They Said About Islam

[Abu-Muadh]

THEY SAID ABOUT ISLAM

Source: http://asaala.net/viewTopic.php?topicID=487

Dr. Maurice Bucaille

Born in 1920, former chief of the Surgical Clinic, University of Paris, has for a long time deeply interested in the correspondences between the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and modern secular knowledge.

He is the author of a best-seller, " The Bible, The Qur'an and Science" (1976). His classical studies of the scriptural languages, including Arabic, in association with his knowledge of hieroglyphics, have allowed him to hold a multidisciplinary inquiry, in which his personal contribution as a medical doctor has produced conclusive arguments. His work, "Mummies of the Pharaohs -Modern Medical Investigations" (St. Martins Press, 1990) won a History Prize from the Académie Française and another prize from the French National Academy of Medicine.

His other works include: "What is the Origin of Man" (Seghers, 1988), "Moses and Pharaoh, the Hebrews in Egypt", (NTT Mediascope Inc, 1994); and "Réflexions sur le Coran" (Muhammad Talbi & Maurice Bucaille, Seghers, 1989)

After a study, which lasted ten years, Dr. Maurice Bucaille addressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 concerning the existence in the Qur'an of certain statements concerning physiology and reproduction. His reason for doing that was that:

"...our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur'an could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times."

"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?

How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human-being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"

[Trumble]

How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human-being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"

He couldn't... but didn't have to.

It is heavily disputed that there are any 'truths of a scientific nature' at all, let alone whether they contain the 'slightest error' or not. And not just by non-muslims. Bucaille is nowhere near as reliable source as you suggest, as has been covered at great lengths in assorted threads before... so I won't go there again.

'Bucaillism' does both Islam and the Qur'an a grave disservice in my opinion. In my very humble opinion, muslims concerned with what the Qur'an actually says (which I assume is all of them) would do well to carefully and critically compare the 'scientific' interpretations of Bucaille and others with previous, more conventional interpretations (paying particular attention to context), before accepting them.

[Philosopher]

He couldn't... but didn't have to.

It is heavily disputed that there are any 'truths of a scientific nature' at all, let alone whether they contain the 'slightest error' or not. And not just by non-muslims. Bucaille is nowhere near as reliable source as you suggest, as has been covered at great lengths in assorted threads before... so I won't go there again.

'Bucaillism' does both Islam and the Qur'an a grave disservice in my opinion. In my very humble opinion, muslims concerned with what the Qur'an actually says (which I assume is all of them) would do well to carefully and critically compare the 'scientific' interpretations of Bucaille and others with previous, more conventional interpretations (paying particular attention to context), before accepting them.

The ludacris claims made by the OP have already been debunked by atheists. I still dont see why people keep bringing it up.

[Abu-Muadh]

As-Salaam 'Alaykum dear brother,Trumble

Well, thank u very much for ur precious remarks, which may come to any body's mind. However, I could refute what u have said on the basis of two points:

We are not really concerned about what some people--including Bucaille--call the "scientific miraculous nature of the Qur'an", but we cannot also cast away the scientific interpretations of the Qur'an at all. Thus, there is a fine, but critical, line between the two concepts.
Bucaille's words and the like of him can be positivelly used to convince the western mind with the truth of Islam as the western mind is based in most cases on logic and tangible facts. Thus, using such logical premises may, logically, convince the westerners with the truth of Muhammad--peace be upon him--and at the same time refute the accusations of his authorship of the Qur'an.
Thus, we can see how important it is to use such premises for the benfit of Islam, and no one can deny the fact that many western scientists embraced Islam after they saw some of these scientific interpretations of the Qur'an in reality.

Was-Salaam!

Muhammad Diri from Imam Al-Albani Center for researches -Jordan

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

[Trumble]

Bucaille's words and the like of him can be positivelly used to convince the western mind with the truth of Islam as the western mind is based in most cases on logic and tangible facts. Thus, using such logical premises may, logically, convince the westerners with the truth of Muhammad--peace be upon him--and at the same time refute the accusations of his authorship of the Qur'an.

My final paragraph was written because I believe they actually do more harm than good to Islam in both those respects. In particular, if you set out to use such references to demonstrate that Mohammed alone, or with contemporaries, could not have authored the Qur'an you are laying yourselves wide open to accusations that he/they did as soon as any doubt is thrown on the validity of such 'scientific' references. IMHO, the doubt is such that the result is a huge 'own goal' for Islam.

It is all very well using 'logic' and 'tangible facts' until the context becomes nonsensical, the logic becomes inconsistent, the assumptions on which it is based on (primarily linguistic interpretations) dubious and the 'facts' (or claimed association with scientific ones) vague... which is true in most cases. The result is that many Westerners, including me, cannot take them seriously and that hardly enhances the chances of them taking the Qur'an seriously. Surely it is of some importance, if 'scientific' interpretations are to be used in the manner you suggest, that they be correct interpretations of the Qur'an? In their desire to embrace the 'miraculous' I think many muslims reach that conclusion far to readily, hence my suggestion of critical analysis before doing so.

Thus, we can see how important it is to use such premises for the benfit of Islam, and no one can deny the fact that many western scientists embraced Islam after they saw some of these scientific interpretations of the Qur'an in reality.

Actually I would certainly dispute that 'many' did, although perhaps some have. Depends how you define 'many' of course. The two most frequently cited on Islamic websites, Moore and Bucaille himself, never 'reverted'. In fact it's very hard to find any who claim to have done so. If you could find three from the several scientists regularly quoted (with varying degrees of contextual appropriateness) on popularist Islamic websiteswho actually reverted for that reason and are now practicing muslims, I'd be surprised. You could no doubt find many more scientists who have reverted, but who is to say that is not for more conventional reasons? Many become Christians and Buddhists, too.

[north_malaysian]

The two most frequently cited on Islamic websites, Moore and Bucaille himself, never 'reverted'. .

Of course it's from Muslim source:

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/issue...racedislam.htm

[Trumble]

Of course it's from Muslim source:

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/issue...racedislam.htm

"About my faith and belief, God knows what is in one's heart. I am convinced that if I identify myself with any creed, people will invariably dub me as one belonging to such and such group and feel that whatever I say or do, I do so from only the angle of such and such creed group."

That's not a reversion, its an excuse.

[north_malaysian]

"About my faith and belief, God knows what is in one's heart. I am convinced that if I identify myself with any creed, people will invariably dub me as one belonging to such and such group and feel that whatever I say or do, I do so from only the angle of such and such creed group."

That's not a reversion, its an excuse.

Actually God will look at your heart.... who's a Muslim and who's not. It not human being to judge who's muslim and who's not.... at the end ... It's God to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell...

It's a very good "excuse" for me..... whether he revert or not ... it's God to decide... not us.

[Trumble]

It not human being to judge who's muslim and who's not.... at the end ... It's God to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell...

Fair enough, of course.

[north_malaysian]

Yeah... regardless of his religious affiliation... Muslim..or..not..... I enjoy reading his books.

[Philosopher]

Just because you enjoy reading someone's book doesnt mean it's true.

[north_malaysian]

Just because you enjoy reading someone's book doesnt mean it's true.

of course...