PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of this book and the review?



Al-Indunisiy
04-29-2010, 11:32 PM
Review: Taner Edis "An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam"


This explicitly non-Muslim author examines the attempts contemporary Muslims are making in scientific fields. While these attempts have similarities to Western religious communities' attempts at science, the continued strength of Muslims' attachment to their religious texts and the limitations those Muslims have placed on scientific inquiry of those Muslims who disregard religious texts in the course of scientific inquiry have retarded true scientific progress in predominantly Muslim countries.

I believe Muslims can benefit from reading this book, and I agree with many of the points Dr. Edis makes. At the end of the review I'll in sha Allah suggest some different emphases I'd place.

I personally think the main reason for the phenomena Dr. Edis criticizes is the place of Muslim countries on the periphery of the world economic system. Dr. Edis mentions this as a worthy line of inquiry, but, and I can't blame him, restricts himself to "a narrower set of questions concerning Muslim thinking about science and religion." This topic is interesting in-and-of itself, but the fact that it took place for the most part in Europe caused Muslims to argue that "friction between science and relgion is an artifact of the authoritarian church structure of medieval Christianity." (p. 25)

Muslims point to scientific advances in Muslim-ruled lands in the "golden-age" of Islam to claim that Islam and science are compatible. While this can be useful propaganda for nationalistic narratives, Dr. Edis writes:


And the main problem with such myths is that they obscure the radical differences between modern and medieval science. Medieval Muslims may have enjoyed the most advanced knowledge about nature in their time, but they did not do science in the modern sense. The most noticeable difference is, naturally, how religion pervades the medieval Muslim conception of reality; other areas of knowledge were never independent of religion to begin with. Concepts like God, divine purpose, design, and morality were integral to the whole enterprise of acquiring and interpreting knowledge, whether it was in medicine or astronomy. (pp. 46-7)
In other words, real science is not taking place if there's a possibility for God jalla jalaalu to intervene. Most Muslim philosophers and orthodox thinkers advocated varieties of occasionalism, the belief that "God creates the world anew and decides the motion of of its constituent atoms in each moment." (p. 51)

The important thing the author wants Muslims who want modern science to understand is that it is:


new and different, that it has significant discontinuenties with medieval thinking of all sorts. Europeans stumbled upon modern science by a series of accidents; it was not an inevitable outgrowth of their past religious culture. They got lucky. So instead of reclaiming past glories, Muslims can think of claiming a part in a scientific enterprise open to all comers. (p. 57)
Of course, some Muslims, pointing to the shrinking space for religion in European countries, might not think Europeans were so lucky, and Dr. Edis mentions this in the concluding chapter. Also, I think students of world-systems theory may question if scientific enterprise is "open to all comers."

Chapter 3, "Finding Science in the Quran", criticizes Muslims who attempt to reconcile passages of the Quran with scientific findings. Most of the discussion concerns the movement identifying with Said Nursi in the author's native country of Turkey. Said Nursi's followers


put even more emphasis on showing how scientific discoveries were anticipated in the Quran. If a book revealed fourteen centuries ago not only made no scientific mistakes but also contained knowledge not discovered until recently, then it clearly must have a divine author. (p. 93)
Similar developments took place in other Muslim countries. Muslims especially gravitated to Westerners such as Maurice Bucaille and Keith L. Moore who published books and papers comparing passages in the Quran to the conclusions of contemporary science.

Dr. Edis writes "It does not take much medical knowledge to see that Bucaille and Moore's procedure consists of reading modern medical details into some very vague and general statements in the Quran. Moreover, they overlook much more plausible ways of understanding these statements." (p. 96) Regarding the phrase in the Quran "seven heavens", Dr. Edis argues that "religious texts preserve fragments of ancient cosmologies rather than prophesy modern scientific developments." (p.99)

I have three comments related to this issue:


1.If a "Westerner" says something we Muslims believe we can turn into propaganda, we should be really cautious and make sure that "Westerner" is authoritative. Let us avoid what Egyptians call `uqdat al-khawaaga.'
2.I've never heard of an American becoming a Muslim because of the "scientific miracle" of the Quran. In fact, personal relationships, and ultimately God's guidance and grace, are really the only things I've heard Muslim reverts/converts talk about.
3.It's not easy to combine knowledge of Quran interpretation and leading edge science. The more sophisticated discussions of "embryology" in the Qur'an rely on Arabic lexicographies, hadith literature and exegesis, not simply Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran into English. And I don't expect leading physicists and medical researchers to spend years on these topics. Similarly, I would hardly expect or encourage a Muslim religious scholar to take years to learn theoretical physics. So, those who claim that the Quran describes physical reality and hence is Divine and those who claim that the Quran's description of physical reality is inaccurate and hence is of human origin are both likely overstepping their areas of expertise. Also, both camps would need to be intellectual historians to determine how prevelant the ideas were in southwest Asia at the time of revelation of Quran.
So I am in general agreement with Dr. Edis that we Muslims should drop this type of apologetic. At the same time, I read in the 16th chapter of the Quran (Yusuf Ali's translation):

16:5 And cattle He has created for you (men): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat.
16:6 And ye have a sense of pride and beauty in them as ye drive them home in the evening, and as ye lead them forth to pasture in the morning.
16:7 And they carry your heavy loads to lands that ye could not (otherwise) reach except with souls distressed: for your Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful,
16:8 And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show; and He has created (other) things of which ye have no knowledge.
I then think about small boys on foot in Nigeria with thin sticks driving along herds of cows. Should not we humans be grateful to God jall jalaalu for allowing use of creatures much more powerful physically than us? Now I know that archaeologists can trace the domestication of these animals, and I know that if you know what you're doing, you can reproduce the training of animals. So you don't need God to explain livestock. But gratefulness to God is still what I think about when hearing these passages.

Chapter 4 is Dr. Enis's review of Muslims' responses to the biological theory of evolution. I've long ago become fearful of the popularity of the writings attributed to Harun Yahya on this topic. My main concern is that American Muslims who have grown up with this poor science will learn in their 2nd biology class in college that we adults were giving them incorrect information, and then they will assume that the other things we teach them are incorrect as well. So this chapter is in general a detailed case study of one important theory in the model of the issues raised in chapter 3. One particularly upsetting phenomenon is the exchange between North American and Muslim creationists.

One interesting remark in this chapter concerns the Egyptian author Abdul Sabbur Chahine, who "wrote a book arguing that Adam was preceded by other prehuman creatures who had evolved to reach a human shape, trying to reconcile science and religion by adopting a new interpretation of the relevant verses in the Quran. His work led to a huge public outcry and charges of apostasy." (p. 142)

A more serious point Dr. Edis makes in this chapter is how contemporary Muslims use the concept of fitra or fitrah, combined with snippets of pseudo-biology, to support fiqh positions. "... [S]ince nature embodies a moral order, violating natural boundaries in matters of sexuality is also a moral pervision. By reaffirming creation in the face of fluidity and variation inherent in modern biological understandings of life, [Harun] Yahya defends social boundaries inscribed into nature." [p. 146]

Chapter 5, "Redeeming the Human Sciences," notes the paucity of productive social science research coming from people promoting "Islamic" orientations. Of interest is the use of critique-of-power postmodernism in the works of Michel Foucalt and Edward Said by proponents of "Islamization" of the social sciences without applying postmodernist irony to the religious sciences.

I personally am very much in agreement with the critique-of-power postmodernist strain, and I have used Edward Said extensively in my college papers (sadly, unpublished). Furthermore, I believe that important movements among historians such as Afrocentrism and world-systems theory have made important contributions. But the strengths of these movements in historical research are as a counter-balance to Eurocentrism and an emphasis on the voices and actions of non-Europeans. Islamizationists have yet to show how the use of religious texts adds to historical and sociological studies.

Dr. Edis in chapters 6 & 7, "A Liberal Faith?" and "Science at Arm's Length", backs up from the details of the attitudes of contemporary Muslims towards science and tries to imagine potential developments:


In the West, science and religion conflicted, cooperated, and generally muddled through to get to a point where even when they disagree today, respectable
people do not make a great fuss about it. It might appear that the Muslim world
could take a painless shortcut-adopt a liberal position that shies away from interfering with science. But this is not so easy. The very awareness by Muslims
of how science and Christianity have developed together changes the Muslim
response. [p. 225]
This is a point that I wish the neoconservatives and others who want to "reform" the Muslims would grasp. Aside from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in Dr. Edis's quote above, and of course non-Muslims' observations of Muslims impacts the situation as well, the processes in Europe occurred over five centuries and more. Most Muslim nations have only been aware of "science" for between 100 and 200 years. And how committed is the United States to science when it conflicts with its religion/ideology of neoliberalism, in the light of the climate change issue, for exampe?

One day I'm planning to write a piece describing religion, particularly Islam, in science fiction. The authors I intend to profile are Kim Stanley Robinson, Frank Herbert, David Brin and Orson Scott Card. One of the themes I intend to explore is scientist as policy maker and ruler. Robinson, in the Mars and Capitol trilogies, particularly emphasizes the suitability of scientists' involvement in policy. While I think Robinson exaggerates the heroism of some of his characters, in particular the protagonist of the Capitol trilogy, who climbs mountains, befriends the homeless, eschews housing with camping equipment in the park, plays spy, studies Emerson and Thoreau, advances science and advocates successfully for climate change amelioration and prevention policies, considering the tremendous ecological challenges we humans face, we need different policy perspectives than the current economic elites who dominate in both the developed and undeveloped countries. For this reason alone, we Muslims need to create room for scientists to do their work.

The other problem I think Dr. Edis's book illustrates (although he does not specifically mention this) is the substitution among some Muslims of rhetorical beauty or cohesion for what I would call "reality." I was eating lunch one day at a Pakistani restaurant in Indianapolis, IN which had the satellite channel al-Jazeera on. A panel was discussing the United States's army's uncovering of mass graves in Iraq in 2003. The panelists were discussing the United States's motives for discussing the mass graves and analyzing media coverage. Yet nobody talked about the fact that thousands of people were killed so quickly or extra-judiciously such that they could not even be buried properly. A similar situation exists in Muslims' lack of reaction to the crisis in Dar Fur. We're more worried about concepts such as colonialism and fairness and bias than the murder of hundreds of thousands, rape as a war tactic, scorched-earth policies and millions of refugees in Sudan and Chad. I think a healthier attitude towards science would lead, in the United States and predominantly Muslim countries, towards more humane policies.

Hardcover: 265 pages
Publisher: Prometheus Books (February 27, 2007)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1591024498
ISBN-13: 978-1591024491
Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 0.9 inches

Related Resources
Link to an interview with Abdul Sabbur Chahine. Link to an article refuting Abdul Sabbur Chahine's views. The source Dr. Edis used for this topic is pp. 262-4 in Raymond William Baker's Islam without Fear: Egypt and the New Islamists (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). Another article: http://www.naralkira.com/ My quick glance at these documents seemed to indicate that Abdul Sabbur did not base his claims on biologists' studies, but rather exegesis. More later if I get a chance to review this material. The interview did say Abdul Sabbur was found innocent of the charges brought against him.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Al-Indunisiy
04-29-2010, 11:35 PM
السلام عليكم
The review is by Ayman H Fadel. Personally, some ideas in this book are slightly appealing to me. What do think?
Reply

marwen
04-30-2010, 01:10 AM
To be honest bro, I'm not sure I really understood the general idea of his text, coz there is a lot of points metionend.

What I want to say (only about the points I understood), that he raised an interesting point, that muslims should not try to interpret the qur'an in a manner that it fits with modern science discoveries. And that's theoretically true because the qur'an is not just a book of science, though it's not in contradiction with science.
But His point is not really correct, because learned scholars today are not doing the (theoretical) mistake he discribed, because they present clear quranic verses that are evedences of modern scientific facts, and there's no ambiguity in these scientific interpretation in general. Besides, the scholars who make the research about the scientific miracles in the quran are also scientists not just islamically learned.

The second point is about the regression of muslims in modern science and scientific progress, while they where advanced in the medieval science (the first muslim scientists). And I felt that he means that "the quran/Islam is not opposite to the simple/medieval science so the muslims in the first centuries were encouraged by islam to excell in (medieval)science. but with the new advanced science (modern science) the islam is no more conform with it, and that's why muslims are today left behind in term of science". And his point here is not correct, because muslims today are retarded because of other factors (laziness, poverty, colonization, weakness of islam) not because the islam is opposite to modern science.

In a whole, don't think this book is a really sustained scientific essay, I think it's rather a litterary work, but Now, May be I should buy the book to get a better idea about it :/
Reply

Al-Indunisiy
04-30-2010, 04:56 AM
:sl:

The second point is about the regression of muslims in modern science and scientific progress, while they where advanced in the medieval science (the first muslim scientists). And I felt that he means that "the quran/Islam is not opposite to the simple/medieval science so the muslims in the first centuries were encouraged by islam to excell in (medieval)science. but with the new advanced science (modern science) the islam is no more conform with it, and that's why muslims are today left behind in term of science". And his point here is not correct, because muslims today are retarded because of other factors (laziness, poverty, colonization, weakness of islam) not because the islam is opposite to modern science.
This intrigues me, exactly, what are the differences between medieval and modern sciences that could be interpreted as the reason of modern muslims retardation?

And I also got this impression that he had an argument similar to secularists and some atheists: That the retardation is also caused by religious "fundamentalism"* and the hegemony of the religious authorities.

* Similar to some Protestant sects in the US.
** Similar to medieval Europe under the Papacy.

:wa:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Lynx
05-02-2010, 06:08 PM
Well, I think the review is definitely on to something. Scientific evidence and the like are not really the grounds for religious conversion basically because, unlike what Marwen says, they are NOT unambiguous. Again, the best example is the theory of evolution which is the accepted biological paradigm at the moment and it is contradictory with the Quran. What's more, most people are laymens in science so they wouldn't be able to tell which verses are the 'miraculous' ones. Only a scientist would be able to tell and most scientists in the West are not Muslim so go figure.

Anyway, I hope I can maybe shed some light into the question asked by Indunisiy. The main difference between the Medieval Islamic sciences and modern sciences is basically that in the medieval times there was a presupposition that God exists and the Quran is the word of God. The problem becomes clear; how can you do science if you already have some theoretical framework assumed that not scientifically verifiable or logically verifiable? Research comes out biased. Modern science is supposed to start with no presumptions and knowledge is built up from nothing. The second difference is that medieval science was essentially Aristotelian natural philosophy. Modern science has long broken away from Aristotle's philosophical limitations. Of course, no body practices Aristotle's natural science anymore but in the medieval times it was quite fashionable.

My point is that with the background assumption of God and the Quran it is necessarily limiting their science because any scientific evidence that appears is going to be rejected if it contradicts the Quran or somehow shows God is nonexistent. For example, evolution is taught by every university in Europe & North America & and universities around the world like in India China, Japan etc. But Muslims don't accept it because it contradicts the Quran. There is *less* evidence for other things that are accepted by Muslims because those things are not a threat to the veracity of the Quran.
Reply

جوري
05-02-2010, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Well, I think the review is definitely on to something. Scientific evidence and the like are not really the grounds for religious conversion basically because, unlike what Marwen says, they are NOT unambiguous. Again, the best example is the theory of evolution which is the accepted biological paradigm at the moment and it is contradictory with the Quran. What's more, most people are laymens in science so they wouldn't be able to tell which verses are the 'miraculous' ones. Only a scientist would be able to tell and most scientists in the West are not Muslim so go figure.

Anyway, I hope I can maybe shed some light into the question asked by Indunisiy. The main difference between the Medieval Islamic sciences and modern sciences is basically that in the medieval times there was a presupposition that God exists and the Quran is the word of God. The problem becomes clear; how can you do science if you already have some theoretical framework assumed that not scientifically verifiable or logically verifiable? Research comes out biased. Modern science is supposed to start with no presumptions and knowledge is built up from nothing. The second difference is that medieval science was essentially Aristotelian natural philosophy. Modern science has long broken away from Aristotle's philosophical limitations. Of course, no body practices Aristotle's natural science anymore but in the medieval times it was quite fashionable.

My point is that with the background assumption of God and the Quran it is necessarily limiting their science because any scientific evidence that appears is going to be rejected if it contradicts the Quran or somehow shows God is nonexistent. For example, evolution is taught by every university in Europe & North America & and universities around the world like in India China, Japan etc. But Muslims don't accept it because it contradicts the Quran. There is *less* evidence for other things that are accepted by Muslims because those things are not a threat to the veracity of the Quran.
Note to mods: I can't for some reason place quotes around text.. pls rectify this problem.. 1- Science by its very nature is ever correcting, whereas I agree that science and religion are two separate fields, religion if truly from God isn't at odds with science! Now, you can sing and dance until your blue in the face about evolution as you 'as a layman' understand it but your understanding is still that of a lay man.. until you can take the theoretical to a practical test controlled experimentation with hard data, it so shall remain, another form of belief albeit a little more polished to fit with the tides. 2- How do you know that scientists aren't Muslim? you have surveyed the scientific community? as it so happens 'scientists' makeup only 1% of om the MD sort are even of the world's population and I am certain that you don't belong to that community to figure who is Muslim and who isn't.. in fact as it seems more scientific research comes out of Iran than the western world .. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-country.html amazing ain't it? anyhow I don't feel like tackling the rest as I do agree with some points you raise, but the rest if dressed up in your usual artifice and pretense and I am too bored to take off my weekend to unravel.. To the O.P.. I haven't personally read the book and I have no interest to learn of someone else' opinion of what Islam or science have to offer! all the best
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-02-2010, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Well, I think the review is definitely on to something. Scientific evidence and the like are not really the grounds for religious conversion basically because, unlike what Marwen says, they are NOT unambiguous. Again, the best example is the theory of evolution which is the accepted biological paradigm at the moment and it is contradictory with the Quran. What's more, most people are laymens in science so they wouldn't be able to tell which verses are the 'miraculous' ones. Only a scientist would be able to tell and most scientists in the West are not Muslim so go figure.

Anyway, I hope I can maybe shed some light into the question asked by Indunisiy. The main difference between the Medieval Islamic sciences and modern sciences is basically that in the medieval times there was a presupposition that God exists and the Quran is the word of God. The problem becomes clear; how can you do science if you already have some theoretical framework assumed that not scientifically verifiable or logically verifiable? Research comes out biased. Modern science is supposed to start with no presumptions and knowledge is built up from nothing. The second difference is that medieval science was essentially Aristotelian natural philosophy. Modern science has long broken away from Aristotle's philosophical limitations. Of course, no body practices Aristotle's natural science anymore but in the medieval times it was quite fashionable.

My point is that with the background assumption of God and the Quran it is necessarily limiting their science because any scientific evidence that appears is going to be rejected if it contradicts the Quran or somehow shows God is nonexistent. For example, evolution is taught by every university in Europe & North America & and universities around the world like in India China, Japan etc. But Muslims don't accept it because it contradicts the Quran. There is *less* evidence for other things that are accepted by Muslims because those things are not a threat to the veracity of the Quran.
Which Muslims are retarded in science? Go and see, some of the best medical doctors are from Pakistan. Go and see the publications of Dr. Atta ur Rahman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atta_ur_Rahman He is a Pakistani chemist with more than 700 publications. He might not be an orthodox Muslim (I am not sure what his beliefs are exactly) but he shared some of the opinions of my friend so I take he is Muslim at the very least. "Prof. Rahman is the first scientist from the Muslim world to have won the prestigious UNESCO Science Prize (1999) in the 35 year old history of the Prize. He was elected as Fellow of Royal Society (London) in July 2006 thereby becoming the one of the 4 scientists from the Muslim world to have ever won this honour conferred by the prestigious 360 year old scientific Society. "from wiki

And ooh, my friend is an orthodox Muslim and is finishing up his PhD at Oxford University. Anyways. So, No, Muslims are not retarded in science. Rather they are brilliant, sometimes more than their European counterparts.

I have yet to come across any scientific info that I have gained which contradicted with what I knew of Allah (swt). There has never been and there never will be.

The scientific and technological stagnation of the Muslim world is related to the governmental apparatus and culture of these countries. We have inherited the atrocities history of the Colonialists (is it a coincidence that most Colonialists were White people? Dutch, English, French, Spanish?) and our ancestors have suffered a lot. Scientific development only takes stronghold when you know that you have enough food to survive each day.

Regarding your comment about existence of God and Quran being word of God, how is that a matter of scientific investigation? Even if one assumes that Quran is a word of God, one can be an excellent scientist based on their discoveries compared to the scientist who does not believe in God. In other words, science has nothing to do with these claims. My presupposition that Quran is word of God has no effect on my scientific activities. And I have never pre-supposed that Quran is a word of God at least since I've developed a curious mind. Rather Quran itself led me from null conclusion to a positive conclusion.
Reply

Masuma
05-06-2010, 11:51 AM
Bismillah Hir Rahman Nir Rahim.


Asalamu Alikum Wa Rehmatullahi Wa Barakatuh!


(uff...! The forum is all messed up! :exhausted and my three posts lost! lost for forever...!!! WHY!:laugh: they were just so innocent!...didn't hurt anybody ever...hate forum updating...)
Well the Review seems to me to be just a “desperate attempt to show that Muslims (Reviewer in this case) are in harmony with the non-Muslims (Dr. Edis) on many points!”

I think that there is very less or maybe nothing to agree with!

This guy, Edis, is trying his best to belittle the brilliant achievements of the Muslims in the field of science.
Concepts like God, divine purposes etc were not integral to the whole enterprise (as he is propounding) rather they were the REASONS to acquiring and interpreting knowledge!

It was the blessings of :quran: that encouraged Muslims to read and write (Iqra: the very first revelation on Prophet :arabic5:!) And only this encouragement made Muslims excel in fields of science and medicine. And I’m not ****ting here like this guy, Edis. If anyone disagrees with me here, I suggest him/her to read history.

And I don’t know why the hell he goes on saying that “the Muslim attempts in scientific fields have similarities to Western religious communities”!
Early Churches taught Earth to be flat and at the centre of the universe and whoever disagreed with their concepts, he only quickened his death.
Islam contradicted many old widely accepted theories; didn’t limit knowledge in any way but in fact, made it a DUTY of every Muslim to seek it! The Western communities struggled AGAINST their religion for science’s sake whereas the Muslims struggled IN their religion for it.
OH I SEE MANY SIMILARITIES HERE!

Now below are some questions and points mentioned:


  1. If the Holy Quran IS mentioning a scientific fact which was never told of before and if the translation is also correct then where is the problem? (Now please don’t try to engage me into a discussion related to the ambiguity or unambiguity of the verses as the verses ARE unambiguous. But if someone wants a discussion about it then a scholar learned in Arabic language might be of some help.)
  2. Edis talks about the disadvantages of God’s intervention in scientific progress. But I don’t understand how God intervenes in it. Is this Edis a Christian?
  3. One simple thing which Edis failed to realize is that Quran would never go against any scientific LAW. Quran may or may not go against theories (as theories many a times take U-turn) but it’s a CHALLENGE that Quran would never go against any established scientific Law!
  4. Then he gives out a very wrong statement. Europeans didn’t just “stumbled upon modern science by a series of accidents…or they got lucky”. They took it from Muslims!!! (…translated Arabic Muslim scientific books; taught them in their universities and now so blatantly denies Muslims’ contribution to their knowledge. How ungrateful!)
  5. And oh my, my! ;D How desperate to propound that Quran only took ideas and copied them from the previous philosophers, by his statement “…religious texts preserve fragments of ancient cosmologies rather than prophesy modern scientific developments”. Well my Dr. Zakir Naik’s lecture of Quran and modern science” can nullify it all in just one go!
  6. Reviewer calls it apologetic...(Hnnnhh! :mad:) APOLOGETIC? To present the simple FACT that Quran and modern science are compatible?!
  7. …didn’t catch the main idea in the last part…Who is planning to write a piece describing religion? Ayman H Fadel? Oh no! :scared: how little then I’ll find things agreeable. :exhausted (Chalo…, I leave it on ALLAH!)
  8. The Reviewer gives his comment that “he has never heard of an American becoming a Muslim because of the “scientific miracle” of the Quran.” So I pity him for his weak knowledge. The very person he mentions in his review, Dr. Keith Moore; he was the one who accepted Islam due to the “scientific miracle” of the Quran! (Note: People, I’m not sure whether he was Keith Moore or Dr. Bucaille :embarrass: but I know of a surety that he was one of the two.) Some Arab Muslims presented him with the verses of the Quran related to embryology. He researched on them and was startled at the truth in the verses! So he embraced Islam. Subhan Allah!
  9. The reviewer comments further “…in fact, personal relationships, and ultimately God’s guidance and grace, are really the only things I’ve heard Muslim reverts/converts talk about.” I think that he is MISSING A LOT IN HERE. Of course it is always God’s guidance as Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud writes in the preface of his book “Muhammad :arabic5: in the Bible” that “…without this Divine guidance all learning, search and other efforts to find Truth may even lead one astray :statisfie”. But we should realize that Allah gives guidance through different channels fitting different individual’s interests. Some may give science a higher authority in their life and so “scientific miracles” of the Quran would be more appealing to them. On the other hand, some may accept “linguist styles” as a bigger authority and so might get impressed through the “linguistic style of Quran”. I don’t know why but I feel like as if there is a burning desire among some non-Muslims to see Muslims give up the use of “scientific miracles of the Quran”! The reasons I can think of is that they envy it; they know how much powerful this technique is; they know it’s very appealing and so they want us to abandon it!
  10. I want to add that non-Muslims should realize that Quran is not a book of Science but it is a book of SIGNS! But Muslims use science to prove Quran’s authenticity to those who take science as their ultimate criteria for judging things.


So the above part is my understanding of the book and it’s review. Some may disagree with me and call me wrong but I request them to not just “say” but SHOW me how I’m. I may edit this post sometime later to add useful links. And I also think that there is a need to first read the whole book and then give any further reviews of my own.

So is this book available in PaKistan? :?
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!