The Future of Islam

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elishar
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 99
  • Views Views 12K
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think this is precisely the reason why science is so far behind in Islam today.

Look at Christianity in the history of science. For almost a thousand years, Europe was ruled by the Church and kings (mostly) loyal to it, or at the least dependent on it. The Church had a thriving community of "scholastics"—they were essentially scientists, but their starting point was the literal word of the Bible, and they were forbidden from pursuing any scientific endeavor that might contradict the Bible.

Then Copernicus and Galileo come along and suggest that the earth revolves around the sun. This contradicts the literal word of the Bible, which says the opposite. The Church has a hissy fit and almost sentences Galileo to death.

Luckily, the Church was weakening in power, and the Protestant Reformation meant that people now had the power to read the Bible their own way—which actually meant they could ignore parts of the Bible they didn't like. And this is exactly what happened. Scientists like Isaac Newton expanded on Galileo's theories and basically developed modern science as we know it today—and Newton was a heretic. After Newton, few people took the Bible literally, and today almost no Christians believe the sun revolves around the earth, even though this is exactly what the Bible says. Furthermore, most Christians in the world believe in evolution, even though this contradicts the Bible as well.

In other words—the rise of science in the West coincides with the fall of religion. Science only took root when it was allowed to question some of the central claims in the Bible.

Islam is going to have a problem if it does not allow science to do the same with the Quran. For example, evolution is the basis of modern biology and medicine. It is extremely, extremely difficult to practice biology or research medicine without believing in evolution. But evolution contradicts the literal word of the Quran.


I am unaware of any such experiments. Can you provide links?


I don't think this is quite true. European scholastics, under the church, encountered Muslim advances in these areas in the 1200's. But Europe didn't really wrest itself from the dark ages until the 1500's and 1600's, when the scientific revolution happened.

I think Islamic science certainly contributed to the scientific revolution, mostly because it kept the works of Greek philosophers alive.

But I guess it's possible Europeans smelled a bit better after they encountered Islamic advances. :)


Ha, thanks. I do too.

I just don't think it's possible to do science with starting assumptions like the ones you've mentioned. The word "science," as it's used today, refers to a very specific methodology that is based on naturalism—this doesn't necessarily rule out "supernatural" forces, but if it encounters something which appears to contradict known laws (i.e. supernatural) it seeks to understand it by experimentation.

A good example is gravity. Under Isaac Newton, gravity was basically a magical force. Nobody had any idea how it worked, it was almost supernatural. But then Einstein showed precisely how gravity works in combination with space and time, and we had to abandon Newton's worldview for Einstein's. Gravity is still a mysterious force—but as we learn more and more about it, it seems less and less supernatural.

Similarly, science doesn't necessarily rule out the existence of gods. If it ever encounters a phenomenon that resembles a god, scientists will test it and try to form theories around it, and incorporate it into what we already know about the universe. But you see how this is very different from assuming at the outset that a god exists and ignoring anything that contradicts that assumption.

I mean, you could certainly do that, but I don't think it should be called "science."

I have never come across a book that says "fact of evolution" I also know many scientists, who actually reject this theory. I think it was actually from the biologists that claimed that certain organs in our body is irreducibly complex, meaning that it could not have evolved, becuase if one component is missing, the whole organ, for the example the eye, will not function.

Also its intresting you say that these muslims advanced in their sciences because of the greeks, but cand you give any examples? I mean how, or what did they use from the greeks to advance in their sciences, or what science? Any specific example? Not taking any offence, still open minded, but need enough evidence before accepting anything. I also enjoy these discussions.

thanks:sunny:
 
My prediction: the future of Islam will look much like Christianity looks today. There will still be a few extremists and literalists, but for the most part Muslims will have abandoned the central tenets of their religion for scientific truth and enlightenment morals while clinging to a few traditions and superficial Islamic ideas as a form of identity.

The Muslim population is increasing, but this is largely due to high birth rates and heavy indoctrination of the children of Muslim parents. Muslims aren't really converting anyone to Islam anymore. The conversion trends all favor secularism, with much of Europe and America becoming vastly more secularized even in the space of the last half-century. But secular people, unlike Muslims (and religious Jews and Christians), have fewer kids.

In Europe, Christians had a Protestant Reformation, which in turn fueled a Catholic counter-reformation. But during this time the Europeans were making serious scientific advances which contradicted the literal word of the Bible, which they had been told was the absolute truth. I think the religious flare-ups of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation were, in many ways, responses to scientific advances—Christians were on the defensive, so they became more aggressive and fundamentalist.

I think the exact same thing is happening in the Islamic world today, has been happening since maybe the 1920's when the Muslim world basically got conquered by the secular forces of Europe. Muslims have been on the defensive for almost a century, their religion is contradicted left and right by secular science, and their cultural mores are constantly challenged by a society whose citizens are wealthier and more at peace with each other. So modern Muslims, like the 16th-century Christians, are resisting by forcefully invoking their religion and uniting under its banner. Also like the 16th-century Christians, they are murdering each other left and right over disputes of orthodoxy and heresy.

While Muslim numbers and religious fervor might be increasing, this behavior is simply not sustainable in the long-run. And scientific truth always trumps religious "truth," because ultimately scientific truth is useful—it can make bridges, buildings, bandages and bombs. This is why most Christians believe the earth revolves around the sun, even though the Bible says otherwise—you can only deny scientific truth for so long before everyone laughs you off the world stage.


Do you have any evidence for your theories? I mean you are claiming that there are hardly any conversions, but did you know that after sptember 11 within a span of 10 months, In usa there was 34000 reverts alone, just in the USA forget the rest of Europe.
You are saying that science and religion contradicts, but according to dr maurice bucaille, in his book "the bible the quran and science" he says that there is not a single verse in the quran that contradics with estblished modern science. I think your views are completely distorted.
 
Ok, I think I need to clarify exactly what I am writing about.

Quite a few people commented that Islam will not change. Maybe the Qur'an and the Hadith will not change but how people interpret the scripture and how they act in accordance to scripture will change. What I want to know is how do you think Muslims will act differently in the coming generations. For example, are more or less Muslims going to join radical elements and participate in terrorist bombings in the future?

A few other people seemed to have a problem with the idea that Islam is going to go in a unified direction in the future. I don't believe that everyone in Islam is going to become more conservative or liberal but I do believe there will be a general trend or shift that is quantifiable and observable in the future. For example, in the past ten years there has been a major shift in America towards evangelical Christianity. That's not to say all Christians are more evangelical now, just that more Christians are evangelical in the way they practice their faith.

Basically what I'm looking for is the answer to two questions. Is Islam (or Muslims in general) going to become more or less radical (primarily referring to radicalism as a violent movement) and is Islam (or Muslims in general) going to become more conservative or more liberal in the future?

I really dont think there is such thing as islamic terrorism, this is a hype and anti muslim propaganda. Just check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTbbwgaAl20
 
I think these East-West technology Bigging up discussions are fruitless.

We've seen a lot of em on the boards and they follow the same pattern.

"We invented computors!"
"Yeah well we invented algebra"
"No you diddnt it was the indians"
"well we invented the astrolabe"
"Great...anything since 1600?"
"Yeah...the Aeroplane in 1632"
"Well ok; so what makes that an Islamic invention...surely its a invention that happened to be made by a muslim?"
" It's inspired by Islams directions to seek knowlage"
" Well, why have 95% or more of modern inventions been western"
"Because we dont have an islamic state"
"But you did...back in 1630 and thats why you were pumping out great new ideas"
"Yes, and when that time comes again, Islam will take its rightful leading role in science"
"Y'know religion stunts creativity, not encourages it...look at the libary of Alexan.....[SNIP] Thread closed.

Great, I've just saved everyone time by compressing the next 200 posts into this one
 
I think these East-West technology Bigging up discussions are fruitless.

We've seen a lot of em on the boards and they follow the same pattern.

"We invented computors!"
"Yeah well we invented algebra"
"No you diddnt it was the indians"
"well we invented the astrolabe"
"Great...anything since 1600?"
"Yeah...the Aeroplane in 1632"
"Well ok; so what makes that an Islamic invention...surely its a invention that happened to be made by a muslim?"
" It's inspired by Islams directions to seek knowlage"
" Well, why have 95% or more of modern inventions been western"
"Because we dont have an islamic state"
"But you did...back in 1630 and thats why you were pumping out great new ideas"
"Yes, and when that time comes again, Islam will take its rightful leading role in science"
"Y'know religion stunts creativity, not encourages it...look at the libary of Alexan.....[SNIP] Thread closed.

Great, I've just saved everyone time by compressing the next 200 posts into this one


If you go to a muslim reading the quran, ask him to explain to you what he/she is reading, generally those muslims wont be able to, thats is why i really think that we muslims today are down, simply becuase we are not following our religion properly, but people are waking up, including a lot of non muslims, almost everyweek i go to the main mosque, i see a person taking the shahada!
 
oops wrong site here it is:


http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/current-events/qatif - Also guys check this out, another anti muslim propaganda. Somtimes cant wait till judgement day, see all those kafirs get taken down. the point is that, is there such thing as islamic terrorism, i mean islamists terrorising civilians? or is the muslims being terrorised?
 
http://by112w.bay112.mail.live.com/...600c3-20cc-4e23-94b7-1ca854231813&n=868374548 - Also guys check this out, another anti muslim propaganda. Somtimes cant wait till judgement day, see all those kafirs get taken down. the point is that, is there such thing as islamic terrorism, i mean islamists terrorising civilians? or is the muslims being terrorised?

apologie to all you guys in this forum, not calling anyone a kafir here, but only to the people who causing mass murders. otherwise i dont wish hell for anyone.
 
I think these East-West technology Bigging up discussions are fruitless.

We've seen a lot of em on the boards and they follow the same pattern.

"We invented computors!"
"Yeah well we invented algebra"
"No you diddnt it was the indians"
"well we invented the astrolabe"
"Great...anything since 1600?"
"Yeah...the Aeroplane in 1632"
"Well ok; so what makes that an Islamic invention...surely its a invention that happened to be made by a muslim?"
" It's inspired by Islams directions to seek knowlage"
" Well, why have 95% or more of modern inventions been western"
"Because we dont have an islamic state"
"But you did...back in 1630 and thats why you were pumping out great new ideas"
"Yes, and when that time comes again, Islam will take its rightful leading role in science"
"Y'know religion stunts creativity, not encourages it...look at the libary of Alexan.....[SNIP] Thread closed.

Great, I've just saved everyone time by compressing the next 200 posts into this one

haha! :okay: Bro, thats a pretty good point you brought up. However, I'm sure some of us are unaware or ignorant of some facts, so we learn new things through this way. Of course, we "choose" what is fact or fiction. Things we accept on depends on our worldviews and philosophies, and a nice thing about this forum is that members with different worldviews chip in their perspectives. Thats what discussions are for, right? I sure hope this thread wont be closed *gulp* Everyone, lets keep our discussions on track and civilised, ok? ;)

Qingu said:
In other words—the rise of science in the West coincides with the fall of religion. Science only took root when it was allowed to question some of the central claims in the Bible.

I suppose that's true, but not in Islam's case. Theres a positive relationship between religion and science. And as Kay106 has mentioned, "evolution" itself is a doubtful thing. Can you mention some other examples which the science in Quran conflicts with other modern scientific concepts?

You made a great point about how Newtonian physics were made a bit redundant when Einstein came along. And im pretty sure Einstein's theories will be made so too in the future (by a Muslim scientist, inshallah :P).

I mean, you could certainly do that, but I don't think it should be called "science."

"Science" in its modern form was defined by Ibn al-Haytham in the 11th century. That's the Scientifc Method that all scientists do in laboratories and such. Im sure you all remember your science labs back in school.. we have to type up those dreaded reports with specific formats: statement of problem, hypothesis, test the hypothesis with experiments then extrapolate the stuff you discovered with an analysis. Its all credited to that scholar!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

Of course, I don't think many would the word of wikipedia :p The more trusting sources are in books, which are at times difficult to procure over the internet. If you have a library nearbly that has collections of Islamic science, you are bound to come across references to Ibn Al Haytham, especially by the works of Roger Bacon.

Ah darn, gotta rush to class.
 
I have never come across a book that says "fact of evolution"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

I also know many scientists, who actually reject this theory.
Really? What are their names? What are their fields of specialty? Any published articles in peer-reviewed journals?

I think it was actually from the biologists that claimed that certain organs in our body is irreducibly complex,
You're referring to a single biochemist, Michael Behe, and his intelligent design movement.

His irreducable complexity claim has been debunked numerous times, most significantly in the recent court case about intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

becuase if one component is missing, the whole organ, for the example the eye, will not function.
Demonstrably not true. There are many examples of functional eyes with less components throughout the animal kingdom, from photosensitive spots of tissue on primitive invertebrates.

Also its intresting you say that these muslims advanced in their sciences because of the greeks, but cand you give any examples? I mean how, or what did they use from the greeks to advance in their sciences, or what science? Any specific example?
There are plenty. They took a lot from Aristotle (just like the Christians did), specifically his systems of logic and organization.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H002

Translations of the Greek physician, Galen, also helped spur Islamic development of medicine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_medicine

Again, this isn't to say that Muslims didn't develop and expand from these Greek thinkers, but they certainly took a lot from them. Everyone did.
 
Do you have any evidence for your theories? I mean you are claiming that there are hardly any conversions, but did you know that after sptember 11 within a span of 10 months, In usa there was 34000 reverts alone, just in the USA forget the rest of Europe.
Wow! That's almost one-hundredth of one percent of the total population of the United States!

Do you know what the fastest growing religion in America is? Wicca. 750,000 followers!

"Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Anyway, do you have any independent source for your 34,000 statistic, other than CAIR? That's the only source I've been able to find on the internet, and it seems awfully biased to me.

You are saying that science and religion contradicts, but according to dr maurice bucaille, in his book "the bible the quran and science" he says that there is not a single verse in the quran that contradics with estblished modern science.
Of course it does! For example, Surah 86:6 says that semen comes from between the ribs and the back.

See also the claim that there was a global flood, that a deity created each animal from water, that humans were created from clay, and that there is a race of invisible creatures made from smokeless fire.

I think your views are completely distorted.
That's probably because you're not used to questioning your assumptions.
 
I suppose that's true, but not in Islam's case. Theres a positive relationship between religion and science.
There is? In what parallel universe? Why are the most scientifically advanced and educated countries secular?

And as Kay106 has mentioned, "evolution" itself is a doubtful thing.
Not according to 99+% of biologists.

You made a great point about how Newtonian physics were made a bit redundant when Einstein came along. And im pretty sure Einstein's theories will be made so too in the future (by a Muslim scientist, inshallah :P).
Then Muslims better start learning physics at a much higher rate than they are now.

"Science" in its modern form was defined by Ibn al-Haytham in the 11th century. That's the Scientifc Method that all scientists do in laboratories and such.
This is the problem with Wikipedia, it's generally accurate but not when you want to get down to the nitty-gritty. Aristotle formulated most elements of the scientific method about a 1000 years before al-Haytham.

Al-Haytham was certainly important, and he greatly influenced many European philosophers. Apparently, moreso than he influenced Muslim thinkers!
 
Wow! That's almost one-hundredth of one percent of the total population of the United States!

Do you know what the fastest growing religion in America is? Wicca. 750,000 followers!

"Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Anyway, do you have any independent source for your 34,000 statistic, other than CAIR? That's the only source I've been able to find on the internet, and it seems awfully biased to me.


Of course it does! For example, Surah 86:6 says that semen comes from between the ribs and the back.

See also the claim that there was a global flood, that a deity created each animal from water, that humans were created from clay, and that there is a race of invisible creatures made from smokeless fire.


That's probably because you're not used to questioning your assumptions.


Your link to your article is again full of theories, assumptions not any proof, evidence, just like you are giving us, why dont you go to www.harunyahya.com this site has solid proof, example it shows you fossils that are million of years old, if specifies have evolved, they would have contained different forms, such as intermediate forms. There is a fossil of a star fish that is about 300 million years old, this starfish on the fossil is exactly the same as todays startfish, if things were evolving this starfish would have been shalf a star fish and half something else, do we see any of that?

I am questioning your assumptions, because i dont think you know how to ask the right questions.
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


Really? What are their names? What are their fields of specialty? Any published articles in peer-reviewed journals?


You're referring to a single biochemist, Michael Behe, and his intelligent design movement.

His irreducable complexity claim has been debunked numerous times, most significantly in the recent court case about intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District


Demonstrably not true. There are many examples of functional eyes with less components throughout the animal kingdom, from photosensitive spots of tissue on primitive invertebrates.


There are plenty. They took a lot from Aristotle (just like the Christians did), specifically his systems of logic and organization.

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H002

Translations of the Greek physician, Galen, also helped spur Islamic development of medicine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_medicine

Again, this isn't to say that Muslims didn't develop and expand from these Greek thinkers, but they certainly took a lot from them. Everyone did.

"Really? What are their names? What are their fields of specialty? Any published articles in peer-reviewed journals? "

"Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry. Department of Biological Sciences Iacocca Hall, Room D-221 111" Micheal behe is a biologist, you want more names go to www.harunyah.com and do your own research and think and reason! Not think and believe whatever you perceive to be true, but verify by gaining proof!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District - This site you have given Quingu simply says that they wont allow intellligent design to be taught in classrooms, this doesn't proove that irreducibly complexity is false, anyway you mentioned that "There are many examples of functional eyes with less components throughout the animal kingdom, from photosensitive spots of tissue on primitive invertebrates. " Can you give just one example agreed upon by the scientific community?
 
I think these East-West technology Bigging up discussions are fruitless.

We've seen a lot of em on the boards and they follow the same pattern.

"We invented computors!"
"Yeah well we invented algebra"
"No you diddnt it was the indians"
"well we invented the astrolabe"
"Great...anything since 1600?"
"Yeah...the Aeroplane in 1632"
"Well ok; so what makes that an Islamic invention...surely its a invention that happened to be made by a muslim?"
" It's inspired by Islams directions to seek knowlage"
" Well, why have 95% or more of modern inventions been western"
"Because we dont have an islamic state"
"But you did...back in 1630 and thats why you were pumping out great new ideas"
"Yes, and when that time comes again, Islam will take its rightful leading role in science"
"Y'know religion stunts creativity, not encourages it...look at the libary of Alexan.....[SNIP] Thread closed.

Great, I've just saved everyone time by compressing the next 200 posts into this one

haha,yes you put it very nicely.BTW,not to backseat moderate but aren't we deviating a bit.
 
"Really? What are their names? What are their fields of specialty? Any published articles in peer-reviewed journals? "

"Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry. Department of Biological Sciences Iacocca Hall, Room D-221 111" Micheal behe is a biologist, you want more names go to www.harunyah.com and do your own research and think and reason! Not think and believe whatever you perceive to be true, but verify by gaining proof!
The only reason Behe is still a "biologist" is because he has tenure. As I said, his work is widely discredited among biologists, who consider Intelligent Design a fraud for Creationism.

You also failed to point to any peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District - This site you have given Quingu simply says that they wont allow intellligent design to be taught in classrooms, this doesn't proove that irreducibly complexity is false,
You should read the transcripts of the court case. Behe's hypothesis was essentially put on trial, and a number of scientists supplied scientific evidence that his ideas are nonsense. The judge—a Christian Republican—agreed with the scientists, characterizing the ID movement as dishonest.

anyway you mentioned that "There are many examples of functional eyes with less components throughout the animal kingdom, from photosensitive spots of tissue on primitive invertebrates. " Can you give just one example agreed upon by the scientific community?
Every single invertebrate eye? This isn't exactly controversial, Kay.

Do you know what an invertebrate is?

Edit: since this isn't a thread on Evolution, I suggest we cut off discussion here and move it to another thread of your choosing, if you'd like to continue discussing it.

The point I am trying to make here is that the vast, vast majority of scientists—95% overall, and 99+% of biologists—accept evolution as scientific fact, and Islam's rejection of this theory makes Muslims a laughingstock of the scientific world. Muslims can attempt to co-opt the weak Christian objections to evolution in the form of creationism and intelligent design, but these positions are demonstrably not science. Since evolution is directly linked to our advances in biology, genomics, and medicine, Islam's rejection of it is a major reason why Islam lags so far behind Western civilization.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,
"Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. Professor Biochemistry. Department of Biological Sciences Iacocca Hall, Room D-221 111" Micheal behe is a biologist, you want more names go to www.harunyah.com and do your own research and think and reason! Not think and believe whatever you perceive to be true, but verify by gaining proof!

Harun Yahya and Michael Behe? You can do better than that, surely?

That's about as effective as me saying "Um, atheism is true, and I know this because I have it on reasonably good authority that Bart Simpson is an atheist".

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top