By "apologetics" I assume you mean people who are defending the truth against falsehood, which is a concept I agree with.
I mean it in the nicer sense of the word.
The study of clouds cannot be a modern phenomenon if I am providing information on people who studied the subject centuries ago. I already told you about Ibn Doraid Al-Azdi whom you can read about
You can also read about Ibn Sina's (Avicenna's) Contribution to the field
I read. I see no contradiction with what I said but then I wouldn't. The proper scientific study of clouds is a modern phenomena. As far as I can see these gentlemen studied cloud shapes, but I hope to work out exactly what they did soon and get back to you if need be.
I find it quite strange how you have shifted your position on the matter, however. First you said that "any work done on cloud formation has been done by non-Muslims", yet now you admit that Muslims did in fact make contributions when you say "Muslims have not made major contributions to that process for a long long time." Seeing as how the actual discussion was about any contributions rather than when they happened; we do not need to start a new one.
I do not think I have shifted position. I do not care to argue over it much although if you do I'll follow. The science of cloud formatiom is one thing. Science as a whole is another. Muslim contributions to either is a third.
You have just shown from your own source that plasma is indeed a form of gas. It might be ionised, but it's still gas-like in consistency.
My source shows quite clearly that it is not a gas but a fourth state of matter. If you want to dispute this please do but I do not see the need to waste time on it. What it is not is smoke.
The exact qualities of the smoke in question have not been defined, yet I have seen explanations of the Arabic word referring to a "hot gas". It seems to me like plasma and smoke can refer to the same thing, especially if using the word smoke metaphorically as often words are in the Qur'an.
Which sort of proves the point I am trying to make. I do not care if the Quran is deemed to agree with science. As long as no one argues that it serves any useful purpose and a science textbook.
]Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word “smoke” is more appropriate than gas. The following Quranic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dukhan which means smoke:
«"Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... "» [41:11]
Smoke is even less appropriate than gas. Whatever the galaxy was, it was not smoke. Nor was it a gas of course. Moreover it was a singularity - the entire Universe was a single point. Nothing like a gas. Less like smoke.
What possible reasoning can there be to claim that "smoke" is more appropriate than "gas" when it is a plasma?
Again, this fact is a corollary to the “Big Bang” and was not known to mankind during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). What then, could have been the source of this knowledge?
What knowledge?
I think you mean this statement to refer to gases in general, since gases do not normally conduct electricity. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the point mentioned from the site above (in red) that referring to the initial celestial matter as smoke is more appropriate than gas. Smoke, as you pointed out, can refer to "a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium" rather than a simple gas. By this definition, there is no reason to believe it cannot achieve the temperature needed for conduction. There is also no reason to believe that it contradicts the meaning of 'plasma'. Scientists themselves have used the word 'smoke' when describing the early stage of the Universe, as I quoted in my previous post.
Name that scientist. Any one. Gases do not usually conduct. This is the distinction between gases and plasmas as a general rule. Whatever the Universe was, it was not a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles - there being no solids or liquids at the time and no particles of heavier elements worth mentioning either.
Continuing with the discussion of the usage of the word 'smoke'; I think an important point to bear in mind is that the Qur'an was revealed to a non-scientific community a very long time ago before the Big Bang theory was developed. Allaah often uses simple terminology to explain complex processes, for example in the verses describing embryological development:
23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
25:61 Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
Seeing as the Qur'an is not a science textbook; it has no need of using advanced scientific jargon to convey its message of clarity, and being addressed to the whole of humanity, it appeals to both scientific and non-scientific minds alike.
But this devalues its status as a miracle. I do not deny any of this, but think how useful it would have been if it clearly and unambiguously did the scientific equivalent of pointing Muslims towards America? God chose not to do this. Because after all God knows what a plasma is. Had He chosen to make the Quran refer to one, he could have.
The problem with the claim that it uses simple terminology to explain complex processes is the assumption that it does describe a complex process - you are assuming what you claim the Quran proves - knowledge of science. Where does it use complex language to describe a complex process? This is the same problem with the embryology - if you torture "Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation" you can make it mean all sorts of things. But if you go with the plain meaning of the actual words you are dealing with a whole different kettle of fish.
Well this supports what I said before: it would have been harder for them to grasp the meaning of something they were utterly unaware of, hence the usage of a simpler word in place of a more complex one. The fact that they did not know most of what modern scientists do only proves the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, since it described to them scientific things that have only been verified now, and those very same descriptions are valid today.
Except it is only now, in retrospect, that Muslims have become aware that the Quran refers to these things. It would be equally possible to prove that all sorts of texts referred to all sorts of scientific miracles if you put your mind to it. Now maybe the Quran does refer to such miracles. I have my doubts. But it was and is not useful in that no one knew that until it was pointed out. The science had to be discovered the Kafir way before Muslims became aware that it meant something in the Quran.
For your information, I believe it was Muslims who first found the scientific information in the Qur'an, not "paid hacks".
I would be happy if you could correct me but to the best of my knowledge this all started with Dr. Maurice Bucaille. If you know of anyone who argued that "smoke" meant "plasma" before the Good Doctor I would appreciate it if you would let me know.
I think that would be you, actually: firing statements about westerners discovering the science in the Qur'an and Muslims learning it from them and then interpreting the Qur'an with it... all these and such others weren't backed up with any reason or proof at all; just mere 'thinking aloud' as it were, to say the least.
What evidence do you want? Are you denying the importance of Dr. Maurice Bucaille and his ground breaking work? Where do Muslims refer to the Big Bang before the West does? It is impossible to prove a negative - just as it is impossible to prove Santa Claus does not exist. If you know of anyone who argued for scientific miracles earlier I would like to know.
I'm not suggesting that Muslims or the Qur'an agree with all the latest scientific theories, as these reject the very notion of God and are therefore unacceptable. There are elements in science that the Qur'an agrees with, but that does not mean it subscribes to the fully blown theories (held by "modern scientists") behind them.
I agree there are elements of science that the Quran agrees with. No problems with that. But the claim that there are miracles of science in the Quran is, to me, problematic, and the claim that science proves the Quran is true is worse, but worst of all is the assumption that science is not important because Muslims have the Quran - that is positively dangerous.
Another one of your unsubstantiated fantasies.
Really? Sorry I missed it. What is unsubstantiated about the claim that "In retrospect Muslims (or more accurately the scientists the Saudis pay) have gone back to the Quran and now argue that the Quran refers to things unsuspected by previous generations of Muslims"? Name me a science work by a Muslim that pre-dates the Big Bang that actually refers to the Big Bang and I will go and look it up. All you need to do is produce one single Muslim who knew about any advanced science without experimenting or using scientific means, solely through the Quran, before the West did.
There seems to be some confusion here. I clarified in my earlier post that:
It does not make sense to claim the Qur'an was talking about a Big Bang theory since it wasn't even invented at the time, as you said, and secondly it isn't favoured by Muslims in modern times anyway. What I was saying is that the Qur'an mentions similar events that scientists believe to have occurred around the time of the creation of the Universe. They explain these events by their theory of the Big Bang whereas the Qur'an attributes them to God's Power.
What events? I will try to follow this clarification, but it seems difficult.
Well first you ask for sources suggesting Muslims realising scientific information in the Qur'an as well as working in the area before Westerners did; so I told you about the Golden Age of Islam which you then dismissed as a mere "opinion" of mine, whilst casting aside the fact that all your claims weren't exactly factual; and then when I showed that the scientific advances and contributions of Muslims was not my opinion but even recognised by the Western world, you resort to accusing me of changing the subject! So it's not changing the subject as I hope you will agree.
Actually you did not point me to a single person in the Golden Age of Islam who were realising scientific information from the Quran. What you did say was something else. Which was just an opinion. Let me know which of my claims you think are not factual. Either Muslims referred to the Big Bang before the West did, or they did not. I think they did not. What is not factual about that? To claim that Muslims were unaware of the Big Bang is a factual statement. To claim that Muslims led to the world in science and this was due to the Quran is an opinion - how do you prove that?
They didn't "decide" that the Qur'an told them the answers - you see you keep going back to the issue of the Qur'an being a science textbook even though I have agreed with you that it isn't! Please understand that nobody is claiming that.
Well yes they are or I would not be in this thread.
Where is your supporting evidence that all this happened: that books were censored and observatories destroyed etc.? As far as I'm aware, education was very much encouraged in those times and there was no such thing - nor is there now - as science contradicting the Qur'an. Books can't have been censored if they were later translated into various languages and admired by the western world.
Well the evidence of the destruction of observatories in the Ottoman period and in Central Asia is pretty strong. Before I go and look it up are you sure you want to deny it?
Books can also be passively censored remember - Muslims only translated part of the Classical tradition because they were not interested in other parts. There are also several cases where Muslim texts only survive in Hebrew or Western translations because the Muslims did not bother to retain any copies. So they can be censored, both actively and passively, and still exist in the West. After all generations of Arab intellectuals have published in the West or in Lebanon precisely to avoid the censorship at home.
Also, science has always said what God made it say from the beginning, i.e. no human can overlook what science can say and nobody can hide what science does, and likewise it was God Who decided what the Qur'an would say, hence there is no contradiction between the two and thus no need to hide or force anything.
Actually I have no problems with that.
Before Islam came, the Arabs were a barbarous people who worshipped idols of their own making, were capable of killing their own children and only followed what their forefathers had practiced. There were many ignorant practices and immoral activities in which they engaged; yet Islam eradicated all these practices and challenged their ignorance:
I do not accept that idol worship goes with igorance or a lack of intellect. Look at Ancient Greece - all those Muslims worked to translate Aristotle for a reason even though he was an idol worshiper. Nor is it impossible to go with killing infant girls. Look at China. In fact most civilisation until recently was the work of idolators who killed their baby girls (Greece, Rome, India and China).
And within a few decades, Islam, which emerged from the small town of Madinah, spread from Africa to Central Asia. The Arabs, who previously could not even rule a single city in harmony, came to be rulers of a world empire.
As obedience is needed to rule an Empire, I would suggest this means that Arabs used their minds a little too much before Islam and were much more disciplined after.
And how does one know what the "wonder of the Universe" is without studying it, thinking about it, observing and reflecting on it?
Any child can stare at the Universe and the stars at night and be awed without knowing anything about the Universe.
Perhaps it would help to appreciate the encouragement to contemplate God's Creation if we look at the verse which comes a bit later to complete the passage:
3:190 Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-3:191 Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.
I do not mind the idea that this encourages the contemplation of the Universe. But the study of it?
...
3:195 And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards."
I am sorry but how is this relevant?
Not only are such people who contemplate God's Creation and realise their purpose in life while being thankful to God, described as being "men of understanding" but among those whom God will reward immensely.
But that understanding is, obviously, religious not scientific. There were Muslims who studied the sciences but who were not pious. Some of them were downright rude about prophets and the like. Surely the Quran did not promise them eternal rewards?
What evidence do you have that the Muslim science declined because the "Ulema took over"? With regards to the historical record, I think it is a pretty accurate reflection considering how science in the Muslim world flourished so well.
Well not much - except the rough parallel in time. The more pious the government, the less interest scientists seemed to have in science. The Umayyads tolerated a lot and were not noted for their piety. Science did well. The Abbasids were more pious and science still did pretty well but less so over time. Ever since then science tended to flourish on the margins among the newly or partially converted people.
If you read the whole sentence, you will find that it says that the Qur'an contains all that we need of Guidance and religious knowledge... not science! And it doesn't matter whether I say "does not prohibit" or "encourages" because essentially, the point is that studying science is not something frowned upon.
I am sorry but I read that passage and cannot find where it says that. Would you mind just making it clear where it says "Guidance and religious knowledge"?
I think it matters but if you do not I am happy to move on.
Well I guess we won't know how big that "large class in the community" really was, considering how the article starts by making a large generalisation that "western man ceased to bathe". It also shows that even the medical profession, from whom we would expect better judgements, discouraged bathing!
It says "During the Dark Ages men ceased to bathe". As I said, you are taking one small part of Europe at one narrow point of time and generalising. It does not matter how big a proportion - your source does not support the claim that Americans did not bathe. It shows that one member of the medical profession was a little strange. Is that a surprise?
I wasn't aware that exposing oneself before others was necessary to take a bath, however, it did say that Muslims "adopted and adapted" the Roman bath, hence we don't need to assume they did everything exactly the same as them.
To answer your question: men are required to cover themselves from the navel to the knee.
I have read accounts of the bathing in the Muslim world. Perhaps you can tell me what the evidence is that they covered themselves from the navel to the knee (and presumable from the naval to the neck?) while bathing? I think that undressing is more or less required, but I might be wrong. In what did they swim?
Though will you not agree that purifying oneself, regardless of the method - religious or not, would improve their hygiene?
Depends what you purify yourself with. I am happy to support the idea in general that the Islamic rules, in so far as I understand them, would have contributed to hygene. But it remains true that was not their intent and there was no guarantee.
Those Prophetic teachings I mentioned were quite general, and made it quite clear that Muslims are commanded to cleanse themselves, which should make it clear that hygiene is very important in Islam and is not just a sense of performing rituals without any purpose.
But the purpose is to please God isn't it? Suppose that someone killed a chicken in a Hallal manner. And washed it in water contaminated with typhoid. Is the chicken Hallal? Suppose someone washed themselves before prayer in similar water. Are they "clean" in a ritual sense?
How do you know it's not the intent; I've just shown you the importance of hygiene in Islam!
I thought you had shown me the importance of purification in Islam. They are still not the same thing. And the intent is clear - the rules may help with hygene, but they are not the intent as something can be hygenic and not Hallal, and Hallal and not hygenic.
Sorry, I didn't understand the connection between this and the hygiene issue.
Pork is hygenic if slaughtered properly but it is still not "clean" in an Islamic sense. It cannot be purified so that a Muslim can eat it.
So you think Muslim populations are declining because they have poor hygiene?! And that is after I have said how highly Islam regards hygiene? I think that is a very poor hypothesis to say the least... did it occur to you that the Middle East is subject to many other factors such as poverty, war, corruption and lack of resources? I think they are far more likely to cause any decline in population numbers than a case of hygiene.
I think there was a time Muslim populations were declining although whether hygene had anything to do with it or not I am not sure. I expect it did. Egypt's population was probably about 3 million when the British took over. It was probably 10-12 million under the Romans. The Middle East is subject to a lot of other factors, but so was Europe, India and China.
Explanations and in-depth analyses are sometimes needed for people who find excuses to reject the meanings. The verse said 'smoke' yet you were determined to try and prove it wrong by giving detailed, miniscule explanations of what plasma is... have you ever thought about your torturing idea the other way round?
I am still not trying to prove it wrong - I am trying to show that you cannot use it as a claim of special scientific knowledge. If you want to say that the word "smoke" was used because Arabs would not have understood "plasma" please do. I am not torturing words. I am sticking to the clear and simple meaning of clear and simple words.
So these scholars claimed that the Qur'an was meant to teach people science and that it contained all aspects of science, without a need for us to study it further? If there are any, feel free to name them, though I doubt there are any of such description.
Just out of interest do you know of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan?
Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan had sought to show that Islam was no barrier to scientific inquiry and social progress. He was the first thinker, after the 1857 Muslim revolt against the British colonialists, to realize this pathetic condition of the Muslims. He attributed this condition to three causes: (1) the superstitious beliefs and practices that had entered Indian Islam (2) lack of emphasis on the assimilative and universal character of Islam and (3) the aversion of the Muslims to Western education. Against the opposition of the Ulama, who declared him as a heretic, Sayyed Ahmad Khan established the Anglo-Muhammadan College at Aligarh, the nucleus of the Muslim University of Aligarh, which created a new Muslim generation who believed in Islam and also favored modern trends. In his series of articles published in the "Tahzibul Akhlaq" and public speeches, he boldly spoke against the general and indiscriminate practice of polygamy, for modification of the doctrine of riba (interest) and against some punishments like stoning to death and cutting off of hands. He also explained the phenomenon of revelation and restricted Quran and Sunnah to devotional matters. In his opinion religious injunctions relating to social, economic and cultural matters were applicable to primitive societies.
Why did he seek to show Islam was no barrier to science if it was no barrier to science and why does the author think the ulama declared him a heretic?
Afghani was indignant that natural science was left out of the curriculum of Muslim educational establishments. He said: 'Those who imagine that they are saving religion by imposing a ban on some sciences and knowledge, are enemies of religion.' In an article, 'The Benefits of Study and Education", Afghani said that the misery in the Eastern countries was due to their ignoring "the noble and important role of the scientists". Afghani himself set a very high value on the public mission of the scientist. In December 1870, speaking at a conference on the progress of science and the crafts held in the New Istanbul University, Dar ul-funun, he described the scientist's work as missionary. He compared the scientist with a prophet, saying that prophecy is a craft (sanat) like medicine, philosophy, mathematics, and so on. The sole difference was that the prophet's verity was the fruit of inspiration, whereas scientific verity was the fruit of reason.
What do you think Afghani was struggling against?
You don't need to to give the thoughts of every single Muslim; yet I thought you might have some obvious reasoning behind your opinion. Seeing as I have shown how Muslims have made many great contributions to science, I don't quite see how it is possible to claim that no Muslim knew of any scientific detail in the Qur'an until the Westerners found them, considering the likelihood that Westerners probably hadn't even read the Qur'an before the Muslims did.
If you want me to prove that no Muslim thought something, you are clearly asking me to prove that not a single one of them did. The reasoning is the enormous struggle people like Afghani had to persuade Muslims that science was worth studying. He obviously succeeded but at the price of everyone denying there was a problem.
The problem there is the word "any". Anything miraculous perhaps.
Ah but of course the question is whether there really was a Big Bang or not! Maybe it is you who are wrong!
Have to say I don't like the Big Bang theory - it is the Big Crunch that depresses me. But it may be false. It is always possible.
I don't see how it "clearly suggests" that at all. The man specifically asked Ibn Abbaas about "when the heavens and earth were joined together".
Because for the odd billion year or so there was no Earth to be separated, nor was there any "earth" in the sense of heavier elements. The Sun is on a Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen Fusion Cycle. Every heavier element than that had to be produced in a bigger Sun than ours before it became part of the Earth. Think about the implications of that.
So neither the earth nor the heaven are a part of the Universe? I don't know what point you are making, though I can tell you that you seem to have missed mine: that earlier views on the Qur'an are preserved till this day.
Sure but those earlier views were different. The Earth is part of the Universe. And Heaven is a little more problematic.
.
