Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 18 October 2006

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, October 8, 2006, see discussion. Keep, October 2, 2006, see discussion.

Reference for Correlations between the Quran and science

• [http://www.islam101.com/science/quran_sc_tv.html The Qur’an and Modern Science

Extracts from the video "The Truth"]

• Scientific Miracles in the Glorious Qur'an
• Science in Islam
• The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science
• The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
• THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
• Qur'an and Science (unsigned comments from User:Ratherhaveaheart

Thank you from above post but most of those references will not be accepted by wikipedia. Although they might accept following books (I found from amazon.com).

1. Islam and Science
2. Islam and Science (Ashgate Science and Religion Series)
3. The Bible, The Quran and Science. (Paperback)
4. The holy Quran and the sciences of nature
5. The Universe beyond: Spiritual interpretation of the universe : a scientific study in the light of the Holy Quran and the modern sciences
6. Some Secrets of the Quran
7. Holy Quran,: Science and modern knowledge (Monograph)
8. The holy Quran, science and modern knowledge
9. The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives (Dibner Institute Studies in the History of Science and Technology)

and so on... --- ابراهيم 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wht won't the above be acceptable? They seemed like reputable articles to me Ratherhaveaheart 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They might be. But according to my previous experiences with Islamic articles, they ask for books only. Even some people reject books written by Islamic scholars (only western scholars). I had many long fights with this things. You know that things changes when applied on Islam articles. --- ابراهيم 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly OK to use reputable sources -- that is, for example, online essays, as long as they represent majority views within their field and are not the rants of some wacko. Do not assume that non-Muslims will try to suppress Muslim opinion, since that's not a good attitude to work here. I'm trying to be fair and restrict myself to good reviews of the Qur'an, both from believers and non-believers. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another fairly reputable site I found with some good Quran/Science information

A History of Muslim Philosophy Ratherhaveaheart 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

I've tagged this article as non-neutral. I believe the article should not be deleted unless it can be demonstrated that it cannot be fixed. I'm going to start working on it; if you disagree, please discuss here. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just started... Does the belief that the Qur'an is "the literal word and the final revelation of God" mean that it is unchanging and infallible? If scholarly Islamic sources say so, please provide them; it would be better to make it explicit to contrast with science.

I removed this: "However, this article tries to collect of 100s of instances where Quran -- a book more than 1400 years old -- talk about scientific facts." Such declared intentions are apologistic; the article needs to compare scientific facts with the Qur'an, not collect coincidences. Again, this needs scholarly sources. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. It will be great if you could work on it. "the literal word and the final revelation of God" is copied from Quran article. Yes Muslims (not non-Muslims) believe it is unchanging and infallible. I will find some source about it soon. --- ابراهيم 12:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is pretty new and still needs a lot of work, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Instead we should work on improving it.--Islamic 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be really great if you could help here Islami. I know you could add some good stuff in this article. --- ابراهيم 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bucaille et al

Does anyone here consider "Islamic apologist" a pejorative expression? Maurice Bucaille appears almost always associated with his apology of Islam, rather than with his medical career.

BTW, Bucaille wrote a lot and it's fine prose, but I think there shouldn't be so many long quotations of his. I can work on summarize them later, but I'd rather have other apologists, some Muslim scientists, etc., and of course notable skeptics. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I found many things that Bucaille said doubtful and leading towards original research. However, you people do not like if I present pure Quran and pure Science making no connection between them. This way a reader could decide itself. So now let have Bucaille and others. I need to put few more things from his writing then I will concentrate on others. Also he was a long time doctor most of this life and head surgeon too. At least thats what his page on wikipedia claims. --- ابراهيم 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term does have unnecessary negative connotations; also, introducing him as "Islamic apologist M.B." while the next two are "historian and philosopher" and "physicist" seems unbalanced. Though his position might be that of an apologist, he is in actual fact a physician and it makes the article more neutral to introduce him as such.

On the other hand, Ibrahim - I think you're mixed up on original research as it would apply here: Mentioning anything that Bucaille has written wouldn't be OR, while juxtaposing Quranic quotes with scientific statements and "letting the reader decide" is venturing into OR territory. In my opinion, this article shouldn't be about showing "the link between Quran and Science" as if it were a fact, it should be about presenting the viewpoint some people have that there is such a link, and the opposing viewpoint, and as such, quotes are necessary. Still, I agree with Pablo about needing to summarize some of the Bucaille stuff. - Valarauka 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant. For example, it's a well-known fact that ants have a "language", as your scientific cite points out. But I think it's a stretch to link a passage that says "the ant said..." to the scientific fact that "ants can communicate among themselves". "Letting the reader decide" is fine, but when you put A and B together, sometimes the intended connection is obvious.

But in any case my opinion doesn't matter (and neither does yours) -- what we need (in this example) is a scholar who has argued that that passage of the Qur'an predicts the modern scientific discovery that ants have a form of communication. "Original research" means you (the editor) are making deductions and associations by yourself.

I think the article is not going to be deleted this time, but it will be put up for deletion again if those issues are not addressed. Ironically, maybe the best way to save it from deletion is to delete most of it, keeping only what is verifiably not original research. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No please do not delete. We are working to find references of stuff hence soon more refernces will be there. Do not delete anything please. --- ابراهيم 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He isn't threatening to do so; simply making an observation about what is likely to happen if the article stays like it is. I think it's pretty clear it's already passed this initial AfD. Hopefully the improvements will soon be good enough that it's not an issue anymore. - Valarauka 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

--I agree with valarauka. This should also state opinions.MOI 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The sun has an orbit?

I'm not really into astronomy, so it's probably my fault here, but "the sun also rotates in its own rounded course" makes me scratch my head. I thought this wasn't the case? --Nehwyn 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As well as I know sun is also moving and obviously all the planets (circling around it) also moving along it. I will try to find some references for it. --- ابراهيم 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does! the Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy. Here's the line from the Sun article: "The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 25,000 to 28,000 light-years from the galactic center, completing one revolution in about 225–250 million years. The orbital speed is 217 km/s, equivalent to one light-year every 1,400 years, and one AU every 8 days." - Ibrahim, you could get the ref from there. - Valarauka 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank Valarauka I am going to add this in the article with the reference (# from sun page). Can you please have some contributions on this article as it needs lot of work. More people working here better it will be. --- ابراهيم 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Where the Qur'an and science diverge

• The Qur'an claims that ants can talk:

At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants." -- Sura An-Naml (27):18-19

But they can't. Most ants produce no sounds, and the few subspecies that do only produce one or two sounds, which indicate at most a general state of danger to the nest. So the claims of the Qur'an do not make sense.

• The Qur'an teaches that there are seven heavens one above the other , and that the stars are in the lower heaven , but the moon is depicted as being in/inside the seven heavens , even though in reality the stars are much further away from the earth than the moon.

• The Qur'an says that the sun sets into a muddy pool:

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ... -- Sura 18:86 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it. -- Sura 18:90

However since the earth is round there is no setting place or rising place. And it is clearly blatantly false the sun sets into a muddy pool.

• The Qur'an claims that mountains prevent the earth from shaking:

The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:31, Middle Meccan, "And We have set on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them..."

The Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:15, Late Meccan, "And He has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you..."

Luqman 31:10, Late Meccan, "He has created the heavens without supports that you can see, and has cast onto the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with you.."

The News (Al-Naba') 78:6-7, Early Meccan, "Have We not made the earth an expanse, and the mountains as stakes."

The Overwhelming (Al-Ghashiya) 88:17,19, Early Meccan, "Do they (the unbelievers) not look...at the mountains, how they have been pitched (like a tent)"

However, earthquakes do happen in many parts of the world, and the presence or absence of mountains play no role in them.

• The Qur'an claims that all things come in pairs:

And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. -- Sura 51:49

In his commentary on this verse Yusuf Ali writes:

All things are in twos: sex in plants and animals, by which we are individual is complementary to another, in the subtle forces of nature, Day and Night, positive and negative electricity, forces of attraction and repulsion: and numerous other opposites, each fulfilling its purpose, and contributing to the working of God`s Universe: and in the moral and spiritual world, Love and Aversion, Mercy and Justice, Striving and Rest, and so on; all fulfilling their functions according to the Artistry and wonderful purpose of God. Everything has its counterpart, or pair, or complement. God alone is one, with none like Him, or needed to complement Him. These are noble things to contemplate. and they lead to a true understanding of God`s Purpose and Message.

However, there are many species which are asexual or are parthenogenic, and there are species of plants which are all of the same sex.

So if you guys want to keep this article please include these things.

24.7.89.173 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think mentioning somewhere the very basic idea that the Qu'ran and science disagree on creationism is also quite relevant. --Nehwyn 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some bogus things in the Qur'an that sufficient mental effort and self-deception will enable one to believe. I tried to only include things which you have to be crazy to believe. 24.7.89.173 07:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will address above mention stuff soon. --- ابراهيم 06:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What must be borne in mind, Anon, is that the Quran very often relies on poetic, even lyrical, phrasing, symbolism and similes to make its points. At times it's quite literal. At others its allegories become mystical. This text sits squarely in the midst of the very rich Arab tradition of story telling.

It's no more a textbook than the Torah or Gospels — and can't be treated as such any more than those scriptures can. So asserting that there's "bogus things in the Quran" when viewed through a purely scientific lens misses the point, and betrays a superficial take on the text. The fact that, given its context, it makes any scientifically valid points, far more than the Torah and Gospels combined, is worthy of notation and study.

The problem will be to find a reputable source that a particular reading of a particular passage is literal (The Sun in its orbit) or poetic (Conversing ants). Untangling that has given Muslims problems for generations, and is even behind the current rise of Muslim extremism. Then again, taking allegorical scripture literally is behind Chrisitian extremism too. MARussellPESE 15:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well argued, and a good point, though I'm not sure what allegories in the Bible and what (modern, please) Christian extremism you're referring to. Also if the people writing this article were to accept that large parts of the Qur'an are, as you say, Arab storytelling, they might not have written this article, but then again, they wouldn't be Muslim.

However aside from the talking ants passage, it would be difficult to argue that the passages I quoted make no claims about the natural world, or do not have definite underlying conceptions about it that are wrong. If the Qur'an were from God, it would be, in its own words, free from error (the more glaring contradiction in my mind is that the Qur'an says that Jesus is in heaven, but that everyone besides God who is worshiped is damned along with those who worship him). So it is not from God. Also when you said Torah you probably were trying to say Tanakh; save us all the trouble and say Old Testament next time.24.7.89.173 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Quran is a story. I said that its context sits in that tradition. Muhammad's work would never have been effective if he'd ignored his audience.

Actually, I expect that there are a sizable number of Muslims who are perfectly comfortable with the idea that portions of the Quran are allegorical. Just as many Christians are with the Gospels. That doesn't mean that the teachings are any less significant to either; or that those teachings that do collelate with science are any less interesting.

I'm referring to creationism, the apocalypse, and the rapture. A significant amount of U.S. support for Israel comes from right-wing extremists trying to stimulate that at hasten the second coming. This support leave Israelis, at best, ambivalent. This "lets hurry the apolcalypse along" attitude is shared, almost word-for-word, by some Muslim extremists. "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." Crikey!

You must understand the monotheism of Islam to understand the damning of those who worship Christ. The statement "those who join partners with God" is a very strong epithet indeed. In Islam, Jesus is not God. The trinity is absolutely rejected. Muhammad had to state monotheism this strongly because the pagan Arabs would create "gods" out of just about anything. In the Islamic view, if "There is no God but God", then worshiping anything else is forbidden. To Muslims Jesus is a prophet, as true a servant of God as Muhammad, and didn't teach the Trinity. When Christians created this idea themselves (again, in the Islamic view) they in effect damned themselves.

This is internally consistent. As consistency is the first step to being true, it can not be demonstrated that the Quran is in error on this point. You're perfectly free to disagree with the outcome and consider it extreme or unjust, but you can't argue that it's erroneous from this position it takes.

Actually, I meant the Torah. Jews have the full range of thinking with respect to the meaning of their scripture as Christians and Muslims do. Genesis is in both, is treated as literally true verbatim by some, and has been the source of a lot of confusion over the creation. Psalms, The Song of Solomon, etc,. haven't been central to similar arguments.

We do seem to aggree that the sourcing for this article will make or break it. And that's what wikipedia is all about; if it doesn't get there as often as it should. MARussellPESE 15:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, while being very lucid you manage to fail to address my main points. While you are technically correct that there are Christian "extremists" today, they do not do anything which is morally objectionable. It seems like your point is to say that, yes, Muslim literalists behead people and blow up buildings, but Christians give financial and moral support to Israel, so there...I fail to see your point. My point is that if you take an almost entirely literal interpretation of the Qur'an, as I suspect all major Muslim schools of thought do (correct me if I'm wrong), you get inconsistency. The idea that these questionable passages in the Qur'an can be taken to be allegories is a new one to me. Do any of the major Sunni or Shia schools of thought take this view? When did it arise? Did Muhammad himself indicate that his words should not always be taken literally? I think you're going out on a limb, here, MA.

As regards the Qur'an's statements about Jesus, I was referring to specific suras: Sura 4:158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; ...

Sura 3:45. ... Jesus, Son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to Allah.

These contradict the following sura (hence rendering the Qur'an inconsistent):

Surely you and what you worship besides Allah

are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98

There are following suras which Muhammad uttered after someone had raised exactly this issue. It says in the Sirat Rasul Allah that Muhammad in response to a critic basically said, well they only go to hell if they wanted to be worshiped. Well then this new correction contradicts Sura 21:98!

Also the Qur'an clearly states that everything comes in pairs, which has been disproven by science, and it implies that the moon is farther away than the stars, also contradicted by science. Not to mention the fact that it says that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, which is not true, and which is not mentioned in this article. At least Christians and Jews admit that creation took longer than 7 days.

One final point. The title of this article is The Quran and science, not Islam and science. We're only looking at the text here. Allegorical interpretations should be minimized. 24.7.89.173 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The 6 day creation is better explained in this site: speed-light--Russoue 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

--When muslims say he will be near stationed to Allah, they mean he will have high respect with Allah. It says so about Mohammed too. I will get an ayaat for this, dont worry. Also there is an ayaat that states that Jesus will be asked wether he told his people to worship him and he will say no. I will refrence this too. In other words like the other prophets of the Quran, he will be given high station. That does not mean muslims are supposed to worship him.MOI 03:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely you and what you worship besides Allah

are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come. -- Sura 21:98

According to the Quran, Jesus is in hell. Arrow740 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the point here is there is a difference between who and what. What may refer to the idols which one worships, not any person.--Russoue 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dating Science and Technology.

The key issue here is that there is nothing new in the Quran which people around the time (or prior for the previous many 1000s of years) knew anyway. Also, there is little mention of radioactivity, radio spectrums (microwave/Xrays/VHF etc) or even of aluminium (one of the worlds most abundant metal) yet these are all around us. Certainly nothing about computer technology be it valves or silicon. As with say Nostradamus, vague text can be made to fit into many Scientific observation. Keep the article but it needs a serious going over with an eye to what is reasonable. Ttiotsw 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For me reading Quran is always a proof that it is book of God. Because it is preserved since last 1400 years and even it language is still alive (unlike other books). There is no book that is preserved since so long, in its original form. Furthermore, many things in Quran (including scientific facts) are also impressive me a lot and cannot be written by a man 1400 years ago. But you are right it is decision of a person because if it is clear-cut then there will be no Test. If God prove itself like 2+2 then nothing would be left on us to decide and no heaven/hells needs to exist. --- ابراهيم 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

His point is that as regards science there's nothing in the Qur'an that Muhammad's contemporaries hadn't already figured out, so there's nothing "new" there, and so this article is kind of pointless. It's basically you guys observing that the Qur'an isn't wrong about certain stuff, and that if you try really hard you can interpret some other stuff to be predicting modern scientific developments. 24.7.89.173 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the quran was not written by a man - The quran was scribed and transcribed until it was collated into todays version. If this is wrong then wikipedia articles on the providence of the quran need updating. As for unchangability - the heiroglyphs of Egypt are unchanged (chiselled n stone after all) and yet record details of people and gods long since dead that predate the quran by millenia. The language of the quran can not be unchanged and yet still alive. All languages that are alive change as society changes. The earliest know copy of the quran is uncertain according to our own wikipedia (reading Origin and development of the Qur'an but don't worry neither is the existance of Jesus or the Bible equally clear). Misplaced Pages shouldn't be turned into a creation-science soapbox. Ttiotsw 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

--I thought the Quranic verses had been collected from their origin (tree bark and leaves) and then put togethor into the whole Quran. Anyway, I think when they talk about science in the Quran they mean bodily and environmental stuff. I read something about small particles in the air and in our environment. It may have been refering to Molecules and Atoms. I will find the ayaat right now.MOI 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum...

... for discussion of the scientific validity of the Qur'an. We're only here to report what other people said about that topic. I'm repeating myself, but please please remember that. We've been able to work on this so far only because we haven't turned this into a religion-vs.-science argument. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus it is valid that the scientific credentials of the authorities who we are reporting about will be examined. There will be no argument with religion and science; one is faith and one is reason. Though the Catholic church may convince itself that they can be reconciled it is pleasing to see that no such delusion is expected to exist here. Ttiotsw 13:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this article exists? It is a few Muslims trying to convince others that their faith can be reconciled with science. Also, for you to so disdainfully dismiss the reasoning of the Catholic Church on faith and reason is exceedingly arrogant. Those ideas have been developed by some of the most brilliant men in history. If you want to get informed I can give you some reading suggestions. 24.7.89.173 00:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: we should examine the scientific credentials of scientists speaking for science (lest we quote wackos or pseudo-scientists); and we should examine the and theological/scholarly credentials of those speaking for the Qur'an (lest we quote bad Qur'anic academics or unrepresentative fanatics).

What you, Ttiotsw, have to say, please find sources that say it, and integrate them into the article. If you're saying that religion and science cannot be reconciled, be aware that, with regards to me, you're preaching to the choir. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw man or irrelevant conclusion within Quran WRT Big Bang

The section titled, Big Bang, which has one of the translations to English in it, reads like a straw man or an irrelevant conclusion at best. These are often used ploy within religious tracts and quite effective, but it's a fallacious ploy for us to perpetrate such fallacies within an encyclopedia. The plainly visible separation of the heavens (I guess sky ?) and Earth and the obvious fact that all life requires water is used by the Quran to then tell the disbelievers this proves the existance of a supernature through implication. The scientific approach is that the data presented by the quran can be explained by other means without the need to include anything supernatural. In fact science would hold the supernatural as irrelevant. The person proposed as the reference to support the link (Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani) is no doubt (and by me too with respect to religious tolerance) worthy in his own right but it is unclear if he has any authority in the field of cosmology. This section needs to be culled. Ttiotsw 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ttiotsw, I will try to improve that section. I just changed my city and have to get new library card in this new city. I will try to search any book possible in this regard and will try to improve it. In the mean time I am going to search Google with "Big Band and Quran" and its variation. I hope to get few URLs to add there and improve it. No body is claiming that it is Big bang 100% sure. It might NOT BE at all big bang. However, it could be. So we have to give different opinions. May be there are some people have to prove it wrong, you can put those people comments there too. You are welcome to do that. --- ابراهيم 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad could have proved to future generations that he was speaking God's word by actually coming up with something new. Why didn't he? The "there has to be some room for faith" argument I've heard Christians say doesn't work here (and is tenuous there) because, the Quran to the contrary, there is compulsion in Islam; if you renounce it, you die. So faith isn't really that important; being a member of Islam is. Arrow740 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Ibrahimfaisal, Answering-Islam has criticism of the Qur'an as a scientific source, despite the fact that it may also be a propaganda site. Please don't remove it just like that; show that it is not reliable, or live with it.

Observation Point, Islam101 is a website about Islam which contains pro-Islam material. It seems to be correctly presented, even if you don't believe in any of it, and is just what we need to compile claims about the Qur'an.

I'm not supposed to be the nanny for this article. Understand what the problem is, leave your prejudices aside, and don't mess this up more than it already is. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaker POV Question

In certain places the article states that "God said." for instance at the end of the Encouraging Science section. While if you are a member of the faith you believe the Quran is god's words, others may not agree. Would it be more neutral to say that the "Quran states" instead? Ratherhaveaheart 22:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is "quoted" from an article that is why it is like that. Secondly Quran is the words of God. --- ابراهيم

You can change it as for me Quran and God word is equal and it does not makes any difference for me. But article says God word. --- ابراهيم 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Human Birth

The anon is changing it saying that human egg is also required beside one sperm. It does not make any sence. Obviously if I put my sperm on the bed it will not create a child. Will it? Obviously many other things could be need including human egg. But Quran is say that one sperm is required. It implies no two, three or four sperm is required (no one is saying that a human-egg is not required). Can someone stop Mr. anon who do not even want to register or semi-protect the article for anon and new users? --- ابراهيم 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As it is written this section is stupid. You take the line "We created man out of a single drop of semen" and say aHA, this is the same as saying all you need is one sperm cell to conceive a child. In fact it says drop, not cell, and that isn't all you need. YOU NEED BOTH AN EGG AND A SPERM CELL. AND THAT'S ALL you need to conceive. Your analogy "well if I put sperm on a bed that won't make a child" is also dumb. The womb of a woman is clearly very different from a bed when it comes to babies. In fact what this passage ACTUALLY shows is that Muhammad thought that if you put sperm in a woman, it will change into a child. That's not true. If it penetrates a human egg, then the resulting cell will.

I am going to change it back. If you change it again you will approaching the three revert rule. I'm also correcting your spelling and grammar when I do these things. Why don't you just concern yourself with the Urdu or Panjabi wikipedias? Arrow740 00:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a single spelling or grammer you have corrected . However, that might be the 10th time you have abused me on it. Keep abusing as you encourge me a lot. --- ابراهيم 10:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll leave you alone about the spelling and grammar; you're able to get your message across either way, and that's what I'm really critiquing. And what have I been encouraging you to do? Arrow740 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

May I make a point? If you have done detailed reading of the quran, it states, that the a single drop of sperm penetrates the womans womb and it then turns into a zygot. If you wish I will look for the ayaat for it. Kk? good. ibrahimFaisal your argument was very weak. The Quran states that a sperm cell+ egg make a zygot.MOI 21:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

-- (Al-`Alaq 96:1-5). (Clot meaning egg/sperm clot)

This is what we charitably call Original Research. Arrow740 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--I got this from my Quran translation.MOI 22:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Help keep this article accurate

Ibrahimfaisal seems to spend every waking moment devoted to skewing wikipedia articles on Islam. I need someone to help me. He's refusing to let me put up the claim of SCIENCE that a sperm cell is not sufficient for conception and that ants cannot communicate at the level of complexity they are portayed as using in the Quran. If "Human embryology" and "Communication of ants" are going to have sections in this stupid article, I think that's relevant. And yes I will register sometime today. This is really frustrating. It's not like I'm censoring this article! Censorship is one of those things that is OK in Muslim countries but not in the West. Like cutting people's hands off. Oh and I'm still anonymous but have a username now. Arrow740 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First off a reminder of WP:Civil should be noted, calling the article stupid is not okay, making generalized insults about Muslim countries is not okay.

I think it would be helpful if we separate out what is "fact", which goes into the article, from opinion or belief, even if we believe something is fact that does not make it so according to WP, that is why outside sources are required.

As far as the one sperm is required statement I think it depends on the context, I agree with Ibrahimfaisal that in the context the Quran is stating that only one sperm vs many sperms is all that is needed, it assumes that there will be a woman, egg, and uterous, it is making the point about the number of sperms needed not everything else.

However my understanding of WP is that it is fine to include both interpretations. " Some argue that this shows... because... While others state this is not consistent with science because..." Ratherhaveaheart 01:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all I'm really asking, that both sides be included. And the Qur'an does not even mention sperm at all, let alone one sperm cell. It says a drop of semen. If you think that saying "a drop of semen" is the same as saying "a single sperm cell," then, well, you're wrong. And silly. Besides, they probably knew that coitus interruptus isn't 100% effective, so this is no revelation. And yes, I retract my generalization about Muslim countries. I know that cutting off hands is the punishment for stealing in some of them, though. Arrow740 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

--Hmmmm. Well I would like to say that you have a point about creating a seperate section on Human Embryology, (which they have already done). I am studying arabic, and if you leave out a single letter for a word then the whole meaning of the word changes. For example in 'they said'(singular) if you drop the letter 'fa' the meaning will change to 'he said'. If you drop the 'qasraa' in she it will turn to he. so maybe you didnt read the aayat, talking about the sperm cell, correctly. Or maybe you just read a different ayaat. -Ayaat=the verses in the Quran MOI 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

• Harun Yahya is not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an. Read his article.
• Dr. Zakir Naik is literally a medical doctor, not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an.
• Dr. Maurice Bucaille, again a medical doctor (employed by the Saudi royal family), not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an.
• Who is A. Abd Allah?
• Ibrahimfaisal himself.

I fail to see that there is any notable real-world debate among reputable experts regarding these subjects; they seem rather the talking points of a handful of proselytizing cranks.Observation Post 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That guy Naik is an expert on the Koran. Not on science though. 24.7.89.173 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Arrow)

--To become a medical doctor you have to work in different feilds of science.Like biology. Which is a feild of science. Also Avicenna (a scientist philosopher and much more) wrote the Cannon of Medicine, which had been used as a medical text book for 5 centuries IN EUROPE. He was influenced by the Quran. It even said so on wikipedia. Besides how can you say the Harun Yahya was not an expert on the Quran? Just because a persons writing skills may not be to the equivelant of J.R.R Tolkeins, does not mean they arent an expert on something. My mother happens to have a bachelors in Islamic Studies but cannot put her thoughts into words, all the time. Dr. Maurice bucaille was the head of the University of Paris's surgical clinic, and he is not an expert on science how...? I think your comment is all based on opinion.MOI 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm outta here

I'm very disappointed at the turn this article has taken. I don't believe in the Qur'an, yet I modestly helped save this article from deletion and tried to provide a balanced set of references. I was genuinely interested in this topic, even being, as I am, an atheist; but since this has become an issue of Muslims loudly proclaiming their faith vs. non-Muslims slapping them (or insulting them) for doing so, I'll stop wasting my time here. I'll keep this in my watchlist to check when it's put up for deletion again, which will be very soon, at this rate. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. You seem to spend a lot of your life on wikipedia; don't you consider it your duty to prevent people of faith from using wikipedia as a platform to spread their beliefs? -Arrow

Quite the contrary, Misplaced Pages is a platform to spread knowledge and beliefs. I would come to this article to learn about muslim faith just like I would go to the atheist article to learn about their 'faith' and what would drive different people to believe different things. I just believe that the reader shouldn't be 'duped' by false information. As long the information presented isnt false or biased I have no problem. --FK65 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be a platform to spread knowledge, not beliefs. Once that becomes part of its mission it will obscure the truth more than it already does. Arrow740 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If wikipedia is not a platfor to talk about beliefs then I think every article related to Islam (and all other religions for that matter) should be deleted. I think it is not a bad way to prevent dispute.--Russoue 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be moved to a book page

This article should be moved to a book page "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science" as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I do not see that this article can seriously stand on its own under the title "Quran and science". --CltFn 21:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, that is the only reasonable way to save this .... Arrow740 06:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

--His book was based on The QURAN. Not the bible. His main source is the Quran.MOI 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

History and Criticisms Section

I have labeled a criticisms section and created a history section. As I learn more about the subject I will be adding to the article Ratherhaveaheart 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Critism of non-notable sources by other non-notable sources? Is this what we've come to?Proabivouac 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure about this article being from a non-notable resource. The Quran is very notable in the muslim world, and is now a topic of much research.MOI 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously new to wikipedia. Please read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS before you make any changes. We're all working hard on this (Muslim and non-Muslim), and we're all following the rules. Arrow740 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--I am sorry but i made Absolutley NO changes. I wrote my opinions on the talk page though. Which you probably read. I have not added anything to this article okay. Where did yuo get that from?MOI 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for avoiding constant reversions

What if we take all the science sections that do not have references and put them on the talk pages as areas for further expansion. Ratherhaveaheart 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am with you (because I assume good faith towards you) but I am afraid that they will use that chance to delete whole sections. Then it will become difficult to restore those sections. Have you seen these books  ? They have useful stuff for this article and many of them are available on amazon.com. They are reliable sources (with ISBN etc) according to wikipedia standards. If you could fill some sections then it will be great. --- ابراهيم 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Other then above books this URL is also good http://www.islamvision.org/Physiology.asp . --- ابراهيم 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya) is certainly not a reliable source, as he has no acknowledged area of expertise related to any of subjects to which this article refers (anymore than he does on the Holocaust or Freemasonry, other subjects upon which he expounds.)Proabivouac 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:RS his books are reliable sources. --- ابراهيم 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, what a mixed up ideology Mr Oktar has! With due respect to you, Ibrahimfaisal, reliable sources for history/religion/social science articles are books and scholarly articles published with reputable publishers by people who have relevant academic qualifications and are working as academics conducting original research. It is not enough for a book to have an ISBN. See the discussion on Bat Ye'or on talk:dhimmi and discussion elsewhere on Koenraad Elst. On the relationship between religion and science, I don't think anyone has yet improved on the non-overlapping magisteria view of Stephen Jay Gould, as Mary Midgley says in this week's New Scientist, in her review of the latest book by Richard Dawkins. Itsmejudith 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not care about discussion on some talk pages. As long as he is defined as a reliable source according to WP:RS he is a reliable resource for me. Otherwise, you must change WP:RS or prove that according to it he is not acceptable. --- ابراهيم 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To respond to your first point good faith is to be assumed for everyone. Whether the sections are on the talk page as areas to be expanded or within the article proper there is a chance that they will be wrongly deleted and such deletion will be dealt with appropriately. In order for this article to be done properly in line with NPOV, EVERYONE needs to put their personal POV/agendas aside, be it religious, scientific, or political. If you are editing here your motivation should be to create a quality article about the relationship between the Quran and science. Ratherhaveaheart 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think these sections should be moved to the Talk Page as sections for further expansion, since they currently do not have referenced sources for the relationship between the Quran and Science.

• Big Bang
• Motion of Sun and Moon
• Shape of the Earth
• Formation of Night and Day
• Water Cycle
• Sex of Plants
• Geology
• Medicine
• Oceanology
• Physiology
• Zoology

Nearly all specific area sections should have referenced arguments that science is not supported by Quran. I personally think the metalevel sections are more important for the article rather than the specific scientific areas.Ratherhaveaheart 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps a subpage might be appropriate? It's rather a lot of stuff. Ibrahim, you may want to consider the more unsourced / OR-ish / objectionable material there is in the main article, the more likely it is that it won't pass a second AfD. Ratherhaveaheart's suggestion is the best way to move forward on sourcing the content while also ensuring that the article itself is worthy of inclusion. - Valarauka 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i agree, keep whatever is verifiable in the article for now and then gradually work the other points in after they have been worked on and referenced. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agreed however now I feel for me it increasingly difficult to assume good faith towards couple of people who had openly told their enmity towards Islam to me many times. Even at my talk page. I just wish that they do not use that event in wrong way. Furthermore talk page is also ever changing thing and it is better to shift on your User page (or to somewhere else) than to talk page. Because who will keep track of changes on talk page all the time? --- ابراهيم 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd go a step further and suggest that all material not based upon reliable sources with expertise in the fields being discussed - both the Qur'an and science - be removed. Of course, nothing would be left.Proabivouac 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Of course, nothing would be left." Here we go. I hope now you could know that what I am afraid of... --- ابراهيم 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page at Talk:The Quran and science/Temp, to hold sections under consideration. Proabivouac, realize that this article isn't about Quranic or scientific fact, it's about the view some hold that the two are in harmony (or discord, depending on POV). As such, articles and books by people who hold those views are perfectly natural and valid sources. - Valarauka 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the unreferenced sections into the temp page created and will now delete the sections from the article. For those who object to this article, this is a major concession, which we hope you will consider in the AfD. Ratherhaveaheart 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a "major concession" to follow WP:NOR?Proabivouac 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps concession was not the exactly right word. I think POV is suseptible to enter when people become too rigid on any position, even WP policy. If I remember my new user WP guideline page, the last statement is IGNORE ALL RULES, if they get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, the point I was making that given that the article is under major construction with new additions everyday, moving all the working parts to another page and going back and forth is a bit of an inconvenience. Part of consensus is compromise. All I am asking is that those who object to the article keep an open mind while it is a work in progress.Ratherhaveaheart 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Difference between Science and Pseudoscience

I've expanded the definition of what is science, added what a scientist is and added Category:Pseudoscience as any science in the Quran will always be just that as it is obtained through revelation and yet claims to be scientific. This is at odds with other Muslim involvement with the Timeline_of_the_history_of_scientific_method and Early_Muslim_philosophy. The Revelation of the Quran and say any science within Hadith are very different subjects from the definition of science or rather pseudoscience point of view. Well unless people want to argue that the revelation in Quran was actually observations of man ?. I think it's clear that the Quran is stated as being revealed and not observed and yet if we look at our own Misplaced Pages article on Pseudoscience we do find that Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that a pseudoscience claims to offer insight into the physical world obtained by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that derive from "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim either to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. Thus whilst the attempt is made to claim to be scientific and yet firmly claim revelation this article will always be in the category of pseudoscience.Ttiotsw 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I get reverts to what I have catagorised thought I'd add a reference to a notable scientist in the relevant field of science in Islam, Pervez Hoodbhoy who also thinks "...Although genuine scientific achievement is rare in the contemporary Muslim world, pseudo-science is in generous supply." http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=4244 The Prospect magazine is notable within Misplaced Pages in that it has it own page Prospect_(magazine). Ttiotsw 02:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know Hoodbhoy very well and attended his lectures at LUMS. He does not believe in God as well as I could tell. He told us at LUMS that Muslims are not doing well in science because they believe on things like prayer and its effect on our lives. He said that if we get away from Islam then we could be better scientist. For me his views are funny because I have already published many papers including 4 of them only last year and Islam always been a source of encouragement for me. But you are welcome to add his views in the article (as criticism against Islam). My believe say that Quran can NEVER be wrong even in next 5000 years as it is God's words. You could say things mentioned in Quran as pseudoscience or something else, it does not matter. I am not ONLY interested in adding good referenced stuff in the article and improving it. --- ابراهيم 07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as we're mentioning personal believes, I believe that this article is pathetic. Oh yeah and the Quran is demonstrably wrong about the natural world, as I've demonstrated over the course of this debate. So if it is from God, then God is wrong. By the way if you read that book that itaqallah linked to, by Peter Hodgson, you will see that most Muslim schools of thought do not believe in the law of cause and effect. In fact that book gives a detailed explanaton of while Islam itself caused the swift disintegration of Muslim science. It is interesting to note that Islam is entirely against the concept of free will. I think these ideas imply that Islam itself is inimical to science. Arrow740 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will answer on your talk page when I have some free time. I know that you might not change your views at all but I will still convey my views on the things mentioned by you above. --- ابراهيم 09:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will change my views, if you can convince me. Arrow740 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoodbhoy's issues aside, I think "Quran-Science" (at least, the stuff I've seen) is not pseudo-science per se. For one, the Quran itself doesn't claim to be scientific in any way. For another, most of the claims I've seen are people arguing that certain verses in the Quran agree with certain scientific discoveries; sort of a validation of correctness, so to speak (dubious goal though that is), not a means of 'offering insight'. If people were to start taking verses and using them to propose new or different theories, then that would qualify as pseudoscience. - Valarauka 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There are Qur'anic claims for knowledge of the origin of natural events and yet the Qur'an is offered as revelation e.g. our own article has Qur'an, 71:15-16 and Qur'an, 24:43; both of which have words (translation errors aside) like "See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens..." or "Seest thou not that Allah makes the clouds move gently...". Pseudoscience is when anything divinely revealed attempts to be deemed scientific by asking the observer to have the cause of the natural event be a supernatural cause (as with the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design). If the Qur'an didn't ask the observer to attribute the natural events to Allah then it would not be pseudoscience it would simply be a matter of faith which even I have no qualms about. As it does it matches the definition. The Qur'an itself is proposing the existance of a supernatural (in this case Allah) and offers certain evidence as proof. Science is very clear about the existance of supernatural entities. That's not to say that there isn't any wikipage to create. I have replied on the recent AfDs with "weak keep" because of the writing style is at odds with how the Bible and Science article evolved to what it is today. Ttiotsw 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not much of a stretch to read this as a claim of indirect causation. Alternatively, as I alluded to above, major Muslim schools of thought disregard the law of cause and effect, saying that everything happens because God makes it happen and for no other reason. Science cannot disprove this. As such, pseudoscience or not, these quotes are appropriate if they have been the subject of a published attempt by a respectable scholar to study the coincidence of science and the Quran. You say science is very clear about the existence of supernatural entities; nothing could be further from the truth. Science does not address such questions. Arrow740 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Err yes and ?. I was arguing against the someone who said that the Quran made no scientific claims. It does. This is a pity in some respects as it sort of damages what is ostensibly the message of a faith. I'm not arguing that they be removed; very much the opposite given they really are like dead albatross hanging around the neck of this faith. I suppose I could have reworded what I said about science and supernatural but what is clear is that there is no room in science for anything supernatural. That you have a particular hangup about the supernatural isn't relevant to the issue of the Quran and Science. Science uses many tools of which one, Occam's Razor, is used to remove any unneccessary entities and to date the supernatural is unneccessary to understand all and any natural phenomena. The concept of falsifiability is also extremely useful (well at least to me). Carl Sagan's The_Demon-Haunted_World is a great introduction to the idea of what is scientific and what isn't. I suspect the typical Islamic apologist hasn't read that (though I'd love to be corrected on this); do you place yourself in the same camp as them ?. Answering your question - I have no issue if any study is published which compares what the Quran and Science and I'd love to see at least some peer reviewed studies, written or refered to by any notable (by even the most basic level of at least having a Wikipage). So far very little. Ttiotsw 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Quran makes scientific claims. Some of them are false; mountains do not prevent earthquakes etc. I don't need to be told what is scientific and what isn't.

What I'm trying to tell you is that science is and always will be of limited power. Your claim that to date the supernatural is unnecessary to understand all and any natural phenomena is problematic. We don't understand all natural phenomena so we clearly don't know what is necessary to understand them.

You may be interested to read ] on the limits of any formal logical system of sufficient complexity. Basically, in mathematics, no matter what consistent axioms you are assuming, you won't be able to prove all truths using those axioms alone. By analogy it seems likely to me that there would be such things outside of mathematics as well. For example, we may never be able to prove that the universe was created, and we may never be able to prove that it wasn't. In this case, if you want an answer you have to accept one on faith, as atheists and other religious people do. If you want to continue this we can use my talk page; if one of the other editors of this article disagrees with anything I've said they'll cite wikipedia rules and tell me to shut up.

You are right about the sources for this article. The only one which is acceptable is Moore's (though it is suprising for a scientist of his caliber that the article was only published in Saudi Arabia). Arrow740 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

mm.. i didn't know the IMANA publishes in saudi arabia. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I actually question if Moore should be included. Initially I thought yeah but then reading on http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/DGolden/touting_science.htm I question anything said that is attributed to Moore. Using his work to support what the Quran says is WP:OR unless he said that and people can confirm that and NOT any co-authors. Certainly using newer editions is WP:OR. Ttiotsw 08:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to look again at what is actually being cited in the article, because it certainly is not "the developing human". the only reason we are talking about "the developing human" was that Arrow believed Moore's position may have changed due to some missionary claim about what is alluded to in this book. it is not being used as the source to present Moore's research or views, although even then he does very briefly summarize it in the mainstream version of the book (i.e. sans islamic additions), in editions six and seven (as quoted below), and probably the previous editions too. certainly, FF isn't any basis on which to raise doubts either. ITAQALLAH 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Quran and Science

Ibrahimfaisal deleted the introduction sentence I put on the Quran and Science article. I used the same sentence that is on the Science and the Bible article. He mentioned in his edit summary that Quran and Science don't have to agree, which I think is a true statement. However the purpose of the article is to study the relationship between the Quran and Science. I think that the discussion that has occurred on the article Talk page and the AfD's show that there is dispute regarding the relationship between the Quran and Science. I feel that it is important to state the overall purpose of the article in the beginning and if you have another sentence that speaks about the relationship between the Quran and Science then please insert it in the article. Ratherhaveaheart 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To prove Quran truth, science support is not required. I named the article "The Quran and science" instead of "Science and The Quran" because of some reason. If you could understand that reason then you could understand that why I do not like that start. Read the introduction that was there previously.

<quote>Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God and for the guidance of Man kind. Science on the other hand is ever changing and improving body of knowledge. Both Quran and Science do not need approval of each other to be correct and exist in their own separate domains. However, this article tries to collect of 100s of instances where Quran -- a book more than 1400 years old -- talk about scientific fact. </quote>.

You said that I am defensive but believe me, that I always tried my very best to accept other people wishes and even ready to accept this one of yours too. Although I do not want the article to start the same way “Science and Bible” had because how could be the GREAT Quran be disputed against tiny-tony science which is still very much an infant. Although I do not like that start "at all" but I am ready to accept your change just for your respect and satisfaction. --- ابراهيم 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact if the Quran states something basic about the universe then it does need the approval of science to be correct. By the way science has been around a lot longer than the Quran. Arrow740 23:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What I would like you to recognize is that nearly the entire statement above shows your personal POV, what we are trying to have here is a NPOV, which the Science and the Bible has to a certain degree achieved. Since you have agreed to my introduction I will reinsert it. Ratherhaveaheart 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Think about your start. There is no dispute among Muslims that everything in Quran is truth. Obviously non-Muslim will not agree with it, otherwise they will be Muslim too. Hence the dispute is not about Quran but in general. so your start is also a POV. --- ابراهيم 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My analysis:

• "Both Quran and Science do not need approval of each other" - Yes (I mean no, they do not need it). But saying it like that suggests that there are people who believe so and others who believe the opposite. Where's the reference?
• "... to be correct" - Yes and no; neither is seeking approval, neither can give it, and nobody's actually talking about correctness, only of coincidences. If we start talking about correctness, then we might as well leave, because that's not the idea of this article.
• "... and exist in their own separate domains." - Maybe in some sense, but they both exist in reality, they both inform people's worldviews, they are jointly the subject of this article and of many other discussions. The expression is ambiguous and is at most an opinion; it embraces a very defined POV, and should be removed.
• NPOV doesn't mean inoffensive. NPOV means you take a step back and try to show everyone's POV, even if it contradicts your own. I am of the opinion that worldview are inherently isolated and people belonging to different worldviews (religions, ideologies) cannot agree on basic principles. The above once again seems to prove it to me, but at least let's try. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

i think we need to define (and discuss here) what exactly the article is about and what it aims to expound upon, because through that we can work towards a more precise introduction and more coherent (and structured) presentation. certainly, the article is not about whether or not the qur'aan itself is scientific (or whether they are in harmony), as quite clearly there will be things in the qur'aan not consistent with current trends of scientific thought, and vice versa. that suggests the article may be more focused on particular passages related to scientific study claimed to be (un)scientific. the problem i see with merely identifying and discussing all statements percieved to be scientific or unscientific is that it opens the floodgates to mass polemics from both sides, and really in my opinion there's no need for it to be regurgitated in an encyclopaedia since we'd just be telling the story of endless rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. if we stick to books from good publishers (or at least "publications"), that lessens the problem somewhat i think, although in the interests of NPOV it (i.e. partisan websites) may have to be stooped to in order to obtain some critiques (or apologetics), valid or not. ITAQALLAH 22:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"quite clearly there will be things in the qur'aan not consistent with current trends of scientific thought, and vice versa." That is quite an admission. In fact basic science is contradicted in the Quran.

Otherwise I agree with you. We're trying to emulate Science and the Bible here. If we can all agree to stick to books by respectable scholars published by academic presses, then that's a good common ground. Obviously I could quote from websites in the same manner as Ibrahimfaisal to the opposite effect, but that would be wrong for the same reason it is when he does it (and pointless, as he would reflexively delete it and replace it with his own websites' quotes). Arrow740 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Pablo Flores' posting, if we're going to include where the Quran and science coincide, then we should include, in an article called the Quran and science, where they diverge. Arrow740 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

do remember, that the conclusion of "divergence" or "convergence" of the two subjects (i.e. qur'an and science) needs to be noted within the sources also. "quite an admission"? scientific trends, theories, and "facts" happen to change rather frequently. contradiction with "basic science" is your own conclusion, which unfortunately is of no use in the article or on this talk page. ITAQALLAH 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe you will help us keep the entire article up to the standard you just articulated. By the way I don't think the idea that the Moon is closer to the Earth than the stars are is a mere trend, liable to change (I could go on). But who knows! Anyway I'm willing to quote a second grade textbook if needed, to get this into the article. Arrow740 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i stated: "do remember, that the conclusion of "divergence" or "convergence" of the two subjects (i.e. qur'an and science) needs to be noted within the sources also."- so if you can find a second grade textbook which analyses the qur'an and a scientific "fact" and notes divergence, then i would be greatly suprised. i bet you could go on, although i had said previously that a literalist reading of an erroneous english translation won't get you far (do you know Arabic, btw?), as you found with the six-eight day issue. ITAQALLAH 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"that the conclusion of "divergence" or "convergence" of the two subjects (i.e. qur'an and science) needs to be noted within the sources also." - Ibrahimfaisal has ignored this principle throughout this article. Will you support the elimination of this material?Proabivouac 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

elimination, for now, no. questioning, yes, as i believe that there should be sources actually establishing the link as is currently being done in the embryology section. ITAQALLAH 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I trust you will support keeping Arrow740's material under the same principle?Proabivouac 00:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"keep"? i don't see his material in the article. why introduce more problematic material when there is enough as it is which needs to be addressed? ITAQALLAH 00:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

His material was reverted. Why restore it? For the same reasons you've advanced to keep Ibrahimfaisal's junk edits, so that we can work on them and source them later. If removing such material hinders this process, as you've alleged re Ibrahimfaisal's material, should this not be true of Arrow740's as well?Proabivouac 01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

some of the material in the article is original research at this point, moving it to the test page (along with Arrow's material) where it can be questioned and analysed would be fine by me. restoration of more OR, which would make the article worse than it is, is undesirable, as is "elimination" (by which i interpreted deletion). ITAQALLAH 01:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal is welcome to create a user sub-page in which this material may be stored; similarly for Arrow740.Proabivouac 01:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:The_Quran_and_science/Temp. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes when I first happened across this article I fought fire with fire, but haven't done so in a while. And you are right to point out that citing a second-grade textbook regarding the position of the moon would constitute OR. No I don't speak Arabic aside from a few words. Perhaps you can attribute some of the contradictions in the Quran to the poor Arabic skills of all three of the translators whose english translations are regularly consulted, but certainly not all. The Jesus issue as I presented it higher up on this talk page is once where I'm certain that translation is not the problem; the Quran is. As regards making my own version of the page, I have to stop wasting so much time on this. Let faisal make his version with whatever worthless sources he can dredge up, then we'll start again, and hopefully get this article deleted for good. But until then put your money where your mouth is and remove all of faisal's OR and while you're at it get rid of Bucaille's. Arrow740 02:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the OR. Ibrahimfaisal has all of it on his user space. Arrow740 04:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NO I do not have all of it on my User page. I had an much older copy. Why you continue to do things that make me ... --- ابراهيم 07:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well now you know how I feel when you deleted my OR! Anyway I really thought you had it. Can't you just copy it from an old version from the history page anyway? Arrow740 07:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

do make sure you don't resort to "fighting fire with fire" again because that would be a blatant WP:POINT violation

"And you are right to point out that citing a second-grade textbook regarding the position of the moon would constitute OR", misrepresentation, again. it would be OR to cite any book which talks about science but does not explicitly mention the qur'an and the subsequent divergence/convergence. the conclusion must be present within the book, that is why i stated you won't really find a second grade text book which analyses both factors and then comes to a conclusion about it.

re: jesus comment, you're just baiting again. although i do have to say, if these are the kinds of 'contradictions' you are coming up with, you may be in for an unpleasant suprise. in this instance, the translation isn't particularly false, it just isn't as specific and informative in its wording as it could be, which would remove all basis for such speculation. if you were to have a decent grounding in arabic as well as know a bit of common tafsir, you would see immedietly what the verse says, without anyone having to tell you anything. didn't i tell you to not resort to literalist interpretations of english translations? i won't respond to attempts to stimulate a debate again, and i suggest you stick to talking about relevant issues. if you would like clarification about the jesus comment or whatever, try a different medium like e-mail, and i may consider responding if i have time.

"remove OR"? don't you mean "relocate"? "put your money where your mouth is" - i don't see any value in such statements except stale clichéd attempts to sound grandiose. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So I can't even agree with your criticism of me now, huh? I'm gathering sources and if this article survives I will produce my own version of it. Arrow740 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Quote

On Tuesday, May 16 2006, Jimbo Wales wrote:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."Proabivouac 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is talking about statements which would be libel if false, in accordance with policies like WP:BLP. read the other comments in that thread too.one should WP:AGF of the editor who inserted it, assuming that they do have a source for it (even a poor one, NPOV trumps RS), and at least finding out from them about it before proceeding to remove it.ITAQALLAH 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have linked to the wrong e-mail. Let us finish the quote above:

"This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers."

So, while it is particularly true of libelous statements, it is nevertheless also true of all information, according to Mr. Wales.

"NPOV trumps RS" - Then, Itaqallah, why are you applying a stricter standard to Arrow740's edits, when by all accounts, this article is markedly biased towards the POV which Arrow740 would challenge?Proabivouac 01:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i said NPOV trumps RS, not NPOV trumps OR. that message is from the same thread. go the the bottom of the page and view by thread so you can see all of the messages. ITAQALLAH 01:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i have been looking through more discussions in that thread, the context seems to be mainly around BLP, companies or personal safety. has this issue been discussed elsewhere in wikipedia, assuming from the connotations from such a statement (although he said it is not a policy statement), it surely must have been. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It has indeed been discussed elsewhere on many occasions. That's how I knew to look for it.Proabivouac 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sperm vs. semen

Who changed it from semen to sperm? There's no way they had a word for sperm back then. Western scientists didn't discover it for quite some time. Arrow740 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I rather like the fellow who translated an Arabic term as "zygote." By this princely method, we can prove that the Qur’an says most anything: this word, usually translated uninterestingly as "light," really means "ultraviolet radiation," anticipating the findings of science by over 1,200 years…Proabivouac 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets use the translation of Yousaf Ali and other two well known people. If they say it is sperm then it should remain sperm and vica versa. --- ابراهيم 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one says seed and one says semen. The word probably means seed, as the word semen does. Arrow740 07:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is A. Abd-Allah?

I've asked this twice now, and received no answer. Anonymous or unknown writers cannot be sources for Misplaced Pages articles. If no one knows, I will remove all references to his work.Observation Post 06:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you point out where he's referenced in the article? I couldn't find any mentions... - Valarauka 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A. Abd-Allah is the author of the essay hosted on USC's site which is referenced several times in the article.Observation Post 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact we can say the same thing for Shehzad Saleem, reference 9. It seems that all that they will have left is Bucaille and the Emryology thing. Arrow740 07:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If Koenraad Elst is not allowed as a source for articles, then neither should Yahya, Bucaille, or even Moore be. Arrow740 07:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore is unimpeachable. However read the following excerpt from the wikipedia page on him: 'In Moore’s sixth edition University textbook called "The developing human", he directs his readers to read an essay by Basim Musallam, who says that the descriptions in the Quran are based on accounts written by Galen over 400 years before Muhammed was born.' That book came out 12 years after the article you guys are quoting. In fact it seems clear that Moore was not trying to show that the Quran is the word of God, but trying to prove that Muhammad copied all of the embryology material from Galen (coincidentally Muhammad claimed, as was the common misconception at the time, that bones develop before muscles: this is false. see ) If you guys want to use Moore as a reference you should of course add this fact into the article. Otherwise remove everything attributed to him, it's your choice. Arrow740 07:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia page on Moore seems pretty subpar itself . In any case, "directs his readers to" doesn't say anything about what he thinks about the essay; he could simply be pointing out another point of view, or even critiquing it. The sentence structure doesn't even make it clear whether Basim Musallam makes this claim in that particular essay. Yet the way it's stated strongly implies that Moore endorses Musallam's view, which is unjustified. Of course, if you could find the book we could verify the claim; if you could find the essay itself we can add it to the article separately, assuming Musallam is notable.

The bible.ca page you link to doesn't argue convincingly at all, and it asserts authoritatively that various people "know" various things without justifying such claims. Also, the whole site seems to have been written by "Brother Andrew", who is notable/verifiable/expert how?

About A. Abd-Allah, I could find no information whatsoever; I wouldn't object to shifting those sections off to the Temp page. The Shehzad Saleem bit seems to be published in a journal, so it at least meets WP:V standards. The man himself is apparently a Fellow at the Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Thought; I'm not sure that confers any great notability, though. Btw, who is this "they" you refer to?

Could you link the Elst source here? I'd like to take a look at it, don't want to go digging through page history. - Valarauka 08:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

note how Moore suddenly becomes "unimpeachable" as soon as there is reason to suspect he may not have the POV Arrow is opposed to. an unsourced claim is worthless. would you care to quote exactly what Moore says, and the passage in which he says it? with the page no., edition and everything else that would be expected? i do hope "Brother Andrew" isn't your best source for claiming contradiction. ITAQALLAH 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will get it. And he became unimpeachable when I read that he wrote the basic textbook on anatomy. Arrow740 15:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

so you didn't read what i wrote on Aminz's talk page when i linked you to it, did you?ITAQALLAH 15:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not closely. I'm often doing two things at once when I'm working on this stuff (else my non-wikipedia life would be suffering even more than it is right now). My mistake. Arrow740 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"as was the common misconception at the time, that bones develop before muscles: this is false. see" .. this is what is written about Moore in the article about bones and flesh:

in his analysis of this verse, he states that the next stage (which mentions formation of bones and flesh) is also in accordance with the stages of embryological development, as first the bones form as cartilage models, after which muscles develop from the surrounding somatic mesoderm

i have Langman's medical embryology ninth edition, and it says (ch. 8, p. 171) bone development occurs with mesenchymal cells first giving rise to hyaline cartilage models, which later become ossified. this is exactly what Moore states above. bone development starts with the formation of cartilage models. looks like "Brother Andrew" has been doing a little bit of his own OR.

as for the Musallam quote which Moore supposedly alludes to, it says nothing about plagiarism, it says nothing about copying, it says nothing but the idea that there was agreement between the two sources. so does Moore cite this as an example of his change in opinion i.e. that he believes the qur'an contains plagiarised material, or is he simply citing Musallam to demonstrate that there were some correlations between what Galen said and what is in the qur'an (if you deduce from such that qur'an must have copied Galen then it's non sequitur), which is exactly what he says in the article at the moment. i am very interested in what Moore actually says in the passage, when you get the book please do quote the whole paragraph so we can read his statements in complete context. ITAQALLAH 15:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I might be able to get a copy of Musallam's article as well, and Moore's, which I don't have yet, though you do it seems. Is there an electronic version? By the way the process you mentioned is hardly covering bone with flesh, in my mind. Arrow740 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your mind and my mind are equally irrelevant in this discussion; what matters is Moore's mind, for which we need to see the sources. - Valarauka 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then itaqallah's responses are equally irrevelant. But I agree. Do any of you have access to the book and/or the article? Is there a website where I can find this material? Is it on JSTOR? The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association seems to be a fringe publication; I'm not having luck finding physical copies of it. Maybe its website will help. Arrow740 06:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anyplace in the US that owns copies of the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association. I checked the Library of Congress, Harvard's library, and the the entire UC system (possibly larger than the LOC). Those are the three largest, I believe. How did you guys find it? I suppose that the fact that it isn't available in the US might not necessarily bar it from use, but if we're going to quote it, I'd like to have it available to me. Arrow740 07:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Moore quote, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. (seventh edition)

i managed to get some scans of pages 8-11 and page 14, because these are the pages which discuss in depth the history of embryology. page 9 is the only page on which the qur'an is mentioned. this is what Moore states, under the heading "Embryology in the Middle Ages", right column on page 9:

Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high points of embryological investigation undertaken during this time are known to us. It is cited in the Quran (seventh century A.D), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and the female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also made to the leechlike appearence of the early embryo. Later the embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance".

that is all Moore(/Persaud) state about the Quran. before this quote in the previous section, he talks about Aristotle, Galen and talmudic scholars and their theories. he states absolutely nothing about the relationship between Galen and the qur'an. he states nothing about the qur'an except in that paragraph. he says nothing about B. Musallam either. he lists GR Dunstan's work on page 14 under the header "References and Suggested Reading" along with just over two dozen other books/articles. and guess what else is on that list? i quote:

• " Moore KL: A scientist's interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an. JIMA 18:15, 1986. " unquote.

either Moore had a significant change of heart between the sixth and seventh edition or "Brother Andrew" has been extremely economical with the facts, attributing an opinion to Moore he never had. i don't even think that Moore even cites Musallam anywhere in the sixth edition either (see below), and as shown above the quote of Musallam given by Dunstan has been deceitfully misinterpreted. ITAQALLAH 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)