Islam is knowledge itself

[AbdulQahhar]

Celt, I've admitted this. Several times now.

That was more than 500 years ago. I fail to see what it has to do with the current state of Muslim science.

Can you show me a scientific advancement by Muslims in the past 500 years? If not, why do you think Westerners have so far surpassed Muslims in scientific knowledge?

Qingu, the fact the westerners (kuffaar, Christians, Jews, etc.) may have surpassed Muslims in science proves absolutely nothing. It's like saying, well you know, I can see nothing in Christianity is good - it's enough to look at Bush to confirm. Like Bush is not Christianity, so the Muslims are not Islam (meaning one cannot judge Islam by the Muslims). Further, Islam is perfect and Muslims are not.

And now to answer your question - well westerners simply surpassed Muslims in the last few centuries bcoz of the fact that they have invested more time, money, etc. effort in science and Muslims (generally speaking) have not. In Islam there is a clear answer for things like this - if one works hard, Allah will give him the fruits of his hardwork , no matter be him Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, kaafir, etc. This is Justice (and this is my understanding on the matter, Allah knows best).

[Qingu]

Qingu, the fact the westerners (kuffaar, Christians, Jews, etc.) may have surpassed Muslims in science proves absolutely nothing.

On the contrary, it proves that Islam is not, in fact, "knowledge itself," as the original poster claimed.

If it was, the kufr would not have so thoroughly eclipsed Muslims in scientific knowledge.

It's like saying, well you know, I can see nothing in Christianity is good - it's enough to look at Bush to confirm. Like Bush is not Christianity, so the Muslims are not Islam (meaning one cannot judge Islam by the Muslims). Further, Islam is perfect and Muslims are not.

Okay. So you're saying that for the past 500 or 600 years, Muslims were not practicing true Islam and that's why they've utterly failed to advance science?

And now to answer your question - well westerners simply surpassed Muslims in the last few centuries bcoz of the fact that they have invested more time, money, etc. effort in science and Muslims (generally speaking) have not. In Islam there is a clear answer for things like this - if one works hard, Allah will give him the fruits of his hardwork , no matter be him Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, kaafir, etc. This is Justice (and this is my understanding on the matter, Allah knows best).

I think it runs much deeper than that.

Religious people will automatically reject a scientific finding—no matter how widely supported it is—if it contradicts something in their sacred scriptures. Secularists, on the other hand, have no such limits.

For example, Christians believed that the sun revolved around the earth because the Bible says so. So when Copernicus and Galileo suggested that the earth revolved around the sun, they encountered a huge amount of resistance from the Church authorities (they placed Galileo under house arrest). Christians like Martin Luther and John Calvin said that Galileo's ideas were from the devil because they contradicted scripture. It wasn't until 100 years later when Newton wrote Principia that Christians started to believe in heliocentrism—and look what happened to their belief in the Bible! As soon as Christians accepted the scientific account of heliocentrism, they stopped taking the Bible literally, at its word.

Of course, without heliocentrism, the science of astronomy would have been left in the dark ages. We'd know next to nothing about the shape of the universe if scientists simply adhered to religious texts without questioning them.

Similarly, Muslims refuse to believe in evolution because evolution contradicts the Quran. But without the theory of evolution, you simply cannot do biology today. Biology without evolution is like astronomy without heliocentrism—it doesn't make sense. Genomics, genetics, medicine, even human cognitive science, all depend on a prior understanding of evolution. So how can Muslims expect to catch up with secularist scientists if they refuse to question their religious texts—like the Christians did with heliocentrism?

Science works as well as it does because, in science, everything is open to challenge and falsification—even sacred religious texts. And it should come as no surprise that a bunch of scrolls written hundreds or thousands of years ago contain many scientific errors.

[AbdulQahhar]

Qingu, you're smartly trying to flip what I said.

Read carefully:

On the contrary, it proves that Islam is not, in fact, "knowledge itself," as the original poster claimed.

Islam in general is not about science really, like the Qur'an is not meant to be a scientific book. Islam is a way of life, true way of life, the only true way.

Okay. So you're saying that for the past 500 or 600 years, Muslims were not practicing true Islam and that's why they've utterly failed to advance science?

No, this is what you said just now. I meant that perhaps Muslims didn't pay much attention to science, I didn't mean they didn't pay much attention to practising Islam. I'm sure they did pay attention to practising Islam.

And to make this short - the Qur'an has never failed, nor it will. Anything written in the text of the Qur'an regarding science is true, every single scientific claim so far was proven true.

[Qingu]

Qingu, you're smartly trying to flip what I said.

Read carefully:

On the contrary, it proves that Islam is not, in fact, "knowledge itself," as the original poster claimed.

Islam in general is not about science really, like the Qur'an is not meant to be a scientific book. Islam is a way of life, true way of life, the only true way.

Okay. So you're saying that for the past 500 or 600 years, Muslims were not practicing true Islam and that's why they've utterly failed to advance science?

No, this is what you said just now. I meant that perhaps Muslims didn't pay much attention to science, I didn't mean they didn't pay much attention to practising Islam. I'm sure they did pay attention to practising Islam.

Okay. I won't dispute this, just note that you appear to have a different position than the original poster.

And to make this short - the Qur'an has never failed, nor it will. Anything written in the text of the Qur'an regarding science is true, every single scientific claim so far was proven true.

There are several things that contradict known science in the Quran. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever of intelligent beings made out of fire (jinn) or light (angels). Man was not created from clay, according to science—he evolved from apelike ancestors.

Perhaps most incontravertably, the Quran says that man is created from a gushing fluid (semen) which issues from between the backbone and ribs (86:5).

The hadith also make a number of claims that contradict known science—such as Muhammad riding a flying horse up into heaven.

There are also passages in the Quran that imply the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, although Muslims have skillfully reinterpreted these verses to match current science (much as Christians have done with the verses in the Bible that imply these things).

[mustajab]

Okay. I won't dispute this, just note that you appear to have a different position than the original poster.


There are several things that contradict known science in the Quran. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever of intelligent beings made out of fire (jinn) or light (angels). Man was not created from clay, according to science—he evolved from apelike ancestors.

There wasn't much proof of microbes or x-rays centuries ago. But they do exist.

The hadith also make a number of claims that contradict known science—such as Muhammad riding a flying horse up into heaven.

Doesn't really contrdict science since you can't prove that one doesn't exist.

There are also passages in the Quran that imply the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth, although Muslims have skillfully reinterpreted these verses to match current science (much as Christians have done with the verses in the Bible that imply these things).

Give examples and prove your claim.

[Qingu]

There wasn't much proof of microbes or x-rays centuries ago. But they do exist.

So you think jinn don't contradict science because they might be discovered one day, like x-rays and microbes?

I take it you feel the same way about fairies, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, the scorpion-men from Babylonian mythology, ghandarvas and asuras from Hindu mythology, etc? There's no evidence whatsoever that any of these things exist and the nature of their supposed existence defies physical law—but they don't contradict science because we may one day discover them?

Doesn't really contrdict science since you can't prove that one doesn't exist.

Again, do you feel the same way about the Pegasus myth from Greek mythology?

Also, where exactly were Muhammad and his flying horse flying to? Outer space? Did they have space helmets? Or do you believe that heaven actually exists and is floating somewhere in the upper atmosphere?

Give examples and prove your claim.

I'm prepared to let these slide since, as I said, Muslims interpret the verses differently.

However, I notice you omitted mention of the Quran's view on where semen comes from. Do you believe that semen comes from between the ribs and lower back, like the Quran says?

[mustajab]

So you think jinn don't contradict science because they might be discovered one day, like x-rays and microbes?

I take it you feel the same way about fairies, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, the scorpion-men from Babylonian mythology, ghandarvas and asuras from Hindu mythology, etc? There's no evidence whatsoever that any of these things exist and the nature of their supposed existence defies physical law—but they don't contradict science because we may one day discover them?


Again, do you feel the same way about the Pegasus myth from Greek mythology?

It's illogical to discard something just because one can not precieve a certain thing. Our eyes or touch fail to pick up x-rays or microbes, but we've devloped instruments to do so. I don't believe in fairs or unicors, but jins and angles because I believe the narrators that transmited this knowledge were truthful.

Also, where exactly were Muhammad and his flying horse flying to? Outer space? Did they have space helmets? Or do you believe that heaven actually exists and is floating somewhere in the upper atmosphere?

I dont know.

I'm prepared to let these slide since, as I said, Muslims interpret the verses differently.

Please don't. You brought it up and you should be able to defend this claim.

However, I notice you omitted mention of the Quran's view on where semen comes from. Do you believe that semen comes from between the ribs and lower back, like the Quran says?

I did because I'm not knowledable enough on this topic from a Quranic or scientific prespective.

[mustajab]

I think Mawlana Ashraf Thanvi's Answer to Modernism pretty much sums up where we muslims are coming from.

1. One’s inability to understand something is no argument for its being false.
2. If a thing is rationally possible, and its existence is attested by sound report, then it is necessary to accept its existence. On the other hand, if its non-existence is attested by sound report, then it is equally necessary to accept its non-existence.
3. What is rationally impossible is something totally different from what is merely possible. The impossible is opposed to reason itself, while the possible is opposed merely to habit. The predicates of reason and those of habit are quite distinct, and it is erroneous to identify them with each other. What is impossible can never exist, but what is merely possible may exist. It is the impossible alone which can be described as irrational, while the possible is only something which reason cannot understand by itself. It is a great error to confuse one with the other.
4. If a thing exists, it is not necessary that it must also be sensible and visible.
5. It is not possible to prove a purely reported fact by a purely rational argument. So it is not also permissible to demand a rational argument for it.
6. There is some difference between a precedent and an argument. It may be justifiable to demand an argument form the man who makes an assertion, but it is not valid to demand a precedent from him.
7. There are two types of arguments: conclusive and approximate. A conclusive argument is a logical argument that cannot be contradicted. An approximate argument is one of the possible explanations that may be contradicted. Reason and religious reports have four relationships as far as contradiction is concerned.
1. Conclusive contradicting arguments are presented by both reason and report. This is impossible, for two truths cannot contradict each other.
2. Conclusive argument is found with report and an approximate argument is found with reason. In this case, the report would be accepted and reason would be rejected.
3. Both contradicting arguments, from reason and report, are approximate. In this case, report would be accepted and reason would be rejected.
4. Reason gives a conclusive argument and an approximate argument is conveyed by report, either because of its connotation or its authenticity. In this case, the report is to be interpreted in a non-literal way that does not contradict reason.

Thus, it is only the last of the above four cases, in which reason (dirayah) is given superiority over a religious report (riwayah).

http://alashrafia.com/english/answer.html

[Qingu]

It's illogical to discard something just because one can not precieve a certain thing. Our eyes or touch fail to pick up x-rays or microbes, but we've devloped instruments to do so. I don't believe in fairs or unicors, but jins and angles because I believe the narrators that transmited this knowledge were truthful.

Why don't you believe in fairies and unicorns?

If someone believed in fairies and unicorns, would you say their belief was unscientific?

Please don't. You brought it up and you should be able to defend this claim.

We've talked about the Quran's notion that the sun and the heavenly bodies "swim in orbit."

Now, the Quran could have easily said that the earth orbits the sun, but it did not. It used the same exact imagery that every other mythology does to talk about the sun and its motion across the sky.

Note that there were no Muslim heliocentrists before Copernicus' time. Every Muslim scholar—before science proved otherwise—believed such verses in the Quran meant that the sun orbits the earth. Muslims interpret the verses differently today, much the same way that Christians interpret the Bible verses about the sun being set in the sky and stopping its motion in Joshua differently today—you interpret your holy texts to conform to what we know by science. At least about heliocentrism.

There's also the line where Alexander the Great or whoever he is sees the sun setting in the muddy pool (thus denoting a flat earth), but Muslims on here have argued that the Arabic is figurative, which I'm prepared to accept.

I did because I'm not knowledable enough on this topic from a Quranic or Scientific prespective.

What exactly is there to be knowledgeable about?

The Quran says semen (or the gushing fluid that creates men) comes from between the backbone and the hip. As far as I can tell, there are no translation ambiguities with this passage.

We know for a scientific fact that semen does not come from there.

Tell me something. If you saw a verse making a similar claim in the Hindu scriptures, would you think that the Hindu scriptures contradicted science? I think you would.

[Qingu]

I think Mawlana Ashraf Thanvi's Answer to Modernism pretty much sums up where we muslims are coming from.



http://alashrafia.com/english/answer.html

The problem with this, as I hope I've demonstrated, is that you can apply it to any mythology.

For example, I can claim that Greek mythology is true, that Zeus and Hera and Pegasus and nymphs and satyrs all really exist.

You would respond "but there's absolutely no evidence for any of these things."

But then I could respond, "that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to exist!"

Nevertheless, you still probably wouldn't believe in Zeus and Pegasus and all that. Nor would you believe me if I told you that I have been abducted by aliens on numerous occassions.

If a claim is (1) fantastic, and (2) has absolutely no evidence to support it, then you are going to reject it—even if you can't absolutely disprove it. We probably agree on this for every single preposterous claim ever made in history—from the existence of Zeus and fairies to the historian Josephus claiming that he saw a floating army in the sky in 80 A.D., to the historian Seuteronius saying that the emperor Vespasian magically healed cripples. We're both skeptics for hundreds and thousands of fantastic, unevidenced claims in history, for exactly the same reasons.

I simply reject a few more fantastic, unevidenced claims than you do—the ones made by the religious text you happen to believe in—for exactly the same reasons that you reject hundreds and thousands of similar fantastic, unevidenced claims.