of 100s of instances where Quran -- a book more than 1400 years old -- talk about scientific fact. </quote>.

You said that I am defensive but believe me, that I always tried my very best to accept other people wishes and even ready to accept this one of yours too. Although I do not want the article to start the same way “Science and Bible” had because how could be the GREAT Quran be disputed against tiny-tony science which is still very much an infant. Although I do not like that start "at all" but I am ready to accept your change just for your respect and satisfaction. --- ابراهيم 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact if the Quran states something basic about the universe then it does need the approval of science to be correct. By the way science has been around a lot longer than the Quran. Arrow740 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What I would like you to recognize is that nearly the entire statement above shows your personal POV, what we are trying to have here is a NPOV, which the Science and the Bible has to a certain degree achieved. Since you have agreed to my introduction I will reinsert it. Ratherhaveaheart 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Think about your start. There is no dispute among Muslims that everything in Quran is truth. Obviously non-Muslim will not agree with it, otherwise they will be Muslim too. Hence the dispute is not about Quran but in general. so your start is also a POV. --- ابراهيم 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My analysis:

• "Both Quran and Science do not need approval of each other" - Yes (I mean no, they do not need it). But saying it like that suggests that there are people who believe so and others who believe the opposite. Where's the reference?
• "... to be correct" - Yes and no; neither is seeking approval, neither can give it, and nobody's actually talking about correctness, only of coincidences. If we start talking about correctness, then we might as well leave, because that's not the idea of this article.
• "... and exist in their own separate domains." - Maybe in some sense, but they both exist in reality, they both inform people's worldviews, they are jointly the subject of this article and of many other discussions. The expression is ambiguous and is at most an opinion; it embraces a very defined POV, and should be removed.
• NPOV doesn't mean inoffensive. NPOV means you take a step back and try to show everyone's POV, even if it contradicts your own. I am of the opinion that worldview are inherently isolated and people belonging to different worldviews (religions, ideologies) cannot agree on basic principles. The above once again seems to prove it to me, but at least let's try. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

"quite clearly there will be things in the qur'aan not consistent with current trends of scientific thought, and vice versa." That is quite an admission. In fact basic science is contradicted in the Quran.

Otherwise I agree with you. We're trying to emulate Science and the Bible here. If we can all agree to stick to books by respectable scholars published by academic presses, then that's a good common ground. Obviously I could quote from websites in the same manner as Ibrahimfaisal to the opposite effect, but that would be wrong for the same reason it is when he does it (and pointless, as he would reflexively delete it and replace it with his own websites' quotes). Arrow740 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Pablo Flores' posting, if we're going to include where the Quran and science coincide, then we should include, in an article called the Quran and science, where they diverge. Arrow740 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

do remember, that the conclusion of "divergence" or "convergence" of the two subjects (i.e. qur'an and science) needs to be noted within the sources also. "quite an admission"? scientific trends, theories, and "facts" happen to change rather frequently. contradiction with "basic science" is your own conclusion, which unfortunately is of no use in the article or on this talk page. ITAQALLAH 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe you will help us keep the entire article up to the standard you just articulated. By the way I don't think the idea that the Moon is closer to the Earth than the stars are is a mere trend, liable to change (I could go on). But who knows! Anyway I'm willing to quote a second grade textbook if needed, to get this into the article. Arrow740 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i stated: "do remember, that the conclusion of "divergence" or "convergence" of the two subjects (i.e. qur'an and science) needs to be noted within the sources also."- so if you can find a second grade textbook which analyses the qur'an and a scientific "fact" and notes divergence, then i would be greatly suprised. i bet you could go on, although i had said previously that a literalist reading of an erroneous english translation won't get you far (do you know Arabic, btw?), as you found with the six-eight day issue. ITAQALLAH 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"that the conclusion of "divergence" or "convergence" of the two subjects (i.e. qur'an and science) needs to be noted within the sources also." - Ibrahimfaisal has ignored this principle throughout this article. Will you support the elimination of this material?Proabivouac 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

elimination, for now, no. questioning, yes, as i believe that there should be sources actually establishing the link as is currently being done in the embryology section. ITAQALLAH 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I trust you will support keeping Arrow740's material under the same principle?Proabivouac 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"keep"? i don't see his material in the article. why introduce more problematic material when there is enough as it is which needs to be addressed? ITAQALLAH 00:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

His material was reverted. Why restore it? For the same reasons you've advanced to keep Ibrahimfaisal's junk edits, so that we can work on them and source them later. If removing such material hinders this process, as you've alleged re Ibrahimfaisal's material, should this not be true of Arrow740's as well?Proabivouac 01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

some of the material in the article is original research at this point, moving it to the test page (along with Arrow's material) where it can be questioned and analysed would be fine by me. restoration of more OR, which would make the article worse than it is, is undesirable, as is "elimination" (by which i interpreted deletion). ITAQALLAH 01:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal is welcome to create a user sub-page in which this material may be stored; similarly for Arrow740.Proabivouac 01:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:The_Quran_and_science/Temp. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes when I first happened across this article I fought fire with fire, but haven't done so in a while. And you are right to point out that citing a second-grade textbook regarding the position of the moon would constitute OR. No I don't speak Arabic aside from a few words. Perhaps you can attribute some of the contradictions in the Quran to the poor Arabic skills of all three of the translators whose english translations are regularly consulted, but certainly not all. The Jesus issue as I presented it higher up on this talk page is once where I'm certain that translation is not the problem; the Quran is. As regards making my own version of the page, I have to stop wasting so much time on this. Let faisal make his version with whatever worthless sources he can dredge up, then we'll start again, and hopefully get this article deleted for good. But until then put your money where your mouth is and remove all of faisal's OR and while you're at it get rid of Bucaille's. Arrow740 02:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the OR. Ibrahimfaisal has all of it on his user space. Arrow740 04:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NO I do not have all of it on my User page. I had an much older copy. Why you continue to do things that make me ... --- ابراهيم 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well now you know how I feel when you deleted my OR! Anyway I really thought you had it. Can't you just copy it from an old version from the history page anyway? Arrow740 07:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

do make sure you don't resort to "fighting fire with fire" again because that would be a blatant WP:POINT violation

"And you are right to point out that citing a second-grade textbook regarding the position of the moon would constitute OR", misrepresentation, again. it would be OR to cite any book which talks about science but does not explicitly mention the qur'an and the subsequent divergence/convergence. the conclusion must be present within the book, that is why i stated you won't really find a second grade text book which analyses both factors and then comes to a conclusion about it.

re: jesus comment, you're just baiting again. although i do have to say, if these are the kinds of 'contradictions' you are coming up with, you may be in for an unpleasant suprise. in this instance, the translation isn't particularly false, it just isn't as specific and informative in its wording as it could be, which would remove all basis for such speculation. if you were to have a decent grounding in arabic as well as know a bit of common tafsir, you would see immedietly what the verse says, without anyone having to tell you anything. didn't i tell you to not resort to literalist interpretations of english translations? i won't respond to attempts to stimulate a debate again, and i suggest you stick to talking about relevant issues. if you would like clarification about the jesus comment or whatever, try a different medium like e-mail, and i may consider responding if i have time.

"remove OR"? don't you mean "relocate"? "put your money where your mouth is" - i don't see any value in such statements except stale clichéd attempts to sound grandiose. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So I can't even agree with your criticism of me now, huh? I'm gathering sources and if this article survives I will produce my own version of it. Arrow740 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Quote

On Tuesday, May 16 2006, Jimbo Wales wrote:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."[2]Proabivouac 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

You have linked to the wrong e-mail. Let us finish the quote above:

"This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers."

So, while it is particularly true of libelous statements, it is nevertheless also true of all information, according to Mr. Wales.

"NPOV trumps RS" - Then, Itaqallah, why are you applying a stricter standard to Arrow740's edits, when by all accounts, this article is markedly biased towards the POV which Arrow740 would challenge?Proabivouac 01:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i said NPOV trumps RS, not NPOV trumps OR. that message is from the same thread. go the the bottom of the page and view by thread so you can see all of the messages. ITAQALLAH 01:20, 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)

It has indeed been discussed elsewhere on many occasions. That's how I knew to look for it.Proabivouac 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sperm vs. semen

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)

I rather like the fellow who translated an Arabic term as "zygote." By this princely method, we can prove that the Qur’an says most anything: this word, usually translated uninterestingly as "light," really means "ultraviolet radiation," anticipating the findings of science by over 1,200 years…Proabivouac 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets use the translation of Yousaf Ali and other two well known people. If they say it is sperm then it should remain sperm and vica versa. --- ابراهيم 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one says seed and one says semen. The word probably means seed, as the word semen does. Arrow740 07:20, 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)

Hmmm... whoever it was removed my response to your comment too. I'll try to get to the bottom of this. Arrow740 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC) I guess we were both wrong. Your user contribution page says that you only edited this section once. Arrow740 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is A. Abd-Allah?

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)

A. Abd-Allah is the author of the essay hosted on USC's site[3] which is referenced several times in the article.Observation Post 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact we can say the same thing for Shehzad Saleem, reference 9. It seems that all that they will have left is Bucaille and the Emryology thing. Arrow740 07:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If Koenraad Elst is not allowed as a source for articles, then neither should Yahya, Bucaille, or even Moore be. Arrow740 07:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore is unimpeachable. However read the following excerpt from the wikipedia page on him: 'In Moore’s sixth edition University textbook called "The developing human", he directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who says that the descriptions in the Quran are based on accounts written by Galen over 400 years before Muhammed was born.' That book came out 12 years after the article you guys are quoting. In fact it seems clear that Moore was not trying to show that the Quran is the word of God, but trying to prove that Muhammad copied all of the embryology material from Galen (coincidentally Muhammad claimed, as was the common misconception at the time, that bones develop before muscles: this is false. see [4]) If you guys want to use Moore as a reference you should of course add this fact into the article. Otherwise remove everything attributed to him, it's your choice. Arrow740 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia page on Moore seems pretty subpar itself [entirely unsourced]. In any case, "directs his readers to" doesn't say anything about what he thinks about the essay; he could simply be pointing out another point of view, or even critiquing it. The sentence structure doesn't even make it clear whether Basim Musallam makes this claim in that particular essay. Yet the way it's stated strongly implies that Moore endorses Musallam's view, which is unjustified. Of course, if you could find the book we could verify the claim; if you could find the essay itself we can add it to the article separately, assuming Musallam is notable.

The bible.ca page you link to doesn't argue convincingly at all, and it asserts authoritatively that various people "know" various things without justifying such claims. Also, the whole site seems to have been written by "Brother Andrew", who is notable/verifiable/expert how?

About A. Abd-Allah, I could find no information whatsoever; I wouldn't object to shifting those sections off to the Temp page. The Shehzad Saleem bit seems to be published in a journal, so it at least meets WP:V standards. The man himself is apparently a Fellow at the Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Thought; I'm not sure that confers any great notability, though. Btw, who is this "they" you refer to?

Could you link the Elst source here? I'd like to take a look at it, don't want to go digging through page history. - Valarauka(T/C) 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

note how Moore suddenly becomes "unimpeachable" as soon as there is reason to suspect he may not have the POV Arrow is opposed to. an unsourced claim is worthless. would you care to quote exactly what Moore says, and the passage in which he says it? with the page no., edition and everything else that would be expected? i do hope "Brother Andrew" isn't your best source for claiming contradiction. ITAQALLAH 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will get it. And he became unimpeachable when I read that he wrote the basic textbook on anatomy. Arrow740 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

so you didn't read what i wrote on Aminz's talk page when i linked you to it, did you?ITAQALLAH 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not closely. I'm often doing two things at once when I'm working on this stuff (else my non-wikipedia life would be suffering even more than it is right now). My mistake. Arrow740 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"as was the common misconception at the time, that bones develop before muscles: this is false. see" .. this is what is written about Moore in the article about bones and flesh:

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

i have Langman's medical embryology ninth edition, and it says (ch. 8, p. 171) bone development occurs with mesenchymal cells first giving rise to hyaline cartilage models, which later become ossified. this is exactly what Moore states above. bone development starts with the formation of cartilage models. looks like "Brother Andrew" has been doing a little bit of his own OR.

as for the Musallam quote which Moore supposedly alludes to, it says nothing about plagiarism, it says nothing about copying, it says nothing but the idea that there was agreement between the two sources. so does Moore cite this as an example of his change in opinion i.e. that he believes the qur'an contains plagiarised material, or is he simply citing Musallam to demonstrate that there were some correlations between what Galen said and what is in the qur'an (if you deduce from such that qur'an must have copied Galen then it's non sequitur), which is exactly what he says in the article at the moment. i am very interested in what Moore actually says in the passage, when you get the book please do quote the whole paragraph so we can read his statements in complete context. ITAQALLAH 15:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I might be able to get a copy of Musallam's article as well, and Moore's, which I don't have yet, though you do it seems. Is there an electronic version? By the way the process you mentioned is hardly covering bone with flesh, in my mind. Arrow740 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your mind and my mind are equally irrelevant in this discussion; what matters is Moore's mind, for which we need to see the sources. - Valarauka(T/C) 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then itaqallah's responses are equally irrevelant. But I agree. Do any of you have access to the book and/or the article? Is there a website where I can find this material? Is it on JSTOR? The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association seems to be a fringe publication; I'm not having luck finding physical copies of it. Maybe its website will help. Arrow740 06:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anyplace in the US that owns copies of the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association. I checked the Library of Congress, Harvard's library, and the the entire UC system (possibly larger than the LOC). Those are the three largest, I believe. How did you guys find it? I suppose that the fact that it isn't available in the US might not necessarily bar it from use, but if we're going to quote it, I'd like to have it available to me. Arrow740 07:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore quote, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. (seventh edition)

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:

• " Moore KL: A scientist's interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an. JIMA 18:15, 1986. " unquote.

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)

Untill this discussion is not concluded do not put tags on the article. --- ابراهيم 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will hopefully have the sixth edition in hand soon. As regards Shehezad Saleem's article, the journal it is published in does not seem to meet the standards of WP:V. The inclusion of this material (and the Abdullah material) as well appears to be POV. As per Valarauka I am moving the Abdullah material. Could you all weigh in on the Saleem material? Arrow740 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The material by Shehzad can be verified by the link given on the article. As this Islamic monthly journal is published in print media as well as on internet. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To satisfy WP:V it must be from a reputable source. So either the journal or the author must be reputable. Here are the two definitions of reputable:

1 : enjoying good repute : held in esteem

2 : employed widely or sanctioned by good writers

If any journal is not reputable, this one is.

Also neither the publisher nor the author of Maurice Bucaille's book are reputable. Arrow740 06:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Arrow740, these are plainly absurd. Harun Yahya is also to be considered disreputable. That one must consult Holocaust deniers, Masonic conspiracy theorists, Imams who rule in favor of beating one's wife and sycophants of the House of Saud to find sources for this article testifies strongly against the inclusion of this fanciful nonsense in Wikipedia. There are no reputable academic scholars at all, excepting perhaps Dr. Moore, and even here I doubt that his role in propagating these notions has improved his reputation among his scientific colleagues.Proabivouac 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Until this dicussion is not concluded, please do not put tags on the article. --- ابراهيم 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt if Moore is relevant at all. He seemed to have approved an Islamic edition of one of his books quite a few years ago and said a few things BUT that doesn't mean that every future edition can be referenced or that he is relevant today. The whole embryology section is WP:OR at best that seems to copy stuff from other Islamic apologetic sites scattered over the Internet. Ttiotsw 09:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

the section is based upon an article in a journal which he wrote, which he references even today in his latest books (which shows that he still endroses it). he is totally relevant here, and he is still an authority in anatomy. haven't you heard of clinically oriented anatomy? every medical student (and postgraduate for that matter) knows of it or has it, and i have my 2006 edition right in front of me. no future edition is being referenced in the article. i don't see any aspect in that section which amounts to OR in the slightest. ITAQALLAH 14:53, 13 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)

I think there is adequate grounds to show that what Moore says with respect to embryology can be misrepresented. The issue arises with the bioethics of classification of when human life begins (and more importantly when the legal obligations to that human start). The descriptions of embryos (both contemporary or historical) are very important in this area and are topical given modern concerns with access to or use of stem cells back through to the abortion/pro-life/pro-choice arguments. It's wrong to say that religion has no interest with these definitions. This is why we have to be very precise with exactly how Moore's work is used especially when it is used for religious purposes. Ttiotsw 05:21, 14 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)

I don't believe he wrote any of the crap attributed to him. Arrow740 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

doesn't matter whether or not you believe it. he himself affirms it. ITAQALLAH 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

At issue here are my opinions (as if often the case with you). His qualifications are unimpeachable (and thus, as regards being a source for this article, so is he), but his "work" is not. Arrow740 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

your opinion of whether or not he wrote it is inconsequential. he (as well as other publications) confirms that he wrote this piece, as he cites it in his most recent works when he discusses qur'an and embryology (as you must have discovered when checking the sixth edition). that's all there is to it, really, and it is good enough for WP, even if not for you. to continue opposition in the light of this is absurd and ridiculous. ITAQALLAH 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that we have no choice but to let you include it if you want. That doesn't mean that it isn't crap, which it is. According to that faithfreedom article, he doesn't want to discuss his "Quran work" anymore. I wonder why! By the way itaqallah, you keep attacking me so vociferously because you know that what I'm saying about contradictions in the Quran is ("faulty translation" issues aside) right. Arrow740 20:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

heh.. back to red herrings is it? ITAQALLAH 20:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating of Galaxies is Original Research.

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)

So move it to the temp page. Arrow740 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fossils of human ancestors source not authorative.

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)

When it says that, "they did not descend from any other species", it is talking on behalf of Qur'an and not behalf of science. It is clear from previous sentence. Secondly, this guy is an associate fellow at Al-Mawrid. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then by your own words, the entry cannot be included if it is not relevant to the science in or of the Quran. That would be original research on our part to include it if you say that he is speaking solely for the Quran. It would need to be in it's own Quran section with say creation but not Science and the Quran. The issue of authority was with respect to the field of biology. It's unclear from the web site of Al-Mawrid what contribution it makes to this field. It seems to focus on Islamic Law and Sharia. We only need to look towards what the European Human rights courts have said of Sharia law to classify that in the spectrum of what is authoritive. Ttiotsw 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is just saying that Quran does not accept evolution as proposed by Darwin, but rather gives two possibilities from Qur'an, without ruling out any one of them. This is simply based on interpretation of Quranic verses on the creation of humans, which is related to this article. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "two possibilities". The original of the text quoted (assuming the web site was correct) seems to be a lot more positive in it's denial whereas our Wikipedia article seems to have been "weasel worded". Why the discrepancy between the other web page and wikipage ? Where in the Quran does it say that the Quran doesn't accept evolution as proposed by Darwin ?. Since when was the quoted author an authority on evolutionary biology ? Thats the kind of data we need here. Having someones interpretation of what the sura mean with respect to evolution is simply original research and it's certainly not science. Someone has edited and copied the whole of some guys apology in which he discards over 150 years of hard scentific theory and you don't see the irony of including what he says in a wiki page that has Science in the title AND tagged in Category:Science ?. I vote the whole section is culled unless it gets a more balanced view. That the Quran is at odds with what is know of evolutionary science today would intimate to even the most naive that the Quran and it's creation science is on a par with the Bible and it's creation science; it is creation but it is not Science. I won't delete the section for a few days, though others may merciously decide to edit it before then.Ttiotsw 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mate! author is not claiming to be a biologist or evolutionary expert. He is simply trying to interpret Qur'an. I have added another source for its clarification. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK accept his focus is the Quran only and not the science and in that case my other argument stands: There is still original research here because what difference between what the authority (Shehzad Saleem) says and what the Wikipedia article is made up of. In our wikipedia article it says, "The fossils which we find today might belong to forms of the first and second phases." etc etc Yet if you look at the link where it was copied from (which is used as the authority) it quite clearly says, "The fossils we find today are those of these forms of the first and second phases.". Notice how the text from your authorative reference has been changed to be more ambiguous ?. As to the authority of the new link you provide with respect to either the Quran or science matters I don't know if they are relevant or not. I'm not going to edit the section to tally with the original text as I don't even see why any of the text needs to stay at all as it has no science content.Ttiotsw 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added another reference, which explains creation of humans according to the same verse, but puts doubts in it. So now, "might" is coming from a new reference. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It still stays as original reseach because what simply has happened is that one "authority" (ahem) has been incorrectly (subtly I might add) quoted (and it is a cut+paste job too that feels like its WP:COPYVIO ) and then to support this tweak the tail end from another quote is concatenated to the first. This doesn't feel right. Too much of the first authority has been added in, subtly changed and then expounded upon. I'm going to remove this whole section on the basis of WP:COPYVIO but giving people a chance to make it more NPOV to have both Quran and Science content. Ttiotsw 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Both sources are in harmony to each other, except that one is accepting the second option more than the other. But putting the second source as the final conclusion seems to be more closer to WP:NPOV, so that any violation of scientific claims don't occur. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Both sources are not reputable (in fact the second is self-published). Neither should be cited in this or any encyclopedia. I am moving all this material to the temp page: I'm not deleting it in the unlikely case that some reputable source conveys this "information" some time in the future. Arrow740 00:56, 14 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)

... in spite of this, i do think the apparent theories proposed are quite ridiculous. i'm not sure that this viewpoint is held amongst a significant number of Muslims, i would like to see some other sources for these points. ITAQALLAH 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys should pick your battles a little better. But since you insist on including the brilliant Saleem's work, I will include it in more detail and attribute it properly, as Itaqallah indicated should be done (but please do it yourself next time; the burden is on you if you want to keep something). Arrow740 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The second source is still self-published so not reputable even as a source of Muslim opinion. Note that both declare that the Quran says that man was created out of clay and did not evolve from another species. No doubt they're reading a mistranslation. Arrow740 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you guys can prove that Moiz Amjad is a reputable scholar then we can allow his self-published work. Until then we shouldn't include it. Arrow740 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying Itaqallah is very wrong. I'm happy that a Muslim view is presented BUT you can't then edit it to conform to what you see is neutral. That's not only plagarising that guys content, you're misrepresenting what he's said with your own words. As the section stands it has "ref=" marks in it. I started to edit the section to elaborate on Darwin and show the current theory on common ancestry and comparative genomics so as to show the problems with the Quranic studies and thus the Quran but given the whole block is copied I can't even insert stuff without messing with that guys words. This is crap. Ttiotsw 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact I had already removed the "mights" and "maybes" after discounting the second source (which is basically the first with "mights" and "maybes"). Itaqallah had made only minor changes after that, so the two of us have a tacit agreement about it. If you, Ttiotsw think that the version on the temp page is OK, please revert it. Arrow740 08:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

i believe i only made one or two edits to that section. and i have proposed rewriting the section so that it would not be such a blatant possible copyvio. i also stated that this section merits inclusion, if, and that currently is a big if, other sources can be provided showing that this theory is a significant opinion within Muslim interpretation of these verses. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV of section titles

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)

I disagree with you edit to the section titles, because the we know from the first part of the article that the Quran is making claims about science, and the subjects titles only need to give the reader a clue about what the subject is they are not making a claim in and of themselves. I am going to go back to the original titles. Ratherhaveaheart 16:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

already done. ITAQALLAH 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The section titles as you reverted them are original research as they are somebody's interpretation of what the verses could be referring to. For example "encouragement of scientific thinking in the Qur'an" ,"Astronomy" , "Embriology" , "Formation of Universe"" ... ,are all somebody's WP:OR. --CltFn 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of CltFn's titles were awkward, but his objection to some of the current ones is entirely valid.Proabivouac 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the definition of OR, just so we are clear "material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"

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)

I agree that CltFn's titles were inappropriately skeptical. Perhaps titles such as "Astronomy" are acceptable, but "Encouragement of scientific thinking in the Qu'ran" plainly violates NPOV.Proabivouac 20:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with CltFn's and Proabivouac. The article is NOT giving some "matematical" facts it is giving referenced opionions. It is obvious from the introduction and one is welcome to add critisum too. That is why changing titles and adding same word (Claim) everywhere will make it very bad to read. --- ابراهيم 20:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suppose the section title reads instead, "Discouragement of scientific thinking in the Qur'an?" Naturally, "one is welcome to add critism too." The problem you're likely to see with that is the same problem I see with the current one.

And for whatever it's worth, the notion than a book purporting to be the perfect and unalterable truth, above question or improvement, in any wise encourages scientific thinking...well, that is the exact opposite of a scientific approach.Proabivouac 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the "claim" phrase to the encouragement section. Perhaps there is a more NPOV phrase for that section that doesn't mention encouragement or disencouragment, such as attitude/position/approach. Ratherhaveaheart 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation style

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)

I agree with you. I think like in the Science and the Bible the subject matter should be the main focus with quotes embedded as reference points Ratherhaveaheart 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I used quotations because of Talk:Islam_and_slavery#GA_review, 2(b).2. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of Universe non authorative and mistitled.

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)

This material is not here because of his position in Computer Science department, but rather his publication in a journal, which deals with such prolific theories. And secondly, this model is not implying anything more than an opinion by a person. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

All material based upon sources who are acknowledged experts neither in the field of science they are discussing nor in Qur'anic interpretation should be removed.Proabivouac 07:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you are correct. I am moving it to the temp page. We have to have the Harun Yahya discussion at some point, too. Arrow740 08:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Noted historians of science should be allowed as well, at the least for the first few sections. Arrow740 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You people can't decide what to put and what not to put. This journal claims to be a peer-reviewed journal, and if an article published in it, and it is related to Qur'an and science, it definitely belongs here. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The guiding rules and spirit of wikipedia does and consensus, so maybe we the people do decide in the end. The issue of authority hasn't been established for Kamel Bin Salim with respect to the field of cosmology. It is also unclear to the average reader to wikipedia where the parable of the "day" or "period" get mutated into 2.3 Billion years. Stuffed if I can find why this magical figure gets used other than to partly confirm some unauthorative persons opinion. Ttiotsw 08:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT Democracy. Kindly read the rules before stating such thing. And your comments in this regard amounts to Original research. And secondly, to your argument, the author simply assumed that 2.3 billion years are equal to one time period of the Qur'an, this is simple Algebraic substitution. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The journal is not reputable. It is put out by a university that only claims to have two researchers, see [9]. They have an Energy Psychiatrist on the faculty (which proves that they have very low academic standards), and most of the rest of their faculty have degrees in education. It is not a university of repute. Looking at the editorial board of the journal we see an ecologist, a health science person, a public health expert, an adult education PhD, and one person of unidentified specialty. This is not a peer-reviewed journal because these people are not Kalem ben Salem's peers in the field of Computer Science.

The fact that some people completely unqualified in astrophysics allowed another such person (from a field none of them know) to publish his "research" in their unreputable journal does NOT mean that his "research" should be included in this or any encyclopedia. In fact, the the fact that it could only be published in such a way indicates that it is not worth reading in any context. Arrow740 09:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To TruthSpreader - Oh thats rich ! - the author simply assumed that 2.3 billions years are equal to a time period in the Quran. I can see a whole new are to science. What exactly is is with the democracy stuff ?. I never mentioned democracy; I said "consensus". As for WP:OR - where is that in the article ? Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages. Read what I said first and then read the policies you quote before punching the keyboard. I think the consensus will be that unless the 2.3 billion years is explained better than that then this whole section stays out. Ttiotsw 09:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mis-representing the source. The source is not claiming to contribute in cosmology. It is simply pointing to the fact that Qur'an seems to point to different cosmological events. And its value is not more than that. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, you should know that it is not the editor who actually peer-review the paper, the job of editor is only refer the paper to appropriate person for review. And you won't get the list of peer-reviews on the website. If you are keen, ask the editor to give you a list. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, for description of this journal, kindly see:[10]. And it is not in Library of Congress:[11] for no reason. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to reference non-notables as some people may have some interesting insights representative of others if it made even moderate sense, but seriously that 2.3 billion is a bit of a clanger and it's patent nonsense. You just cannot add text to an encyclopedia and in the talkpage have it stated outright that a critical number (2.3 billion years) has simply been added for purposes of making the Quran match some (and not all) of current scientific theory. What is the basis of this number ? I'm confident that I can revert this and if it goes back without a clear explanation of the 2.3 billion multiplyer then I feel I can edit what has been reposted merciously. Ttiotsw 13:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The assumption of 2.3 billion years equal to one time period of Qur'an, is based on the author's understanding that if Qur'an mentions the age of Universe as 6 days, (dividing 13.8 by 6) and similarly, Quran mentions age of earth as two days (miraculously, the ratio of age of earth and life span of universe matches scientifically known ratio), the author found it appropriate to assume this. I am confident that there is no other rocket science behind it. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mate! I really appreciate your current additions, but you forgot that Quran tells additional things, like age of Earth, that differentiates it from Bible. And this is why, bible scholars cannot just simply divide 13.8 billion years by 6. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected it to be more correct i.e. its the age of the universe being discussed. I don't really want to go deeper comparing the Torah (as the first 5 books of the Bible I guess) as the value of 6 days is in itself has clearly been started as allegorical. You truthfully do not really want me to start adding any more content than that which I have. As an atheist we're under attack from all faiths so our arguments are honed through decades of quite volatile criticism. I just want balancing arguments for any sections that get to stay. I will add sections in a similar way to any other section that remains in this article though not for a while so as to at stay within the spirit of handling disputed text. That the article is here because I'm a pluralist. Ttiotsw 14:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I may not agree with you, but I do respect everyone else's view point. As much as this wikispace is for me, the same is for you. So no hard feelings. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Men from clay (or dust)

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)

No we can't yet. The sura links we use with those three posible versions talk about dust and not clay. This is getting ridiculous. We're trying to balance something with science but we're not even given accurate text to start with to even start to identify the balancing view. We have opinions of people who deny outright decades of scientific enquiry and yet allow misquoted wording to stay. Ttiotsw 08:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on the source's mistranslation, I'll work on it on the temp page. Arrow740 09:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Translations are Primary sources of Qur'an and interpreting on your own is original research. Secondly, clay, dust, or even mud points to the fact that this creature was made from matter unlike other intelligent creatures of God, as in case of Jinn (made from fire) and Angels (from light). TruthSpreader^Talk 09:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent you agree. Can the translations and wikipedia page please correlate then. One says clay and one says dust. What the heck has the other bit you wrote "...clay, dust, or even mud points to the fact that this creature was made from matter unlike other intelligent creatures of God.." got to do with the translation errors ? Who mentioned mud ? What have angels got to do with this science ? Which creature is different from other creatures ? Is that an example of original research of primary sources ? You are not making any sense; you are the one interpreting the texts and I'm the one pointing out that wikipedia has one word and the reference has another word. Correct the errors. Ttiotsw 09:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a result of editing articles of other religions, for which you have very little information. In Islamic traditions, Iblis didn't prostrate Adam, because he was made from fire (he was a Jinn), and all angels prostrated. By saying that Adam was created from dust or clay, it definitely shows in contrast to other creatures and also depicts our limitations as a being made from matter. BUT this whole discussion is irrelevant, what I am trying to say is that dust, clay, or whatever is used to show that human is created from matter. And it doesn't challenge the concept which was put into the article. Secondly, I have written many times, translation is Primary source. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with primary sources - translation errors aside then I see you have reverted the section on fossils without clearly addressing if the person stating that Evolution and Darwin is wrong is an authority in either the field of human evolution or biology and is in fact presenting a view that agrees with the Muslim view on this subject. Is this just one persons view of what they feel about human evolution that happens to correlate with your view or is it consistent with the majority view of all muslims ?. Why is this unknown person representative enough for this encyclopedia ? It is unclear of he speaks for all muslims or just a few (and we know of the problems when the few say they speak for the many moderates of any group). Your opinion that he does just doesn't cut ice on this. Are there any studies which show that this persons views on the scientific theory of evolution is deemed valid by Muslims scientists. The theory of evolution has this evidence and not only that the evidence is presented and reiterated in many peer reviewed articles.Ttiotsw 12:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good question. Most of the explanations of scientific phenomenons by quoting verses from Qur'an is quite recent. A good study of other books can only tell that how much these theories are famous, but if you find something in Academic circle doesn't mean that it is mostly believed by masses. A very good example is Hijab, John Esposito thinks that Hijab is not a Quranic injunction but rather a custom adapted from Byzantine and Persian empires. Similar views are held by some other scholars as well, but most Muslims believe stricktly that veil and seclusion of women is a Quranic injunction. So I won't be surprised, if there would be a gap between some scholarly opinion and belief of masses. And I would re-iterate that non of these articles are asserting or contributing to science, these studies are simply an attempt to find scientific phenomenons in Islam. And refutation of Darwin is not a challenge to science but rather a stance of Muslim community and an appropriate apology, ofcourse. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. Please don't bring up angels, demons, the Bible, hijabs, the Byzantine empire, or any other irrelevant thing. I had already read the description of the journal. Please respond to my arguments that it is not reputable. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to assume that the editors of that journal even KNOW any cosmologists to ask to review this work.

We allowed the Saleem material ONLY because we believed it to be from a reputable source ON MUSLIM OPINION. Anything we allow must be from either a reputable source on Muslim opinion OR a reputable source on the science that it is discussing. This article you have found is from NEITHER. I am going to remove it again and if you continue to revert or be otherwise disruptive I will have you blocked. Arrow740 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

you have a tendancy to misrepresent peoples' opinions. "And as Itaqallah said, it is published in what is probably a reputable Muslim journal". i stated that the material only merits inclusion if it is a representation of a significant viewpoint within Muslim interpretation of these verses. to this effect, i have requested for other sources which elaborate upon the verses in this way. if we cannot find any, we must question why we are representing an extreme minority opinion, which is generally not included per NPOV, and stating it as the general Muslim perspective, which is a blatant straw man. your motives for advocating inclusion however seem more dubious[12]. as for this: "We allowed the Saleem material ONLY because we believed it to be from a reputable source ON MUSLIM OPINION" do you believe it is a reasonable representation of Muslim opinion? do you have any mainstream sources advocating this theory? i would like to see some other sources for this, as i am currently not convinced that it is a representation of a significant Muslim viewpoint of these verses ITAQALLAH 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your link to Ttiotsw's talk page is just me saying "I'd really like to include the Saleem material." Anyway you're completely reversing yourself now and acting shocked that anyone could agree...with what you said! If it's a reputable Islamic journal then it's valid for inclusion! If you want to make it clear that something so clearly false isn't the general opinion (though it's probably your best best for making these verses jive with scientific observations), then just insert "according to Shehzad Saleem." However the fact that we're referencing him all in the section makes it clear that he is the source.

As regards this section, I put a footnote saying that the word تُرَابٍ is usually translated as dust or soil, because the link we have to the three translations has all three of them calling it dust. So it's confusing and we should just note it. I'll resist the temptation to discuss the dust/clay issue further. Arrow740 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if that's the word as I know very little arabic, so someone who knows better can please replace it with the correct word for dust. Arrow740 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

reversing myself? you misrepresented what i stated and then agreed with it. i did not state that if it was a reputable islamic journal then it merits inclusion, because i have never believed it to be a reputable islamic journal. i stated *if* it is representative of a significant viewpoint in Muslim thought then it merits inclusion. else, you cannot state it as a notable Muslim opinion, and if no other sources are available for this then we need to justify on what basis this is being included. at the very least, this material should be consigned to Shehzad Saleem's speculation and stated as such, even though this individual is not particularly notable in either the Muslim or academic world as far as i am aware. and in fact, it is you who reversed your position on realising its ridiculous nature, such that you believed no critical response would even be needed. ITAQALLAH 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is what you said: "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."

So at that time you were at least proceeding under the assumption that the source was a reputable (or maybe accurate) representation of Muslim interpretation of this verse. I interpreted your inclusion of the material as your decision that the source was reputable, because that's how you've operated in the past. I'm sorry if I misrepresented your opinion or read too much into what you did.

I had not thought of the justification you thought up (basically, the bar is lower for a journal to be reputable if it is not an academic journal, and the subject of Quranic interpretation is largely studied outside of universities, so we can apply this lower standard to this journal). I believe that it is appropriate to include it because the journal appears to be a reputable journal of Islamic thought, and since this material is clearly unscientific, we do not need to worry about the scientific qualifications of the author and the journal. You can write "Shehzad Saleem" as many times as you want. Arrow740 22:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

<reset indent>whether it is a reputable journal of islamic thought is debatable. as you stated, it is self-published. secondly, i know that it in a number of instances does not represent a significant Muslim viewpoint on issues, this one being one of them. we must then ascertain how this opinion is dealt with per WP:NPOV, which states that opinions on a topic are given space and proportionalized according to how widely they are believed. extreme minority opinions generally do not merit inclusion, and Saleem does not remotely seem to be an authority (or even notable) in this matter, and there is no indication that the view he suggests is held even a fraction of Muslims. this is why more sources expounding this view are needed, so we can gauge if this interpretation is even significant enough to merit inclusion. even then, i will consider keeeping of the section as long as the opinions are attributed to Saleem explicitly, even though we know exceedingly little about him and his educational background. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not clear as to the status of the journal, but it is carried by UCLA. I was refering to Moiz Amjad as being self-published, but as I noted, if he is a scholar of repute then topical self-published stuff should be allowed.

"i know that it in a number of instances does not represent a significant Muslim viewpoint on issues, this one being one of them" How do you know that this is not a significant Muslim viewpoint? Do most Muslims believe that God created Adam and Eve from dust and that's the end of the story, and don't worry about fossils?

What do you think about including Bucaille's material? Does the fact that his ideas have been spread about the Muslim world make him a reputable source in your mind? Arrow740 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reflection of light by heavenly bodies incorrectly quoted Sura 24:35 and 25:61

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)

Good work. Maybe someone with Bucaille can fix this; if it's not fixed shortly we can move it to the temp page for further work. Arrow740 08:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In your first point, you are absolutely right that it is a parable, but in this parable, it is giving example of reflection from glass of niche as reflection from كوكب , which means planets. The word for star in Arabic is نجم . Hence, different translators translate differently. Just put it in http://translate.google.com and translate it from Arabic to english. In your second point, the same verse is more elaborated with similary words in verse ^{[Quran 71:16]}. But I didn't use this verse, because I knew that you people would allege me for WP:OR, hence I used the same verse which I found in the source article. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We have made it clear that all the stuff in that section is due to a particular person. If we note the mistranslation (or alternate translation) and include the full surahs, that should bring this up to code. Arrow740 09:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How can I tell you that translation is a primary source? TruthSpreader^Talk 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'm happy with the difference in translations. Why are you avoiding adding the section on the olive oil lamp to the relevant sura - I can't as I have no idea which version to use. It's already been stated here that it is parable. Why is this parable titled "Reflection of light by heavenly bodies". I propose that the second sura be shown in full (any primary source translation will do) and that the section title be changed to "Parable of Light Sources." Ttiotsw 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that the primary source is being deliberately misleading by only quoting part of the surah. We should not include such misleading material. So we can either remove this entire section or quote the complete surah. I'm for the latter. Arrow740 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We're getting close to OR here. It might be better to scrap the whole thing. Arrow740 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific journal of science and technology

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)

Can someone get an arbitrator to decide this issue? We're not going to agree. I haven't done it before and don't know how to go about it. Arrow740 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look reputable to me, Aminz. Check out its publisher, Akamai University. It's not even a real school, just a postal address and a website; a.k.a. a diploma mill. Google it and see for yourself. There's not even a Wikipedia article.

From its website: "Akamai University is not accredited by an accrediting agency or association recognized by the US Department of Education."Proabivouac 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Look also at the editorial board of the journal and the faculty of the university. No one qualified to discuss either cosmology or the Quran. Arrow740 05:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mis-representing the source. The source is not claiming to contribute in cosmology. It is simply pointing to the fact that Qur'an seems to point to different cosmological events. And its value is not more than that.

Secondly, you should know that it is not the editor who actually reviews the paper, the job of editor is only to refer the paper to appropriate person for review. And you won't get the list of peer-reviews on the website. If you are keen, ask the editor to give you a list.

Thirdly, for description of this journal, kindly see:[13]. And it is not in Library of Congress:[14] for no reason. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The LOC has everything. The degrees this university gives are not worth anything. That means it's basically a community college. It probably has that journal just to make itself more respectable. If you guys insist on including this we should get an outside arbitrator to decide this issue. Or maybe Itaqallah could weigh in. Arrow740 05:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a community college, but an off-site diploma mill. There is actually no real school at all.Proabivouac 07:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Golshani

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)

As Golshani said "Others tried to show that all important scientific discoveries had been predicted in the Qur'an and Islamic tradition and appealed to modern science to explain various aspects of faith." Bucaille and Yahya are along that line. They no longer need to be academic sources. Since we will be simply reporting the views of these Muslims. Of course, we should have sections on the views of other Muslims on this issue. --Aminz 21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were going to cite Golshani in his capacity as a physicist. This is all history. Arrow740 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he is a philosopher and physicist. It seems to me that theoretical physics touches philosophy as well. --Aminz 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this stuff is hardly philosophy. He seems to be reaching a little bit on the Bible stuff. I don't think that the Quranic and Christian mentality towards science is the same. I have some sources on this and I'll work on this section.

You do not understand the conversation that Itaqallah and I have been having. If it comes to interpretaion of specific Quranic verses, an academic pedigree is not required, otherwise, it is.

If Bucaille is to be considered a reputable source for his ideas, then I have some other sources which we must also include which respond to his claims. Arrow740 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"If it comes to interpretaion of specific Quranic verses, an academic pedigree is not required, otherwise, it is" says who? you? can we quote little old moi when it comes to any religions' scripture? interpretation of qur'anic verses is done by notable, qualified people in the field of islamic studies. it's pretty simple. we don't quote any old polemicist and their take on this or that. with Moore, his interpretations only become of value as he has been assisted and authorized by Mr. Zendani, who does happen to be a notable islamic scholar. ITAQALLAH 01:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not required. Some kind of standing as a source for Quranic interpretation would be. Arrow740 03:31, 18 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)

The second section of his is in the clear; he's just mentioning how you go about thinking about what he does. The first section needs to be complemented with other material, and I will work on that. For the third he's being a historian. For the moment I have no objection to it as a scientist is given some leeway to be a historian of science. Arrow740 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --Aminz 07:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

full quotations wanted

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,", 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)

There was no OR. According to whoever wrote this section originally, Moore claimed that it was unlikely that anyone knew that the human embryo developed in stages before Muhammad. Well his guess is wrong, and my source proves it. You removed my sentence saying "perhaps he was unfamiliar with the writing of the ancient Greek scientists, which was widely available in Arabia in Muhammad's time" or something very similar. That must be true, as Musallam describes that Galen in fact did know EXACTLY that. As it is now, we report on Moore's guess. Then with no transition we write Musallam's disproof of Moore's clearly uninformed conjecture. There needs to be a sentence in between. As to the source, go get the book and look up foetal development in the index. If you want all that information from me then demand it from everyone else as well. I don't see you putting up a fuss about any other thing, only something that suggests that Muhammad used a source other than God for the Quran. Arrow740 02:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i am concerned with the embryology section as that is what i have been working on. provide the full citations as you have been requested. the parts i removed were OR, you are assuming Musallam or Needhlam must be correct, and that Moore must not have known something, and that Musallam/Needhlam by default have the correct perspective. you are whitewashing the section with your spurious conclusions, though they are inherently false. keep your viewpoint out of the article: report what the sources say and keep it at that, instead of making it a platform for advocacy of your own conclusions. ITAQALLAH 03:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrow, to ensure that you are not merely plagiarising from "Brother Andrew" and that you are quoting directly from the books and not attributing false opinions to the ones you quote, provide the full citations, with full references, or expect the material to be removed. ITAQALLAH 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I'm disappointed in you Itaqallah. Really, I am. How can you actually think that my conclusions are wrong? Moore conjectured something, and it was wrong. Plain and simple. Anyway if you look at Brother Andrew's article and the pieces that I quoted, you will see that I have included much that he did not. Hmm... how can that be? I don't get it! But it will only take me a minute to give you the information you seem incapable of getting for yourself.

I am only doing this because it is easy, as what I have quoted is readily verifiable as it stands; just get the book and look in the index.

Joseph Needham's book A History of Embryology was published by Abelard-Schuman in 1959. I don't see an ISBN but it says that its LOC catalog card number is 59-608. The quotes are from page 82.

Basim Musallam's book Sex and Society in Islam was published by Cambridge University Press in 1983. ISBN: 0 521 24874 4. The quotes are from pages 39, 40, 54, and 56. I'm going to quote from page 50 as well and possible other places.

Any and all references that do not meet the standards you have set for me will be removed in two days. Aminz, better get cracking. I would be happy to remove Bucaille and Yahya's material if the are not brought up to Itaqallah's standard. Arrow740 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

spare me the rhetoric. i don't have to do your research for you, though i had done so for Moore's book the developing human. i don't have to babysit you making sure the material you are citing has been accurately represented by researching it myself, you should be prepared to produce the full citations when requested. yes, do quote the respective people in full, we will see if it warrants your liberal use of strong adjectives in the article. again, you do not see the difference between a cited conclusion and your own conclusion. the latter of which has no place on wikipedia. as for your straw man you have established yet again, i stated all material needs to be verifiable so that people may check for themselves. if the book is uploaded, link to the book (as has been done with bucaille and yahya), if not, then provide the appropriate refs and page #'s so people can check it up. that much i'm sure you must have derived from what i said, unless you deliberately seek to twist what people say. ITAQALLAH 04:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the only adjectives I used were: some; the; different; and scientific. And trust me, if I were including my own conclusions in this article, it would only need to be about two sentences long. Arrow740 04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are fixated on Brother Andrew. I haven't even read most of that piece. Is it good? Arrow740 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

instead of springing up more red herrings, quote the passages in full as you have been requested. i have been looking for some of these quotes and i have found you have been taking them from that oh-so-very-favorite website of yours. i don't actually believe you have been looking at the hard copies. for example, quote to me the whole paragraph and context for this quote "Professor Joseph Needham dismisses the embryological surahs in the Quran as "a seventh century echo of Aristotle and Ayurveda,". so now, can you quote what Needhlam says exactly before and after this? what is the first sentence written on that page? i expect a prompt response. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had been civil from the beginning I would have been glad to do it. As it is I'm not going to do you any favors. If you give me detailed instructions on how to put a picture on my user page I will take pictures of the covers of the books you are whining about and put them up. Arrow740 18:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

if you are to quote something in an article, it is entirely your responsibility to show other editors the context of the quote. you are not in a position to hide material from other editors when you claim to have access to it. we don't want pictures of the book covers. how about you quote the whole paragraphs, or even better, take pictures of all the appropriate pages so we can see what the writers actually say. as for being incivil, that is the pot calling the kettle black. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Prove to me using appropriate citations of wikipedia rules that I have not fulfilled my obligation by giving you the author, title, publisher, year, ISBN, and page numbers, and I will upload the pages. My point was that if your request had been civil I would have fulfilled it. Arrow740 20:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i requested full quotations. i made a subsequent addition stating citations were sub-par. you fulfilled the second request, but not the first. yes, you are required to provide the full passages when requested, because by including cites to these people (as well as incorporating their quotes) in the article, you are implying that you have read and understood what is being alluded to. thus you should provide the passages to eliminate doubts of evaluative original research. ITAQALLAH 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"yes, you are required to provide the full passages when requested." Prove that I am required, as I requested. To stir up the hornet's nest a little bit I'll give you a paragraph from Musallam, page 39:

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.

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)

"Prove that I am required, as I requested" it is part of what is known as "intellectual honesty". and it is a part of wikiquette to respond to reasonable requests from editors especially it involves articles, such as providing the context for editors who want to double check the attribution, to ensure that WP:OR is not being violated. Musallam says nothing about embryology or human development in that quote, so the corresponding article passage can be relocated. ITAQALLAH 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NO, it can't. It is entirely appropriate following the sentence of Faisal's which precedes it. And the next quote from him follows less than a page later. In fact the entire point of this section in Musallam is to show that the Muslims got a lot of their theory of embryological development from the Greeks, so that by understanding the Greek conception and tracing its development through later Muslim thought we can understand the Muslim attitudes toward conception, abortion, etc. At this point, if anyone is violating etiquette, it is you. I am not going to copy out entire sections of books here just so that you don't have to get the source yourself. Go get it and stop harassing me. Arrow740 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

false. you are cutting up what Moore says about the history of embryological knowledge by inserting an irrelevant passage about Musallam's analysis of the generality of Arab science right in the middle of it. relocate it so somewhere else where it will be more appropriate. why are you shying away from enlightening other editors about what the people you cite actually say? what is there to hide, Raj? ITAQALLAH 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

this is what is attributed to Moore and his review of embryological history:

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

inserting a statement about general arab science, not related to embryology (and it is clear Musallam is not talking about embryology in this context), is totally irrelevant within the context of the article passage. relocate it. ITAQALLAH 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This section of Musallam is devoted to embryology. I have already moved the Needham quote you erroneously are attributing to Musallam. Everything in the article from Musallam is entirely relevant where it is. If you read anything besides propaganda websites by unintelligent people desperate to prove their flabby beliefs are consonant with modern science you would know that Muslims got all of their embryology from the Greeks and Indians. Thus passages indicating this fact are highly significant when discussing the relationship between the Quran/hadith and embryology. Arrow740 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

the paragraph you just quoted from Musallam shows that he is not talking about embryology at all. he is talking about general scientific knowledge, and so relevant passage here is merely non sequitur. you may also wish to stay away from incivility in the future. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a non sequitur. If you think so then something is wrong. Arrow740 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

it is totally out of place, logically and contextually. trying to link it in with embryology when the premise of his point is regarding general science is incorrect. also i am finding it disappointing you that make personal attacks against me on other talk pages. you can rally for support without doing so. ITAQALLAH 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Stop whining. Also Galen did medical research, nothing else. What is this "general science" nonsense. Arrow740 22:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not concealing anything. I would be happy if you got these sources instead of making increasingly ridiculous demands and arbitrary decisions. I don't want to have to copy out whole pages of books. You are dishonest and harass anyone who disagrees with you. Why would I help you? Arrow740 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

if you believe that requesting the original passages from you is tantamount to "harrassment", then you are mistaken. i am not asking you to "help" me, you are being requested to confirm that the authors say what you attribute to them, in the correct context. you did say you would take pictures of the pages. if you refuse to provide the original passages though you claim to be in possession of them, i am sure we can open an RfC about this and see whether this battleground mentality is tolerable. why reject an oppurtunity to prove you are faithfully representing the authors? ITAQALLAH 22:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the Needham quote he merely thanks someone for providing those surahs to him, writes them down, and writes "A seventh century echo of Aristotle and Ayurveda." His textbook is the standard on the the history of embryology and you can easily find it. As regards Musallam all my quotes are appropriate and sufficiently self-contained. A sentence describing the influence of Galen on Arabian medical science is entirely appropriate following a mention of Galen's work and preceding quotes which describe the way that the Quran and hadith and Galen's work on embryology have almost the same language. This is entirely appropriate. Again, I'm laughing as I'm typing. If you give me detailed instructions on how to put pictures on my userpage I'll put any Musallam quotes you want up here if it will get you to stop you snivelling. Arrow740 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

provide the full needhlam quote, including this "thank"ing. the other sentence is talking about Galen's discoveries in embryology. if Musallam's comment is "entirely appropriate following a mention of Galen's work and preceding quotes which describe the way that the Quran and hadith and Galen's work on embryology have almost the same language.", mention it in the paragraph to which it is relevant, not in a paragraph explicitly discussing embryology. you didn't recognise the context of the article passage (pre-insertion of Musallam), so you proceeded to just insert it after where Galen was mentioned as if it is relevant to the context in which Moore was discussing. i am looking for the needhlam quote, the Musallam quote you have provided and shown that it is irrelevant to where you have placed it. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you have not. Keep saying that if you wish. Get an arbitrator, by all means.

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)

well well well! couldn't you just have done that in the first place? instead of wasting both your time and mine? thanks for finally making the effort, though. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You saw fit to change "dismisses" to "describes." It is certainly a dismissal; he only uses one sentence to describe them. I'm reverting it. If you want to get a WP:3RR block over this, go ahead. Arrow740 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite considerable involvement in this article you have not gotten a copy of Needham to look at, so you don't know that the relevant section of his book is by far the shortest in the book, only comparable to "Alchemy and Embryology." This informs my decision that his description of those passages is a dismissal, and I think anyone who looked at the book as a whole and this section in particular would come to the same conclusion. Arrow740 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bucaille

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)

We are quoting his book which is published and it does not matter if you think he has not read Quran. His work will remain in the article. --- ابراهيم 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're back huh. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Having your book published is not sufficient to make you reputable. But I'm warning you that if having a book published is the criterion we're going to use in this article then I'm going to use some sourcces that you guys aren't going to like. Arrow740 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will quote itaqallah: "with Moore, his interpretations only become of value as he has been assisted and authorized by Mr. Zendani, who does happen to be a notable islamic scholar." So by this standard ALONE Bucaille's interpretations are not of value. This does not take into account that he does not even have a pedigree in the subjects he is describing, unlike Moore who has a very strong one. Arrow740 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Aminz agrees that Bucaille is not a reputable source. This is why she for a time supported the latest AfD, saying that she could find no good sources. Well this was a source already, so then she must realize that it is not good.

Similarly itaqallah responded to her (and you, Ibrahim) by finding new sources, not by mentioning Bucaille. He has also repeatedly refused to endorse Bucaille when I asked him. So he must also realize that this is not a reputable source. Arrow740 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

please don't speak for others, as it is clear you do not understand them well enough to fairly represent them. i never said anything about Bucaille, precisely because i had not studied Bucaille, his academic history or his research into this book, such that i declined to comment upon it until i did. for your information, 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. i think that is sufficient. ITAQALLAH 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does he claim that? Whom does he name? The only Muslim I can find him naming is the late King Faisal, who he says he learns a lot from, on page 119. Arrow740 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure that make sense. Hes not exppert himself BUT he SAY in his book he met some experts SO now we can use him.Opiner 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the standard that they hold themselves to. But see above to see the standards that they hold me to. I could really use help on this article. Arrow740 21:49, 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)

Shouldnt use books being written by the QUACKS.Opiner 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah's vandalism

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)

in response to this spurious charge of vandalism, this is the change i made:

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."

to

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."

now the only instance where i can see the meaning could have be changed is if Musallam is not quoting ibn al-qayyim in the first passage but the quote is of Musallam referring to him (even though ibn al-qayyim is not named in the quote), in which case the sentence structure and phrasing has been extremely poor (i.e. use of colon after the the sentence opening "Basim Musallam quotes the ..." which implies the actual quote is that of ibn al-qayyim). if that is not the case, then i don't see how there is any change in explicit or implicit meaning. do refrain from bad faith accusations of vandalism, such constitutes as a personal attack. ITAQALLAH 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Musallam does not attribute the sentiments to Ibn Qayyim. It is exactly as I said, and it was clear and well-written. When you were done with it (and your entire goal was to get rid of the "most commentators" phrase) it had Musallam attributing those ideas to Ibn Qayyim himself. Refrain from such self-serving, obfuscating edits in the future. Arrow740 23:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As I correctly wrote and you correctly read, it is Musallam quoting Ibn Qayyim. Qayyim wrote the sentence in the quotation marks. Arrow740 00:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

your constant personal attacks are becoming a cause for concern. so too are your bad-faith assumptions. the passage is certainly unclear: it states that Musallam "quotes" ibn al-qayyim as reporting a different interpretation, then with a colon (suggesting that what is to follow will be the result of Musallam's quoting) and a proceeding quote clearly suggests that Musallam is actively quoting ibn al-qayyim. the structure is poor and allows for misinterpretation. ITAQALLAH 00:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He is actively quoting Ibn Qayyim. You said, "i.e. use of colon after the the sentence opening 'Basim Musallam quotes the ...' which implies the actual quote is that of ibn al-qayyim" and I couldn't have said it better myself. I really don't see what the problem is here.

"Your constant personal attacks are becoming a cause for concern." Is this a joke? Arrow740 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes and I changed the wording in the article for you. Arrow740 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you. i do not appreciate my edits being described as self-serving, and i perceive that as a personal attack. ITAQALLAH 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And it worries you? Arrow740 01:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for sources

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)

Where did the history section go?

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)

You may be thinking of the related Islamic science article. We never had a section on that here. Aminz has recently added the "Arrival of Modern Science in Muslim world" section. Arrow740 06:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar

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)

by the way, the comments on the article related to this sex scandal were removed (per WP:BLP) pending authoratative and preferably governmental sources along with an actual court conviction reported from a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel moved to translate such reports from Turkish into English please do so. Otherwise people can use google if they want to know what he apparently admitted to doing. Arrow740 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

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)

He is not a scholar. He has no academic qualifications. He's just a proselytizer. He is not even a doctor according to the wikipedia article on him, he just has bachelor's degrees. There are already links to his propaganda in the external links section, and you should be happy with that. Arrow740 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on Arrow740, I think he would be an excellent example to present the quality of Quranic science and the truth too. He advocates the death penalty for personal descisions that lead to what they call apostacy, he is anti-pluralist when it comes to other religions, and he supports that women are worth less than men when testifying in certain situation; yes I think he is perfect for a topic labelled "The relation between Islam and Science". What I'm curious about is he asserts that all instrumental music is haraam (forbidden), except a one-membraned drum, so my question is this: if you played digitised samples of a one-membraned drum then would that still be forbidden ? What sampling rate is needed before it became forbidden due to distortion making it not sound like a one-membraned drum ? If sampling was allowed then could you kind of use a softsynth to model the drum on DSPs or even in software or is that all forbidden and it can't be sampled nor synthesised but must be done in the real hardware only i.e. a one-membraned drum. I'm kind of being sarcastic here but there is a reason so I guess it could be irony - these kind of questions I feel are at the root of what is wrong with including people like Zakir Naik as corroborating evidence for articles in Wikipedia-as-a-encyclopedia. If he is representative of moderate muslim interpretation of the Qur'an then that makes adding the balancing POV so much easier. Ttiotsw 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if his arguments are logical & scientific, we can use him . He is medical doctor & has a good knowledge of Islam . His views on digital music/apostacy/testimony are not the issue here, neither do they have any thing to do with the topic of this article . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No he will not be used. He is not a scholar and has no academic qualifications. He is a proselytizer pure and simple. As to the other stuff, people who have been brainwashed cannot see through it, so placing ridiculuous statements along that line on wikipedia serves no one's purpose. Arrow740 20:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

His being a doctor & studing Islam under Ahmed Deedat is considered as academic qualification . So what exactly is your definition of scholar? Being a proselytizer doesent discredit anybody's academics achievements, its his personal choice . Brainwashed...hmmm...you know thats a very relative term, not a solid argument at all . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال <sp>/c} 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that he is a doctor? Where did he get his MD? In any case, I assume you're claiming he's a medical doctor. Well medical doctors are not scholars. I don't know exactly what you're referring to when you say he studied under Ahmed Deedat. What was the duration of his "study," what were the conditions, what training did he receive. Meeting him doesn't count. Anyway we wouldn't care what Ahmed Deedat says about anything not strictly in the realm of religion anyway.

In any case, even if we for some reason grant Zakir Naik some standing as an interpreter of the Quran, he has no qualifications whatsoever as a physicist, entomologist, etc. Arrow740 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I accept his authority on the matters of the Quran and Islam but I do actually think his view of "digital music" is relevant given he says that all instruments are forbidden except a single example of a one-membraned drum. The whole issue of which music is allowed and which isn't allowed is very unclear with any Islamic site. Given the underlying mathematics of music this is a very topical subject to science so I would say that his views are unrepresentative of the majority of Muslims unless this is just one odd view and the other views he has are actually representative. It usually doesn't work that way though. If a person has an extremely unrepresentative view on one issue that they are being presented as being an authority of then it is reasonable to presume that the majority of their views are equally unrepresentative. Is it reasonable for us to allow such unrepresentative views without evidence as to the percentage of people they represent ? With matters of science it usually is very clear if the position of a scientist is representative of nearly all scientists e.g. nearly all scientists say that the theories of evolution proposed Darwin are valid whereas e.g. our Wikipedia article quite clearly states that to Shehzad Saleem the Qur'an means "They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin.". As with the unanswered question regarding if Shehzad Saleem represents the majority or the extreme, the same question is asked of Zakir Naik. Ttiotsw 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I keep on saying because he is a medical doctor, see Zakir Naik. Medical doctors are educated enough to link Quran & science.He studied under Deedat for a few years , its a well known fact, I cant prove it though . "we wouldn't care ".....it doesent matter . I dont thing he is discovering something new for which he needs to be a "physicist, entomologist, etc". You need PhD to create some "new facts". F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 02:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody accepts or denies music based on some "science", neither does this article or Naik says so . It all based on a few traditions . Some scholars say one membraned instruments are allowed because they were played in front of Muhammad , & he allowed them . Others say all instruments are allowed because he never prohibited their use . so you see , this prohibition has nothing to do with sonic wave form or frequency , & I have never seen anybody claiming it either . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 02:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Saleem stuff is permissible because he makes no statements as an expert of science, i.e. it's OK for us to include a Quranic expert saying "science is wrong." It's when they make the opposite claim that more than superficial knowledge and qualifications are required, becuase it's a very different matter to correlate vague claims in the Quran with complex modern astrophysics and entomology. That involves being a reputable source for science.

Arrow740 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Though even that is a little shaky. It would be better to have an additional source. However, as it stands, little mention is made of biology or Darwin. The theory as presented is little more than an interpretation of the Quran. Arrow740 23:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"science is wrong." Sorry but where does his phenomenon occur in the article . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 02:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Medical doctors are educated enough to link Quran & science." Perhaps when it comes to medicine. The issue is not education; the issue is qualification. And the Zakir Naik article says that he got bachelor's degrees. Having looked at MBBS I see that the undergraduate degree he has is the Indian version of an MD, though apparently this degree does not qualify him to do research in medicine. So I will admit that he is a medical doctor. As regards Deedat he wasn't a scientist either. So neither man is a reputable source for linking complex modern science with the vague statements of the Quran. Arrow740 03:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you flip flop your views about him. You said above in another discussion. That guy Naik is an expert on the Koran. Not on science though. 24.7.89.173 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Arrow) but now he is not an expert on Quran? --- ابراهيم 09:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that I thought that he wasn't an expert on the Quran. He may very well be. He probably is. But he isn't a scholar. There is a difference between knowing a lot about something and being a recognized, qualified scholar. I still say that he isn't an expert on science, which he isn't. He has a medical degree, that's it. It doesn't make him a scientist, and it doesn't make him a scholar, and it doesn't make him a reputable source for theories attempting to link modern science with something else. Arrow740 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice logic. He is an expert in Quran but not a scholar?? It mean you will only accept people who are expert in Science (may have PhD degress in Science) and an expert in Islam (may have another PhD degress). Please tell where we could find such people. Also tell if Allah says in Quran that I created every living thing from water then why an expert is required to put that in the article? I am going to put it back as it does not required any link between science and Quran. Only Quranic Ayat will be sufficient. --- ابراهيم 07:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he's not a scholar. He's a proselytizer. He certainly has no academic qualifications and makes no attempt to uphold the standards that academics do. The qualifications vary depending on the material but the source must always be reputable. Regarding that verse, you have to use a secondary source. Quoting the verse itself is using a primary source. You must find a reputable source which discusses that verse. Simply putting it into the article is, as it was before, original research. Arrow740 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He does have the relevant qualifications to link established science to well established meanings of Quranic verses . If he starts creating some new science, or some new meanings in Quran , he will definitely need to have a Phd . But until then, he is qualified enough. He might be a proselytizer, or a carpenter, this doesent discredit his acadmic qualifications. When a verse says “man is created from water”…..no you don’t need a secondary source to confirm it . Its like saying that we need a secondary source to prove that Jesus is discussed in NT . Or like using secondary source to prove that Gita discusses Krukshetra . See…as soon as these stupid logics go out of Islam , they start sounding “un-intellectual”. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c}

Zakir Naik has no academic qualifications. As regards "we created him from water," the Quran says that God created man from many different things in many different places. Here's what would happen. You would write that, then I would cite all the other verses, where man is created from clay, dirt, nothing, a clot (usually interpreted to be a clot of blood, and I can find a good source for that), etc. Then one of you would find some silly explanation of how the Quran isn't really contradicting itself with all this stuff, and then I would probably remove it as OR because it probably wouldn't be from a reputable source. However it doesn't matter as even including the verse would be citing a primary source. I mean, look at it this way. You could put in that verse. I or someone else would then cite a science book which says that the first life on earth (and even the first man) was comprised of many organic compounds besides water. Then where would we be? This article would become a list of verses from the Quran and hadith and a list of quotes from scientists which contradict the verses from the Quran. Another point is that even including the verse at all is implicitly including Ibrahim Faisal's INTERPRETATION. There are many ways to interpret that verse. By placing it in this article you are suggesting the interpretation that the Quran is somehow (though I'm not quite sure how, as the first man was not created out of water) presaging modern science. So by even placing it in the article you are making a link between this verse (wrong as it might be) and modern science. That is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Arrow740 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quran and the science

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)

No, this article is shaping up nicely. It's forming an organic whole; the three sections that we have complement each other well. There's also more to add to the individual sections that will complement the others. So, leave it the way it is, but add to it, so that the connections between the sections, which I believe are already quite satisfactory, become even stronger. On a related note, the more I read, the more it becomes clear to me that we must follow the lead of prominent Muslim scholars throughout the ages by discussing the statements in the Quran regarding the natural world only in the light of the related passages from the hadith, so any article involving the Quran and science must include this material as well. The original title "The Quran and science" was no doubt inspired by the title of Bucaille's unscholarly work, but even his book includes numerous references to the hadith. Arrow740 00:06, 24 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)

GOD

"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)

This article is "The relation between Islam and science." The passage you quoted is germane to this topic. Aminz was right to see that something along these lines should be included. Arrow740 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It grates; it just doesn't look right in this article. All of those sections in "Relation between Modern Science and Religion" really needs some serious unbiasing. Whilst it's fine to quote Mehdi Golshani I'll quote that even within Wikipedia (to be internally consistent) it says the, "In all of Golshani’s works, there is a clear attempt to help revive the scientific spirit in the Muslim world." Poor guy, I pity him. Thus to me the purpose of Golshani is to present science to be compatible to Muslims. Thus adding what is basically a whole couple of paragraphs by him biases this article to his purpose. I agree with his aims but it's not what this article is about. Though the content of "Great influence of Biblical worldview in development of Science" could be stated I question if the reasons stated have had any effect on science. In fact if we look at the http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html which Mehdi Golshani has judged (or won?) it complains that so much has been done since in the past 200 years more or less (in which many argue that has been the rise of secular society) without a "spiritual" focus. Nope - I think all of "Great influence of Biblical worldview in development of Science" is biased and irrelevant to the topic. I'll be out a few days as just got my copy of the The_God_Delusion. ! Ttiotsw 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above it needs to be complemented with other stuff at the very least. I'm waiting for some books to arrive at the library, and after I get them I have some other things planned. I was hoping someone else would work on the section we're talking about. Arrow740 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why I dispute the nutrality of this article

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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the article violates NPOV. There's too much of the Golshani stuff and not enough balancing material, but the article is still a work in progess. I won't have anything to do with adding the tag or removing it. Arrow740 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Medhi Golshani

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)

So do it. If you want you can find a source discussing the fact that there hasn't been any Islamic science in hundreds of years, to keep it balanced. Arrow740 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Claims that the Koran Predicted Modern Science

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)

It is impossible to have a scholarly discussion of that topic. This article attempts to be worth reading. Arrow740 07:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Mike Young that what we are already trying to do. That is using secondary sources to give explanation of Quranic versus. You might be interested in the article that was there originally and now exist at top of my user page. I wish I had more time to expand this article. --- ALM 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only good sources for this stuff, we have already included. Bucaille's stuff is discussed on the page about him. You are right about the general purpose of the article. The other material has been added by User:Aminz. His way of dealing with articles involving issues that are, let's say, sensitive, is to drown them with other things. Arrow740 09:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Tags

This is a good subject, but I think there are some serious issues in this article.

• POV section titles

1.1 Great influence of Biblical worldview in development of science

1.2 Alleged conflict between science and religion

• "Alleged conflict between science and religion"

This isn't "alleged" — it is quite real and taken seriously by many scientists. This conflict basically reflects the materialism vs. idealism debate. Even though Islam rejects materialism, that doesn't mean that this article can objectively ignore the issue.

• Sources

The Golshani piece doesn't appear to be published. See WP:RS.

There's got to be more than the two-page op-ed piece of Moore's on embryology, and does it have to be cited nine times?

The article is clearly ghostwritten but we have to allow it. Arrow740 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• References

So many of these are incomplete. Musallam is cited ten times, but there's only a book title. These desperately need publishers, dates, ISBNs, pages, etc. Here's the template:

*{{cite book |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |origyear= |year= |month= |title= |editor= |others= |edition= |publisher= |location= |id= |url= }}

• External Links

Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) is totally inappropriate and discredits the argument. I yanked these myself.

The rest could use another eye.

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:

• "Fossils of ancient humans"

This sub-section is entirely WP:OR.

It's all referenced to Shehezad Saleem. Arrow740 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

True. I'll pull the OR tag. I note that that source is unfortunate. The tortured logic there is required because of the literal reading requiring Adam and Eve to have been directly created (from clay). The third verse in that source (Quran 32:7-8), which explains how we got Adam and Eve, and all the rest of us (starting from clay) is a nice, if allegorical, description of the processes of the origin of life and natural selection. MARussellPESE 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The logic is indeed tortured (to death). What is really unfortunate is that Muslim religious scholars actually think this way. It doesn't bode well for the future of mankind. Arrow740 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Conception and inherited characteristics"

This sub-section doesn't make a connection to modern scientific views at all. Showing that the Quran agreed with Galen is, not only non-sequitur here, but merely confirms that that holy book agreed with the best thinking at that time. This sub-section either needs a real connection to current scientific thinking, or to be excised.

The article is about the relationship between Islam and science. This includes the historical aspect of this relationship. Arrow740 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it should point out that while the Quran may agree with Aristotle and Galen, modern medicine doesn't in so many ways. We can't have this both ways. And the argument is still non-sequitur, in that agreeing with ancient physicians does not equte to agreeing with modern medicine. MARussellPESE 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that any argument is being made. It is obvious that Aristotle, Galen, and by extension the Quran were wrong. We just don't have an authoritative source that makes the connection because there would hardly be any point in such a trivial exercise. Arrow740 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Embryology"

This entire sub-section bases it's connection to modern scientific thought on Moore's two-page op-ed piece, giving it only the most tenuous connection to modern scientific thought. And Musallam goes on talking about Galen again. This needs the same work as the previous.

Believe it or not, not much scholarship has been done on the subject. We're using what we have. Arrow740 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

So go get some sources and flesh it out. We could use stuff on how Muslim culture advanced science for a short period of time, then stopped. And why both of these changes occured. Regarding the tag, what is it you are disputing? Arrow740 20:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing just what the tag says: neutrality, accuracy, and original research as noted above.

This is not my specialty, so my contributions would be limited. I'm pointing these out as the observations of a sympathetic reader. If there isn't much scholarship on the subject, and we're using ghost-written sources for a significant portion of this, then I'm afraid I'm beginning to agree with Proabivouac that this article may be irretrievably unencyclopedic. MARussellPESE 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The premise of this article has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific advances achieved under certain periods of Islamic Civilization (arguably a misnomer for Arab civilization in this context), but combines the notions that the Qur'an speaks with an otherwise anachronistic scientific authority and that Islam is philosophically compatible with science. Typically, it is the work of Arab scientists, not Islamic doctrine, which is credited with contributing to the development of modern western civilization. To include such material in this article would be to baselessly attribute their achievements to the religion prevailing in their time and place.Proabivouac 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you in the main, I don't agree that Islam (or any religion for that matter) is necessarily incompatible with science, which appears to be a point you're presenting as axiomatic(?). However, insisting on literal interpretation of religious scripture as a scientific journal absolutely is. One needs to be prepared to read scripture allegorically.

Quite true, that Islamic contributions to science and technology have been thunderously silent for centuries (I'm thinking of Bernard Lewis' analyses in particular), this doesnt' mean that the root teachings are incompatible. This subject would be encyclopedic, if there were some reasonable secondary and tertiary sources for it. It doesn't appear to be so. If there isn't any movement here in about a week, I think I'll be replacing the {{unencyclopedic}} tag, or even nominating it for deletion. MARussellPESE 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please include the Lewis mention. Also Islam is incompatible with science because Muslims are obliged to believe that everything that the Quran (and Sahih Hadith) say are true. Arrow740 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Yes, there are more than a few Christians who are trying to sneak creationism into the American public schools; but lots of others, including the Church finally, have no problem reading scripture figuratively where science has better data. That open-mindedness has itself taken time to evolve to be sure, but I can't believe that the Muslim world en toto lacks any diversity of opinion on the issue, despite what the Taliban would like to see. Not all Muslims insist on literal, verbatim, reading of their scripture any more than all Christians, etc. do. What this article needs is more of these Islamic perspectives.

This article is trying to make connections between specific Islamic and scientific points. Lewis doesn't address that, unfortunately. MARussellPESE 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is definitely topical, just as the Golshani stuff is. And evolution is not taught in Muslim countries. Arrow740 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not all Muslims insist on literal, verbatim, reading of their scripture any more than all Christians, etc. do."

It's true that some Muslims are more willing to accept metaphorical interpretations in some instances than are others. However, most Christians believe scripture to have been written by men who were inspired by God, while the baseline of mainstream Islamic belief, however "moderate" or "progressive," is that every word of the Qur'an was directly written by God himself, and as such is perfect, infallible and incapable of being improved in any respect. On the spectrum of Christian belief, this is considered fundamentalism. Fortunately, the Qur'an and Islam, contra this article, says very little about the physical sciences. It is mainly the social and historical sciences where Islam has a lot to say, and to that extent excludes or hinders critical investigation by design.

"What this article needs is more of these Islamic perspectives."

Both of us might welcome such a development, but it's not encyclopedic to house and arrange these debates except insofar as they exist as real-world historical phenomena. Where they do, we usually create articles for each movement, not pit them against one another in an arena of our own making.Proabivouac 06:36, 13 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 see the problem differently. Though the article is titled "relation between Islam and Science" it still remains a pseudo-science and always will whilst it states that its science was revealed. It is thus not "science" as we would know it today but a form of "magic". I don't agree with the totally disputed tags as there is no argument between religion and magic no matter what they call the magic. Young earth creationists and Intelligent Design advocates also use science in a similar way (though more updated). Though initially suspicious of the scope of the article I am happy that the current article correctly reflects the true paucity of the relationship between Islam and science. Consequently any "nonsense" can be added as long as it is what Islamic scholars feel is Islamic science; it does not make it true.

On another point I also do not see any dispute between religion and science nowadays (I initially did feel there was a difference i.e. Non-overlapping magisteria but I now feel more affinity towards Dawkins. That some claim a dichotomy to me means that religion is hiding behind an artificially created barrier; a ghetto to escape from science. To me religious claims can be investigated in the same way as say the 4-colour problem and a probability placed on the claim and there is a need for faith in the process to accept the proof (I picked the Four color theorem as this is probably (?) a unique proof today which I feel is applicable and will not be the last derived in this way). Ttiotsw 05:40, 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)

Totally disputed

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:

1. The "Fossils" section is nonsense.
2. That the Quran agrees with Galen doesn't mean that it agrees with modern science — it would actually suggest that literal readings of it don't in several cases.
3. Have you seen the "Conception" section? Female semen(?) forming the our flesh and blood?

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)

I think this is the issue that we have a conflict about. You said: "The article is trying to make the case that literal readings of the Quran conform precisely to some degree to modern science." I disagree. It used to do that, and you might want to look at a really old version of this page to see how bad it was. I think this article is about any relation science has ever had with Islam, past or present, and about any statements about the natural world contained in the Quran or ahadith. To this end we've cited the most reliable sources we can find. Maybe we need to make clear that all we're doing is relaying the points of view of some reliable sources. Arrow740 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Original Research ? ...

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)

Links

I got rid of the links to polemical sites; I'll remove the tag. Arrow740 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

History

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 article has almost nothing to do with Christianity. Arrow740 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)