Greetings HeiGou,
I apologise for the late reply; I only just realised that you had responded to my last post in this thread. I hope you don't mind, but I have rearranged a few of the quotes in a different order to help me reply appropriately.
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 thought the contradiction was quite clear. You can see from
this link about the people in question, that the studies went beyond simply looking at cloud shapes and as far as going on to forecast weather! So bearing this in mind, would you not agree that the scientific study of clouds is not a modern phenomena at all but something that has already been initiated during the Golden Age of Islam?
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.
I shall explain again why I feel you have shifted your position: first you said that Muslims did not contribute to the area of cloud formation at all, but then you admitted that they did and argued that they hadn't contributed for a long time. My point was that it doesn't matter when the contributions were made, the fact is that they were. I don't want to argue about the matter any more than is necessary, so I am not looking to pursue it
.
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?
The knowledge about the inital celestial matter.
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.
What I was referring to here was this:
The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).
The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.
My source shows quite clearly that it is not a gas but a fourth state of matter.
OK, let us put aside the scientific theory about what plasma is; it is considered a fourth state of matter, and though it is different to a gas, it is somewhat similar, or at least closest to, a gas in description than it would be to a liquid or solid. What I am going to say next is related to what you said later:
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.
Most certainly, had God wanted to use the word 'plasma', he could have. The thing to bear in mind however, is what effect this would have had on the Arab community in which such a word was being introduced? We know that they were not in any position to make scientific advances, nor was it their area of speciality. Hence it would seem much more appropriate to use a simple term for a layman that conveys the concept being discussed, without requiring complex scientific knowledge to understand. So when we know that the time in which such words were revealed was so far behind in science, it makes the emergence of such science all the more miraculous. Regarding pointing Muslims towards America: I don't really see what advantage there would be to that. Anyway, you say on this subject:
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?
Using simple language or complex language is not a criteria for the validity of a scientific concept. So long as the simple description does not contradict the complex one, there is no reason to believe that the author of those simple words was not aware of the science in question. If you wanted to explain a complex process to a child, you would use simpler terms than you would use to a physicist, yet this does not indicate a lack of knowledge.
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.
I don't think that is the case at all. Given the context of the verse and understanding the terms used, there is little room to stray from the correct meaning. Are there any other interpreations that you have in mind by any chance? Both the plain meaning and a detailed look at the meaning give the same message... no torturing necessary. Another point you made was:
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.
The scientific information in the Qur'an is not considered to replace the textbooks of science from which we learn, rather it is pointing out to us the Creation of God and the complex processes that He has power over and which are signs that indicate His existence. The main purpose behind the Qur'an is to guide mankind to the truth, not solely to teach them science. So this is why it is useful and it should not be confused with a "science textbook".
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.
You are wrong here. While any bit of text can be taken out of context and sometimes made to mean something other than what was intended, this is not the case with the Qur'an because detailed exegesis of it has taken place for hundreds of years where knowledge and evidence is used to interpret its verses. So if someone decides to interpret a verse according to his own needs, then reference can be made to the correct understanding of those verses and the issue clarified. As for your claim that western scientists found the scientific information first, (note than no specific western scientists have been named by you), this is a false notion since we have the likes of Ibn Hajar, a 14th century Muslim scholar, who stated that,
“ the anatomists claim that the fetus is created from menstrual blood of women, but the Islamic passages reject and refute their ideas” which shows that Muslims had the correct understanding from a medical perspective by reading the Qur'an. You can read more quotes from Islamic sources
here.
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.
How can it "all start with Dr. Maurice Bucaille", who was born in 1920, when we had so many Muslim advancements in science centuries before?! An example of this would be Ibn Hajar - a
14th century scholar! I am not referring to the specific notion of 'smoke' meaning 'plasma', but rather science in general, and Dr. Maurice's work on the subject might not be as invalid as you seem to believe... you have been trying to say that he was
bribed to write the works he did, yet I found the following information:
The background in which Dr. Maurice Bucaille was prompted to write the book predates his contact with King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Prior to that he happened to visit Cairo in connection with an official task assigned to a team of experts... In the course of his work, Dr. Bucaille learnt from some Egyptian acquaintances that the Qur’an, while referring to the incident of the drowning of Pharaoh in the ocean, records the fact that his body will be preserved "to be a sign for those who come later". (10: 92). Dr. Bucaille was struck by this information supplied by his Egyptian friend for he knew that before the 19th century, when some British archaeologists had discovered the mummy of Ramses II by deciphering the inscriptions of the old Phoenician language, nobody in the whole world knew about the existence of this mummy.
This made Dr. Bucaille curious to find out the exact wording of the Qur’an on this subject and to explore the other contents of the Qur’an that might have any bearing on the themes of modern science. He was also intrigued by the fact that despite a detailed description of this story in the Old Testament, there is no mention there of the preservation of the body of Ramses. This observation led him to carefully compare the Bible and the Qur’an from the point of view of modern scientific knowledge.
Dr. Bucaille was, however, not prepared to be satisfied with the translated version of the Qur’an which was then available to him. At that time, however, he was completely innocent of any knowledge of Arabic. Soon thereafter, he happened to be invited by late King Faisal and struck a personal friendship with him. This liaison with King Faisal and sojourn in Saudi Arabia afforded him an opportunity to know more about Islam through his discussions with the late king who also helped him learn the Arabic language (p.126). Dr. Bucaille thereafter seriously devoted his time and attention to learning Arabic so as to be able to study the Qur’an and to satisfy his scientist’s curiosity about its contents. (SOURCE)
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.
None of this addresses the point I made at all, but is repeating previous arguments - some of which I have already answered. I mentioned that you did not provide any evidence for western scientists pointing out the science in the Qur'an to Muslims. This does not have anything to do with Dr. Maurice Bucaille, and once again I have to say that Muslims never claim to have come up with the Big Bang theory! There are some aspects of it that Muslims may agree with, yet nobody has said that the full-fledged theory was founded by the Muslims. It also does not make sense to claim that western scientists recognised the scientific information first, because we already know how Islam was going through a Golden Age when Europe was in a state of darkness. During such a time, Muslims were the leaders in the field of science and were thus in a better position to understand the Qur'an than Westerners might have been. Ibn Hajar can be quoted again as an example.
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.
I think these are misconceptions on your part. The Qur'an agreeing with science is the miracle itself, so if you can recognise the agreement you have recognised the miracle; how could an illiterate man produce a scripture agreeing to scientific facts that would only be discovered centuries later?
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.
What is unsubstantiated is that there is no evidence to prove what you are saying. How do you know this is what Muslims have done - maybe there are many that you have not heard about!
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.
Ibn Hajar?
What events? I will try to follow this clarification, but it seems difficult.
Events such as the heaven and the earth initially being one entity and then split apart, and also as being smoke-like/plasma in nature.
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.
I have already answered the first part about Muslims realising science from the Qur'an... and pointing out Muslim scientists was not an opinion, it is a fact, and all you have to do is go to the links I gave you and have a look at some of the references.
Let me know which of my claims you think are not factual.
Claims like people being bribed to lie about the Qur'an, and Westerners finding all the information from the Qur'an rather than Muslims.
Either Muslims referred to the Big Bang before the West did, or they did not. I think they did not.
I think what happened was that Muslims always viewed it as God creating the Universe, and when the West founded the theory of the Big Bang - i.e. creation from a scientific perspective, the Muslims found some of their beliefs were confirmed by the scientific findings, thus proving their belief.
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?
I don't see how the latter statement must require proof if the former doesn't. Both of them require evidence if such claims are to be made. I have already referred many times to the Golden Age of Islam, and you will find non-Muslims recognising and valuing the achievements of Muslims. I am sure that the Qur'an contributed in many ways to their success, but if what you mean is that all the science was read from the Qur'an as though it were written out in a textbook, then this is not what I have been saying. Most of the research and scientific progression was more likely to have been through investigation.
Well yes they are or I would not be in this thread.
No, they are not; what they are saying is that the Qur'an contains much information that agrees with modern science,
not that the Qur'an contains every last detail about science and renders further study into it futile.
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?
I don't know, but I can be quite sure that observatories were not destroyed in order to try and cover up contradictions with the Qur'an. The same goes for book censorship. There could be many other reasons for this... maybe the books were breaking Islamic Law, eg. containing immoral content or promoting bad things? Can you provide evidence that any of this happened
because people were hiding things about the Qur'an (or whatever it was you claimed)?
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).
The practice of idol worship is something that is devoid of wisdom, though this does not mean that all other pursuits of the idol worshipper must also be devoid of any intellect or wisdom. Incidentally, are you sure Aristotle was an idol worshipper? What I read indicates he had little religion in his philosophy.
Regarding killing female infants, are you saying that just because these people established some kind of civilisation, it must mean that the practice is acceptable? I thought it would be quite easy to see that it is an abominable action, and surely, without it, a civilisation can be much more enhanced. And this concept is illustrated very well in the example of the Islamic way of life reforming Arabia and expanding its borders, as mentioned earlier.
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.
After every point I make, rather than accepting the obvious explanation, you seem to be desperate to find a point to make in refusal to accept it - and all these points are just as flimsy as each other. The above point has no basis whatsoever and is not even worthy of being replied to.
Any child can stare at the Universe and the stars at night and be awed without knowing anything about the Universe.
Yet his curiosity will lead him to find out more about it as soon as he becomes capable of study...
I do not mind the idea that this encourages the contemplation of the Universe. But the study of it?
Is it so hard to accept that contemplation may lead to study?
I am sorry but how is this relevant?
It was in response to your statement,
"Nor is that a call to study the Universe, but an assertion that anyone who does study the Universe will be struck in wonder with it and praise God for creating it", thus putting into context the fact that such praise to God for creating a wonderful thing and recognising His signs in it are a means of forgiveness and reward from Him.
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?
I think the implication is that studying science as a means of coming nearer to God, recognising His signs and realising His greatness and worthiness of being praised and worshipped is commended, rather than simply studying science without showing any Islamic commitment.
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.
We should be aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scientists (such as Ibn Sina, Ibn Khaldun, Al-Kindi etc.) were true Muslims and hoped to be guided in every respect by their faith.
Here is a good link about myths and fallacies surrounding the decline of Muslim Civilisation:
http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/QuestionIs2.pdf
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"?
Sure - I assume you are referring to post #346, just under the blue quote of the Qur'anic verse. Where I said 'does not prohibit" could easily have been replaced by "encourages" - I see what you mean by the difference in the two terms and I feel that both are applicable.
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 am sorry if I am generalising, but when it says "
Western man ceased to bathe" I assumed it included America. Furthermore, it said that teaching Americans to bathe had the active opposition of the "
medical profession", not only a
single member of it.
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?
Well to me the Turkish bath seems to be similar to what people nowadays call a 'sauna'. Men simply sit in a hot room while covering their private areas and then go and have a shower in private. All Muslims are required to cover their private areas in front of each other, so I think this amounts to sufficient evidence for believing this was the practice of Muslims in the past, and unless
you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I don't see where the problem is.
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.
I think you are just refusing to accept the facts... obviously we purify ourself with clean water, and you have no reason to believe that this purifying could not have had hygienic benefits. How do you know what the intent actually is?
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?
This is something that could happen to anyone, irrespective of whether it was a religious duty or not. If it became known that the water was harmful, then obviously we should avoid any contact with it, but if nobody knew it was harmful then no precaution could be taken, especially since the effects would be on a micro level. I don't think this would make a person impure though.
Here is another link for you, showing the numerous teachings of cleanliness in Islam, many of which are obvious hygiene actions that act to improve our hygiene and by doing so, please God:
http://www.iad.org/intro/intro.html
I thought you had shown me the importance of purification in Islam. They are still not the same thing.
No, I think it was more specifically cleanliness/hygiene.
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.
How is that intent clear?! If you have reason to believe that the Muslim way of life is unhygienic, then please let me know, otherwise please accept the fact that it is among the many things that Muslims exceeded the West in.
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.
True, though it is not the type of purification that we are discussing here.
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.
I am not trying to say that it can be used to replace today's scientific knowledge, but rather how it cannot be contradicted and how miraculous is its resemblance despite its period of revelation.
Just out of interest do you know of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan?
No, I don't think I do.
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?
It wasn't a barrier to science. You can easily realise this by referring to the link about about myths and fallacies. As to why he was declared a heretic, I would guess it was due to his rebelling against Islamic teachings.
What do you think Afghani was struggling against?
You might be generalising a very narrow period in history here, and I very much doubt this can represent much of the Islamic community. The thing is though, neither of the two people you have made reference to address the point I made. I asked whether there were any scholars who claimed the
Qur'an was a science textbook as it were, yet you have found vague quotes alleging Islam to be a barrier to scientific inquiry.
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.
OK, if you cannot prove that not a single one of them did, why do you still make such claims as:
"This can be shown by the fact that no Muslims thought it said what modern apologists argue it says until Western scientists pointed out what it said"? This is quite misleading as I hope you will agree, not to mention untrue!
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.
People didn't need Afghani to tell them this fact; if they did, they wouldn't have excelled in the subject centuries before his time!
The problem there is the word "any". Anything miraculous perhaps.
I hope having a look at the works of Ibn Hajar will alleviate this problem
.
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.
I assume this is according to the Big Bang theory. All in all, let us not forget the reason behind mentioning this hadith, which was to show how current and previous interpretations of the Qur'an are the same and did not change because of some western scientists.
Sure but those earlier views were different.
I have just given an example of how they are the same.
Peace.
