Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),
I own that book. Maurice Bucaille is far from scientific in his approach. For example at one point he discusses Pharaoh Merneptah who he argues most closely fits the role of "Faruun". He performs an autopsy on the body and then writes (paraphrased)
"Although the results of the lab tests are not back yet I think they will confirm that the body has water damage and therefore died by drowning"
He is forming a conclusion based on lab results he has not yet received, that is very unscientific and very unprofessional too. But anyway, he says that signs of water damage would prove the Quran right. Then in his next book which was written after the lab results came in he concedes that the lab results show "no sign of water damage" - proving that his first analysis was utterly wrong; but does this now prove the Quran wrong? Of course not, but rather than saying "It neither corroborates nor falsifies the Quran" he then goes on to say (again paraphrased)
"The lack of water damage to the body shows that if the body was in water then it was not in there for very long, therefore proving the story in the Quran is true".
So, if the body has water damage then the Quran is true, and if it doesn't have water damage then the Quran is true. That's hardly objective writing, is it?
I don't really know much about the Pharoah nor have I read that second book, so can't really comment on that. I just know that the Pharoah in the Quran is said to be preserved in Body.
Now, this Pharoah that was found, is this the Pharoah that was at the time Moses(pbuh)? And is there any evidence that shows how this Pharoah's body died?
In regards to the book, the main things I wanted to point out to you is Maurice's analytical use of explaining and comparing the verses. He didn't just go by the English translations, he actually took time in learning Arabic so he can understand the source directly. He gave direct explanations of the language and specific words used. I think it's unfair for you to dismiss his overall work because of one single instance of failed obective writing as you say.
There's alot to take from the book, in regards to the actual
Science, which I'm sure he's intelligent enough to know what Science does and doesn't agree with. If you felt a man was talking a bit of jibberish, does not necassarily mean the rest of his talk is all jiberish aswell.
I find that despite your objective writing claim, that his work is still valuable and should not be something to completly dismiss.
I think it is more accurate to say - The Quran is scientifically deemed "not incorrect". There's a difference. The Torah is very detailed in its description of the forming of the universe and is therefore easily falsifiable. The Quran on the other hand is much more vague and doesn't give any concrete information against which its accuracy may be falsified.
A few things you really need to understand;
1. This verse -
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?" [54:17]
The above verse makes it clear that God intended the Quran to be easy to understand for the people of Arabia at the time. In my opinion, this explanation is good enough. If God decided to go into detail and start using words that the people would not understand or struggle to pronoucnce, wouldn't that kill the purpose of everything? The Quran, may well then in the 14 centuries become lost in translation like the Torah or the Bible has.
Next thing you need to take into consideration. It's very easy to say "Why did'nt God just say that he created the Earth in X years?" This is again very simple, imagine if the Quran did give an exact or close figure, in the 21st century the discovery becomes confirmed, would people not believe then?
If that happened, wouldn't the whole purpose of what the Quran keeps stressing; ponder, think, reflect be killed? Who needs to think when a figure so accurate about something so diverse and big was produced 1400 years ago, that is confirmed to be exactly true today.
The Vagueness is a) for man to understand, b) for man to remember easier, c) for man to have to think, ponder and reflect deeply over the verses.
2. You talk about the resemblence of the Bible/Torah and the Quran. This verse needs to be taken into consideration -
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming
what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)
before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment
between right and wrong)." [3:3]
The Muslims believe the originals of the Torah and Gospel are lost/changed etc. But there is still some word of God in there.
The Quran is clearly not meant to be a new book, this is something you need to realise. The Quran is the final act of mercy for mankind from their Creator. The same message of the Quran was given before, however as mentioned above, the message got tampered or lost. This is why God specifically says;
"We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it" [15:9]
"Do not move your tongue trying to hasten it. Its collection and recitation are Our affair. So when We recite it, follow its recitation. Then its explanation is Our concern." [75:16-19]
1400 years later the Quran is still in it's original revalation, if man was still left with the responsibilty of taking care/following of God's message, the same would've happend as to what happened to the original Torah and Gospels. Anyways, the point is, you will find resemblences between the Quran and the scriptures before it, however the Quran is sent down to seperate the truth from error which those scriptures contain.
Miraculously, you'll find Science in the Bible that the Quran has, yet the Quran's version or addition to it is correct whereas the Bible's isn't, indicating that maybe there was a change or corruption there. Had the Quran copied from the Bible, it would've also copied the errors and you may try to argue "vagueness", but it doesn't explain what's already clear between the Quran and the Bible and the differentiations in meaning of both, where one is correct and |the other is incorrect.
Feel free to read this which further stresses my point -
http://www.defending-islam.com/page166.html
Also this -
http://www.whymuhammad.com/en/contents.aspx?aid=4821
For example, the Torah talks about 6 days of creation but when the Quran says that it took 6 "leom" people say "Leom means 'days' AND 'periods of time'". So although the Quran looks like it is merely repeating the misconception of the Torah it is not falsifiable because we cannot rule out the alternative translation "periods of time." Having said that though, in saying that the Earth was formed in "six periods of time" actually tells us absolutely nothing at all.
In regards to the 6 day part, your arguement would be good if it wasn't for the word used to describe "day". That word is "yoaum". The problem with your arguement is the following;
"The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Qur'an, each denoting a different measurement of time."
This is why you can't say that "day" refers directly to "24 hours of earth day", when throughout the different passages the same word for day is mentioned yet is given a different period.
Read this for further details -
http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm
Why Six periods then you ask? What does that tell you? There is actually a Scientific theory on how the universe came to be in "Six periods", although the following is a bit too analytical for my liking, it does touch up on that theory -
http://www.miraclesof*************/scientific_33.html (please try this, remove the spaces -
http://www.miracles of the quran.com/scientific_33.html)
I personally will want to further research the theory. But, if we speak in what the Quran means, it means that God created the Heavans and the Earths in 6 periods.
The Greeks had some information correct, and some incorrect. Again the writings by the Greeks is very detailed and therefore very easy to falsify if not 100% correct, whereas the Quran is quite vague. Also where the Quran says "Alaqa" which for many years was translated as "blood clot" there is the opportunity of using an alternative translation of "Leech like clot", removing the possibility of falsification.
Although to me it seems (and I would need more insight into the Arabic) if the alternative translation means "Leech like / clinging + clot" then it would be incorrect, because although there is a stage where the embryo clings to its host it is still never a "clot".
I have covered the vagueness above, i'll touch on it again with a relative quote -
There is a misunderstanding. You are absolutely right that the Qur'an is clear in its guidance. The expression "vague indications of the Qur'an" as written by the author should be seen within the context of the answer. Seeing it within the context, the author means vague indications of the Qur'an related to scientific issues. The Qur'an is clear for its purpose that is guidance. The Qur'an however is not a book of science and therefore does not need to be clear about scientific facts. The verses of the Qur'an have the a function of guiding people in matters of recognizing God, his attributes and of the path of success in the hereafter. Now if we attempt to use those verses not for guidance related to our destiny in the hereafter but to understand a scientific fact from the verse, then of course we can only see vague indications. This is not because the Qur'an is vague, this is because scientific elaboration is not the objective of the Qur'an and because we are trying to utilise the Qur'an for something that is not its purpose. This is in fact praise for the Qur'an, in that while it serves the main purpose (of guidance) it may also be used as an indicator to some scientific facts.
^Though that raises other points, my main points above still stand.
With the Greeks, you say that some of what they said was right and some of what they said was wrong. If a Muhammad(pbuh) copied directly from the Greeks, why did he not also copy that which is wrong? Do you know exactly what the Greeks believed in regards to the embrolygy system and the big bang? If so, please explain to me how the Quran, takes a part of the Greek belief, follows it through to a certain point, and at this point the greek theory goes one way which is wrong, yet the Quran
doesn't stop, instead it goes the other way which is proven today to be correct.
I would invite you to watch the following videos in regards to this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6rHL3tqBy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF9OWB70mv8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUA0EGTGFtg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf53DEGEh5Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmD8xCvWNFA
Regarding the "clot of blood", I've already read about this, Im in a hurry atm, but I'll happily answer that if I can in another post.
If you know of any, yes please. I hope though the next one you present won't be "The developing human: By Dr Keith Moore" because that is equally dishonest.
I have not read the Dr Keith Moore book, but really, it's dishonest? I'm not sure why top Scientists would put their reputation on the line by being dishonest... This is just a few Scientists, are they all dishonest? (
Link) Do you by any chance have links to top Scientist refuting the Quranic miracles?
Anyways, I did a quick search and this came up, I heard of this book, just havn't had the time to read it myself. This one's pretty interesting, especially given the background of the person who wrote it.
Who is Gary Miller?
Professor Gary Miller, the active Canadian preacher and mathematics and logic lecturer at Toronto University, decided to provide a great service to Christianity through exposing scientific and historical errors in the Quran in such a way that would be beneficial to him and his fellow preachers in calling Muslims to Christianity. However, the result was completely to the contrary. Miller's writings were fair and his study and comments were positive, even better than many Muslims would write about the Quran.
Download Link
I hope to read it sometime too, but there's a suggestion for you anyways.
PS: Thankyou for participating in a conversation which is both interesting and civil.
Me too, helps me learn new things when challenged etc.
First the person/book has to establish that trust.
