Talk:Relationship between the Quran and science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bias?

This article contains no specifics or critisism at all; for something that is clearly extremely controversial in the secular scientific world.

137.222.214.63 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started criticisms/explanations section, hope it'll expand further. Abdullais4u (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how quickly the critism section gets removed. It's almost like some people don't want to hear it...out of fear. I challange the authors of this page to put up a critisim section and to address the following.

If the human embryo is said to be like a chewed lump after 5 weeks (or even a 1-cm leech-like object), and the "soul" is said to be "breathed into the embryo by and angel" after 40 days, then how did anyone living in the 7th century preforming early embroytic study of embryos younger than 5 weeks know what to look for? The embryo was smaller than what anyone could see, much less pull out and examine...so why sould anyone not belive that this was due to the limits of observational technology and early medical science? Why is it that the word 'nutfah' is not considered as being an early word for 'semen'? That certainly fits in with the understanding of embryonic development from a 1400 year old perspective.--24.222.156.92 (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying that a 1-cm leech-like object is 'smaller than what anyone could see' or have I misunderstood that?60.240.127.125 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs

We already made the point that this trend is popular in the Muslim world: The search for Qur'anic references to and prophecies of modern scientific discoveries has become a "popular trend" in some Muslim societies, also the Arabic phrase "Sabaq al-Qur'an al-'ilm al-hadith" is not understandable to most of the readers. Imad marie (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the valid point here is demonstrating the degree to which some institutions have adopted the belief that modern science must be foreshadowed and "forestalled" by the Qur'an. That isn't done in the blander statement. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't (Qur'an "forestalls" modern science) the same as (Qur'an prophesied modern scientific discoveries) ? which we already covered ? I don't see how the phrase you added say that modern science "must" be foreshadowed by the Qur'an. Imad marie (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Forestalls" means to act beforehand. It also implies a certain constraint on subsequent action, which merely prophesy doesn't; which is why I thought that it adds additional info. In any case, giving an example of a semi-official body helps the reader understand that this is not a marginal phenomenon. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The second section talks about "Scientific exegesis of the Qur'an": the belief that all sorts of findings of the modern natural sciences have been anticipated in the Qur'an, I'm not sure what "Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs" think, but it seems they fit better in that section. Imad marie (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, I'll move it there. I think we should have an article on the SCIA, incidentally. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Abdullais4u, the references you are using are not RS, www.infidels.org is a secular website that is targeted against religious beliefs, which is definitley not third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You cannot use anti-Islam sources for the same reason that I cannot use pro-Islam sources like www.islamonline.net Imad marie (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is throwing out of a window secular sources? That's a news for me. BTW, this is not from Internet Infidels. Anyway, I was trying to balance this heavily biased article. Abdullais4u (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP is throwing out partisan sources. Imad marie (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course religious fundamentalists label secular sources as "partisan", "anti-islam/christian/insert_your_religion_here", "heretics", etc. It is clear that this article is pure POV. Abdullais4u (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "religious fundamentalists"? www.infidels.org is not RS, and you can check with Wikipedia:RSN if you wish. Imad marie (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Last changes

Badger Drink, please discuss your changes in the talk page before removing referenced material. Imad marie (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I felt the edit summaries were plenty - Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy and all that. However, in the hopes of settling, here are my problems with the article which, unfortunately, your flurry of edits has not yet resolved:

1. The neutrality of the article is, in fact, disputed, by editors including, but not limited to, myself. Considering your edits have done little, if anything, to address this, I find it problematic that you continue to remove this template. The article remains wholly without context - it doesn't mention, for instance, the rather dubious light in which these claims are held.
2. "Almost all sources, classical and modern, agree that the Qur’an condones, even encourages the acquisition of science and scientific knowledge." - this needs a citation. In this case, a good citation would be a meta-review of the sources which draws this conclusion. A good citation would not be one, two, or even three individual sources - unless the total amount of classical and modern sources happens to be three. I doubt that this statement is incorrect, so a source should be pretty easy to find.
3. The big paragraph that begins, "According to Keith L. Moore (professor emeritus of anatomy at the University of Toronto, and son of a Protestant clergyman)" is problematic. It takes the viewpoint of a single man - a single man who happens to be very committed to this viewpoint, yes, but a single man nonetheless - in such a light as to present his theories as the be-all, end-all. I'm sure there are people on the opposite end of the spectrum who feel, naturally, the exact opposite - as well as people in-between. It also seems slightly cherry-picked, especially considering the lack of any mention of this bit: "Simpson attested that this passage was consistent with the way recessive genes pass on traits not obvious in parents. But he says that the parallels — while striking — aren’t necessarily evidence of divine inspiration.".
4. The tag I added was in fact in err.

Those are the major differences between my reversion and yours. There are undoubtedly other problems - major, moderate, and minor - but let's start somewhere. --Badger Drink (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in the talk page is necessary when you are removing sourced material

1. If you believe that this article is POV, then identify the areas that you think are POV, and suggest ways to fix that. For example if you think the article doesn't mention the dubious light in which the claims were held, then bring your WP:RS that explains that. But putting the POV tag doesn't solve any problem.
2. this sentence is cited in "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an", the author of the article made his research, and concluded that "almost all sources agree that the Qur’an condones science", we can use his research in our article, I don't understand what you are objecting to.
3. It is only natural that we mention the notable figures in the related subject, like Keith L. Moore, Maurice Bucaille and Najjar. What is wrong with that?

Imad marie (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can use Encyclopaedia of Qur'an as a source, why cannot we use secular source? Anyway, you always label any secular, irreligious source as "anti-islamic" and revert such edits. Isn't it POV-pushing? Abdullais4u (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see this, that will give you an insight about previous discussions about RS we had before. You cannot possibly say that www.infidels.org is a third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking. Imad marie (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll save you the efforts, if you want to make changes to this article, find academic third-party sources, not partisan sources. Imad marie (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Where have I used "partisan" sources in this my edit? Abdullais4u (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One reason is WP:OR, how did you relate the age of the universe and earth to Qur'an? you made your own conclusions that those facts contradict with the Qur'an prophecies belief, and this would be OR. And on the later paragraph, you cited Arnold Neumaier, and he is not RS. Imad marie (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of the edit, that is most definitely OR, a violation of WP:SYNTH to be precise. The user not only related the verse to the age of universe, but used the word "however" to imply there was a contradiction between the verse and science. Bless sins (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

scope

what is the scope of this article? The very first line states that the Quran "encourages the acquisition of science", pointing towards Islamic science (the Golden Age of Islam), but the article then goes on to harp on eccentric claims of scriptural foreknowledge. If this is going to be an article about claims of miraculous prophesies in the Quran, why not choose a title that reflects that scope? --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is: "the relation between Qur'an and science", perhaps the following paragraph from (Encyclopedia of the Qur'an) summarizes it well: "presumed relationship is construed in a variety of ways, the most common of which are the efforts to prove the divine nature of the Qur’an through modern science".

This article is not coatrack. Imad marie (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I recall seeing a website that had a list of all the quotes that refered to scientific methods in regarding promoting people to find proof and other such verses in the quran, but I cannot find that site. It would probably take a month or two to track down those specific quotes from the quran, then again it should just take a few searches on the net. Faro0485 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Embryology

Currently the Embryology section is too long, and too technical. When the time permits, I will try to shorten it. Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang

"However" implies contradiction. Even if the (big bang) was prophesied in other books, I see no reason to include this in the current article and precede it with "However". Imad marie (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The general idea of the "scientific miracles in the Qurán, is that those scientific signs in the Qur'an only were discovered by the world in modern time, centuries after the revelation. And this would support the "divine origin for the Qur'an." That these Big Bang-like stories are also known by other people, would contradict the unique position that El-Naggar and his friends would give to the stories in the Qu'ran.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be unique, the claimed prophecies are there in many other books. Unless you are implying that Qur'an was influenced by those other books and "stole" their ideas, but if you implying that we need a good reference for that. Imad marie (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

To start with your last remark: I think it is rather silly to state that Qur'an has "stolen" ideas from the New Zealand Maoris. Nevertheless, I do not believe that Zaghloul El-Naggar and his friends are implying that the Qu'ran is just a book, like many other ancient books and myths that contains recently discovered scientific facts.

And to bring in another subject: this article mentions Qu'ranic science only in relation with Creationism, while others claim that ^[71:14] refer to Human evolution, while ^[51:20-21] also should refer to evolution (see [1]. I think we should insert a new paragraph about this.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, as long as it's well referenced. Imad marie (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

There does not appear to be any textual support for at least some of the apparent contradictions on this list. For example, it is stated that the science finds that the Sun existed before the world, whereas the Qur'an states that the world existed before the Sun. There are two obvious problems here. First, to say "world" rather than "Earth" results in unnecessary ambiguity. The word "world" has numerous meanings, both in modern ontology (e.g. the world of thoughts, the material world, etc.) and in the Qur'an itself ("Lord of the worlds" from Al Fatiha). Second, it is far from clear that the Qur'an does in fact claim that the Earth was created before the Sun. One assumes the person who wrote this list of controveries was referring to Surah/chapter 14, ayat/verses 32-33, but these verses do not in fact indicate a temporal order of creation at all. They use the word "wa" (meaning "and") - as in: "Allah is He Who created A and causeth B, thereby producing C, and maketh D, and hath made of service unto you E, and maketh F, and hath made of service unto you G." Furthermore, to considering reading this passage literally in a temporal order would be self-evidently absurd even to a novice of Qur'an textual analysis, as it refers to God "creating" ships before creating rivers! No Qur'anic scholar in the history of the religion has ever interpreted this passage completely literally or temporally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.71 (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the un-cited section. Imad marie (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidences, researching, learning about the world - leading to scientific method

Doesn't Zaghloul El-Naggar say that the scientific method that was developed by those living in Islamic lands was the quranic method? Shouldn't there be some verses from the quran refering to this? I believe there is something on Timeline of Islamic science and engineering wiki[2] Faro0485 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edit by Larkusix

It is doubtful if Bucaille had converted to Islam, see this. If you think otherwise, then perhaps you should start a thread about this here. Imad marie (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have refrained from reinserting the claim that Bucaille converted to Islam, although I have presented two independent references, and detected several others making the same claim. Please present better evidence to the contrary.

Apart from that I noticed with some annoyance, that you deleted my relevant and referenced content concerning Bucaille's work again without explanation. If you find fault with my material, please explain your position, but don't just remove it without giving reason.

Furthermore I noticed that this article suffers from a non neutral point of view. It reads like Islamic apologetics instead like a neutral encyclopedia entry. It contains a lot of fringe positions without explicitly identifying them as such and gives them thereby undue weight. A bit of counterbalancing measures would help this article.

All the best, Larkusix (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Please provide the text of the source that says that Bucaille converted to Islam. I found 2 sources in the past (I have to find them again now) that says that Bucaille's conversion is doubtful.
2. I removed all the claim about the earth being flat or spherical. The shape of the earth is really irrelevant to the Qur'anic verse; the verse is talking about orbital motion.
3. You too have removed sourced content: Bucaille's claim that the Qur'an is fault free.
4. I do not find Rasjidi's opinion fitting in our context, we do not put criticism in the lead, we already have "Bucaille's opinion did not gain scientific consensus on the matter.", and I think this is enough, or you can write more on what critics think in general.

Thank you for your contributions. Imad marie (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I provided them already look them up in the article version 18:42, 18 April 2009, maybe you should check the references before deleting them.
2. That the verse is talking about orbital motion in our modern sense is not proven in any way, shape or form, and should not be stated as fact, nor should it give the impression thereof. That the verse is a preconception of the heliocentric model is the opinion of a Muslim fundamentalist(as stated in the same source you are using) and apologist, and should be identified as such.
3. I haven't. Check any previous article version.
4. But I do. Rasjidi's opinion is relevant, because he was a highly respected and educated Muslim scholar and minister for religious affairs in the largest Muslim country[3] [4] [5] and more importantly because he was the translator of Bucaille's book. We have three quotes pro Bucaille and three quotes contra Bucaille, any less would be giving undue weight to fringe positions. In a general sense the article is already giving undue weight to fringe positions, and therefore lacks a neutral point of view and is in need of a general overhaul. Please note that the entire section "Science related prophecies" is about the positions made popular by Bucaille. One meager quote towards the end of the section, stating that his opinion "did not get scientific consensus" isn't exactly counterbalancing and even misleading, leaving it open to the interpretation that Bucailles opinions were actually scientific, but just failed to get consensus. Pseudoscience would be a more fitting label.
5. "Thank you for your contributions." You must be jesting. You deleted all my contributions.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1. What I meant is: can you please provide the actual content inside the source that affirms your edits?
2. It is not stated as a fact, the lead of the list clearly says: "Some of those claimed prophecies are".
3. The diff showed the content about Bucaille's claims in red, so I assumed that you removed the content when you actually haven't done so. I apologize for that.
4. I did not remove the material about Rasjidi for now.
5. We do not have to analyze every single word in the article: "Moore has concluded" was just fine; "Islamic scholar Zaghloul El-Naggar thinks" was just fine; all the statements you tagged as "fact" were actually referenced at the end of the passages. Take it easy on this article.

Imad marie (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided online browseable sources and the page number. Here are the quotes: 1) "Maurice Bucaille, a French surgeon and convert to Islam [...]", p.332 [6] 2) "[...] such as the Frech converts Roger Garaudy and Maurice Bucaille [...]", p.107 [7] 3) "[...] the French surgeon Maurice Bucaille, a convert to Islam in his middle age [...]" [8] I can provide more sources if needed. I ask you to provide the citations you use from the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, since I have no access to it and cannot afford to subscribe to it. [9]

I understand that you consider this article as your baby, since you started it. I'd like to participate to improve it. But in order to understand your position better, I have some questions for you:

1. To what extent do you consider this article to provide a neutral outlook on the topic of the article? What is already neutrally covered, and what ,if any, information needs to be included, and what needs to be excluded to make it balanced?
2. Do you consider any scientific and/or theological positions dicussed to be fringe? If yes, which, and are these given due or undue weight, should the fringe positions explicitly be identified as such?
3. Do you see any passages as not on topic of the article? If yes, which, and should these be removed?
4. Do you see any passages, especially, but not exclusively quotes as preaching for or against Islamic faith, including divinely inspiration and/or unerrancy of the Qur'an. If yes, which, and should these be removed?

Kind regards, Larkusix (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) No one owns any article; you are welcomed to contribute to this article. Just be selective about your sources, please do not use biased sources; Islamic or anti-Islamic.

I opened a thread here, which I think is the right place to discuss Bucaille's conversion to Islam.

To answer your questions in a brief way, I do not think that this article is perfect, please go ahead and improve it. But again please use unbiased sources. At the first look, the sources you used seem to be anti-Islamic, I have to check more. Imad marie (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And, please specify which part are you interested in "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an" and I will provide the content. Imad marie (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So far all my sources have been secondary literature [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15][16] by academics in relevant fields, often holding or having held university teaching positions [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], published by academic press [24][25][26][27], respectable scientific organisations [28] and peer reviewed journals [29], all of which don’t have a reputation for advancing extremist or fringe views.

Moreover some of my sources are Muslims or outspokenly friendly towards Islam. If you suspect my sources of anti-Islamic bias, forward your reasons and discuss them with me, but please do so before deleting my contributions.

How do you evaluate your own sources, especially Bucaille, Moore and Naggar? Do they have pro-Islamic bias? Are their views to be considered extremist or fringe?

I have presented 3 sources that claim Bucaille converted to Islam, please provide better sources that say otherwise.

Unfortunately you answered the question if you think this article is perfect, but that was'nt the question I asked you. Whether this article is perfect is besides the point. I asked you four questions, that, as far as I see it, touch the core of our disagreement over this article. Please answer these questions:

1. To what extent do you consider this article to provide a neutral outlook on the topic of the article? What is already neutrally covered, and what, if any, information needs to be included, and what needs to be excluded to make it balanced?
2. Do you consider any scientific and/or theological positions dicussed to be fringe? If yes, which, and are these given due or undue weight, should the fringe positions explicitly be identified as such?
3. Do you see any passages as not on topic of the article? If yes, which, and should these be removed?
4. Do you see any passages, especially, but not exclusively quotes as preaching for or against Islamic faith, including divinely inspiration and/or inerrancy of the Qur'an. If yes, which, and should these be removed?

I will mark the passages, that I need quotes of, in the article (As soon as I have the time). Please answer on the talk page.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete any of your material in my last edit. I just deleted a sentence in the lead where you are throwing out words: "This belief is considered as highly controversial and problematical.". Why is it problematical? please use more encyclopedic language.

Bucaille, Moore and Naggar are pro-Islamic sources, and I'm not directly quoting them. Please check this page where is has been agreed that only non-biased sources should be used.

For now I can't find my sources (although I have found them in the past). If you think that Bucaille converted to Islam then go ahead and add it to the article although I personally think that the conversion is doubtful.

What is the meaning of all those questions?! I don't see the point. If you think there is anything wrong in the article please go ahead and fix it. So I refrain from answering the questions!.

Wow, that's a long list, isn't it?, update your user page with your email and I'm willing to email you the source. And after you check the source, you are kindly requested to confirm in the talk page that the material in question in well-referenced so that we will not have this debate with another editor.

Imad marie (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

1. You did, you just gave an example. And you did in several edits before. "This belief is considered as highly controversial and problematical.". Why is it problematical? It's problematical, because it leads to scientific and theological problems, according to my sources. What would be more more encyclopedic language? Please try to formulate the sentence accordingly.
2. Not right now, but in the article, and you use them as sources in other ways. To clarify my opinion, I am not opposed to using biased sources, if they are used accourding to the guidelines for reliable sources, for example to illustrate an explicitly identified biased position if it is relevant for the topic of the article.
3. Too bad.
4. I pose the questions to find out about your opinion towards certain key issues of the article in order to first understand your position, and then to reach an agreement with you. Before that happens a meaningful cooperation is very difficult, as was made obvious amongst others when you repeatedly deleted my (sourced) content. Too bad, that you don't want to answer my questions. But I'll take your advice and go ahead and improve the article by first adding a NPOV flag.
5. I hope there is no problem? My e-mail address is Spillerix@gmxDOTnet. I'll post the quotes in the quote section and let everyone judge for himself.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote Section

Please enter your quotes here.

Larkusix (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources emailed to you. Imad marie (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are sources being emailed? Shouldn't they be used in the article or here for discussion? Thanks, Verbal chat 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Best would probably be, if you post the relevant passages here in the quote section.

Best, Larkusix (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will, give me until tomorrow. Imad marie (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, almost all sources, classical and modern, agree that the Qur’an condones, even encourages the acquisition of science and scientific knowledge, and urges humans to reflect on the natural phenomena as signs of God’s creation

Ahmad Dallal, Science and the Qur'an, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Page 2

Far from al-BirOnTs contentions, contemporary Islamic discourse on the Qur’an and science abounds with assertions of the relationship between the two. This presumed relationship is construed in a variety of ways, the most common of which are the efforts to prove the divine nature of the Qur’an through modern science. These efforts cover a wide range of activities including the establishment of institutions, holding conferences, writing books and articles, and the use of the internet to promote the idea of the scientific miracles of the Qur’an

Ahmad Dallal, Science and the Qur'an, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Page 1

This verse, according to El-Naggar, refers to the scientific truths that are in the Qur’an that would be discovered in modern times, centuries after the revelation, and would “astound the contemporary scientists and thinkers of the world” ( al-Sharq al-A wsat, 5 Sept. 2003). According to him, these scientific miracles of the Qur’an are the only weapon with which contemporary Muslims can defend the Qur’an and the only convincing language in this ¶ age of science and materialism (ibid., 23 Sept. 2003).

Ahmad Dallal, Science and the Qur'an, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Page 2

MajeedAzzindant More recently, the most ambitious of all claims of scientific miracles is that the references in the Qur’an to the heavens and the earth being originally an integrated mass before God split them (e.g. Q 21:30), are nothing short of a condensed version of the big bang theory

Ahmad Dallal, Science and the Qur'an, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Page 11

As a manifestation of the popularity of this idea, the Muslim World League at Mecca formed in the 1980s the Committee on the Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an and the Sunna (traditions of the Prophet; see SUNNA; HADITH AND THE QUR’AN ). The Committee has since convened numerous international conferences and sponsored various intellectual activities, all aimed at exploring and corroborating the connections between science and the Qur’an. A recent meeting of this Committee in Cairo, reported in the mass media, urged Muslims to employ the “scientific truths which were confirmed in the verses of the Qur’an and which, only recently, modern science has been able to discover” as a corrective to the current misunderstanding of Islam. These truths prove that “Islam is a religion of science.” The current president of the Committee, Zaghloul El-Naggar, asserts that it was only after man entered the age of scientific discoveries

Ahmad Dallal, Science and the Qur'an, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Page 2

Scientific exegesis (‘tafsir 7/mi) is to be understood in light of the assumption that all sorts of findings of the modern natural sciences have been anticipated in the Qur’an and that many unambiguous references to them can be discovered in its verses

Wielandt, Rotraud. "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Early Modern and Contemporary ." Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Page 5

What was God’s intention in creating the physical cosmos? On this point, the Qur’an is unabashedly anthropocentric. God’s purpose in the creation of the universe was focused on humanity. This is manifest, for example, in the fact that the universe is admirably designed to provide for human needs and wants ( Q 2:22, 29; 10:67; 14:32-4; 16:5-8, 10-8, 80-1; 17:12; 20:54-5; 22:65; 23:17-22; 67:15; 78:6-13; 79:32-3). The Qur’an offers its own version of what has come to be termed in cosmology the “cosmic anthropic principle.” This beneficent, human-centered design characterizes not merely the arrangements on the earth where humans actually live. It extends beyond to the heavens: “He cleaves the dawn and makes the night for rest and the sun (q.v.) and the moon (q.v.) for reckoning. That is the decree of the Mighty, the Omniscient. He is the one who placed the stars for you, so that you might be guided in the darkness (q.v.) of land and sea” ( Q 6:96-7; see COSMOLOGY IN THE QUR’AN).

Daniel Carl Peterson, Creation, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an Page 2

So now after the hectic job of providing the source here, what's next? Imad marie (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing 79.193.204.240 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems

I believe this article currently suffers from the two problems above, partly caused by the excessive direct referencing to the Qu'ran. We should reference to scholarly works about the Qu'ran and describe the arguments they make; not make our own. This can hopefully be fixed with better sourcing. Also, the referencing style used for the Qu'ran here is quite strange, is it standard? Verbal chat 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I percieve WP:NPOV problems, too.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This article is well-sourced, better than many other articles in wikipedia. The title of this section clearly does not fit; not a single sentence in the article is OR, nor SYNTH. This article is under attack although it is well-sourced, do we have WP:IDONTLIKEIT here?

I'm not going to remove the tags for now, until Larkusix checks the sources sent to him/her. Imad marie (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sending sources to people isn't good enough, and sourcing directly to the Qur'an is WP:OR. Please WP:AGF, and have a look at the OR and SYNTH pages linked above. This article is not under attack, it is tagged for improvement. Verbal chat 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V, a core policy, and WP:RS are also relevant. Verbal chat 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know about the policies, and the article isn't sourcing Qur'an directly, it's sourcing secondary sources.

The template is a standard, please check Template:Quran-usc. Imad marie (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Example: only the last line of the Creationism section is sourced to a secondary source. The other references are to the Qur'an directly to support the discussion. Verbal chat 16:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand you. For example when the article says: "According to Qur'an; natural phenomena comprises a large portion of the divine signs; nature itself praises God [24:41]," and then I reference the end of the passage with "Ian Richard Netton, Nature as Signs, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an"; this way I am using secondary source "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an" and not a primary source "Qur'an". Imad marie (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for input from the Religion wikiproject, and I ask from science too. Verbal chat 11:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article has WP:NPOV issues. --Nevit (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Larkusix, just to move forward, can we discuss the points you're objecting to point by point. Lets start with the sentence you tried to enter in the lead: "This is highly problematic"; you can't judge that it is problematic, you can say something like "critics have criticized this belief because so and so...", please read WP:LTRD. Imad marie (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the horse. We should first discuss the underlying, more important questions, then we can move to the details. I post my questions again:

1. To what extent do you consider this article to provide a neutral outlook on the topic of the article? What is already neutrally covered, and what, if any, information needs to be included, and what needs to be excluded to make it balanced?
2. Do you consider any scientific and/or theological positions dicussed to be fringe? If yes, which, and are these given due or undue weight, should the fringe positions explicitly be identified as such?
3. Do you see any passages as not on topic of the article? If yes, which, and should these be removed?
4. Do you see any passages, especially, but not exclusively quotes as preaching for or against Islamic faith, including divinely inspiration and/or inerrancy of the Qur'an. If yes, which, and should these be removed?

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific method and the quran

Would there not be any evidence for quran and scientific methods? As we see hadith science develop from the muslims, and scientific methods develop among the muslims. Faro0485 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Third party sources tag

I tagged the article with a request for third party sources tag because the embryology subsection lacks third party sources which detail the sacred text foreknowledge argument that the Qur'an describes various embryological details on a cellular level. While the passages from the Qur'an are helpful for illustration, they are not adequate according to the guidelines on primary and secondary sources. The same goes for the final paragraph in the human creation section. Sifaka ^talk 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I removed the material that is referencing Qur'an, and removed the tag. Imad marie (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

anthropic principle

I made [this change] so that the statement that the universe is admirably designed for humanity is in the context of the Qur'an instead of stated as a fact. The principles of evolution would suggest that instead of the universe being designed for humanity, humanity adapted to the universe. Sifaka ^talk 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit by Velanthis

Hello Velanthis, please mind the following with your edits:

1. Use the edit summaries when making modifications.
2. Do not remove sourced material. For example you removed "Qur'an does not assert that God created the universe at some definable point in the past." for no obvious reason.
3. When adding new material, please cite the WP:RS that use used.
4. Make your edits one at a time, it makes it easier for other editors to follow you.

Happy editing. Imad marie (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Zaghloul El-Naggar - islamic scholar?

I don't think El Naggar is an islamic scholar... his background is in geology and earth sciences. Faro0485 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} This section must be semi-protected to prevent it edited by other hands than moslem people or other capable moslem scholars.

This is not the place to request page protection, that happens at WP:RFPP. However, articles are not owned by anyone or any group, and as such everyone is free to edit them. The only reason for page protection is to stop above-average levels of vandalism, which definitely isn't happening here. Feel free to work and improve the page, though. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article in my opinion does reflect point of view regarding the relation between Islam and science, so I added a POV tag. --87.208.211.206 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Very POV Article

This has to be one of the worst cases of POV I've seen on wikipedia.

There is absolutely no reason why a subject as controversial as this would be without a decent criticism section.

It also seems that anything critical of Islamic cosmology gets deleted very quickly - without regard to what look like excellent sources.

Since the article has been tagged POV since August 2010 and this issue is clearly not resolved, I'd say it might be time to request protected status and possibly discipline some obviously biased users.

Noformation (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Science and the Arab World

It could be useful to further the discussion of this article with references to the reality of the condition of science in the Islamic world. Essentially every aspect of Islamic society (from the time of Mohammed) borrows heavily from the various influences of the lands and nations which Mohammed and his successors conquered—specifically the Byzantine Levant, Persia, and Egypt. Islamic architecture is Graeco-Roman in origin, certain literary traditions are Greek and Persianate, and the fabulous civilization which succeeded Mohammed in the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain takes its primary aesthetic and civil foundation from the crumbling Roman world. Indeed, the Age of the Caliphates was proficiently philhellenic in many respects. Islamic scholars revived Greek intellectual texts which had been denied in large part to the people of Europe by the Church (although not to the monastic and ruling classes), so we must keep in mind that such disciplines as the scientific method and its manifestation in Arabia and parts of Africa in the age of Islam derive directly from earlier Greek studies from the bygone Classical age.

Moreover, while I do not wish to discourage anyone (religious or secular) from considering the Quran, we must look without bias to the profession of Mohammed prior to his revelation and vocation as Prophet: that of a merchant. What may be a divinely inspired discourse about the planets could in actuality derive from quite common conceptions of the Universe which the astrology-minded Persians and Greeks held. Similarly, the Quran’s presentation of the fetus is probably little different from the Classical understanding of the origins of life (consider Galen and other Hellenistic physicians who performed countless autopsies and dissections). Mohammed, a brilliant and astute student of history, a traveler, and a diplomat would know about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.160.3 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to clarify -- we cannot know with absolute certainty if we are unbiased in our attempt to reconcile science and the Quran if Mohammed dervied his understanding of science from God or from extensive research into such disciplines as anatomy and astrology, which he would have encountered as a businessman and intellectual. That is my point. Just as with all religions, the jury is still out on this one. Of course, faith is something altogether more mysterious, and my intent is not to prove or disprove the veracity of this religion or the claims of its prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.160.3 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article and Biased?

This article only presents quotes which are interpreted to claim that the quran contains quotes which are 'scientific' and that they seem to be talking about topics such as embryology,Heliocentrism long before they were supposedly discovered to be divine revelations.There are no refutations or critisms or quotes to show that the origin of these statements as taken from Greek philospohy or thinking.Where are the counter interpreptations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.251.9 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Split, a-la Science and the Bible

Science and the Bible is about the actual state of sci then, as revealed by the bible. And the weird "foreknowledge" stuff is split off into Scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, which actually turns out to be scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts and which seems to repeat most of what we have under Science-related prophecies. I'll fix that up, by removing it from here William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I tried, or at least started. What in fact is this article supposed to be about? Is it about actual, real science in the Qur'an - and so, effectively, about history-of-science-as-revealed-by-reading-the-Qur'an? Or is it about the mystical-foreknowledge stuff? I'm arguing that it should be about the former, and the latter should be in scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts though at the moment this will become a very thin article if we do that William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. I'm just becoming familiar with these articles. Looks like the original intent of this one was to demonstrate divine inspiration of the Qur'an by the assertion that it holds scientific facts, what you're calling the mystical foreknowledge stuff. I agree that all that belongs where you put it in Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts and this one should become an article following the pattern of Science and the Bible about the actual state of science then, as recorded in the Qur'an. Yopienso (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

reject a scientific method of interpretation?

I'm not clear why remove rejection of a position that has been removed is a good reason for this removal [30].

Author Rotraud Wielandt summarizes the arguments of the modern Muslim commentators such as Mahmud Shaltut and Sayyid Qutb who reject a scientific method of interpretation of the Qur'a

would appear to be relevant to the article William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me, but must be reliably sourced. I find that quote all over the internet in blogs. Here's the document. I wonder if Wikipedia copied it or vice versa. Yopienso (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of merger

Readers be advised that my arguments for the merger of Qur'an and science are over at Talk:Islam and science.-Tesseract²(talk) 04:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Keith Moore

I'm thinking Keith Moore's ideas on embryology should be included. Yopienso (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe so! I added the following including a video testameny of 4 scientists, but Mr. William M. Connolley deleted it...

Professor Keith L. Moore, a Canadian scientist teaching anatomy and embryology worldwide, announced his believe of accuracy in the Quran's explanation of the human development stages of embryology in 1981, following the confirmation of many other anatomists like Dr. Gerald C. Goeringer, Dr. E. Marshall Johnson, and Dr. T.V.N. Persaud.

adamrce

Dr. Connolley correctly pointed out a YouTube video is not a reliable source. These others I've linked to seem to be. Yopienso (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, the sources I supplied are self-published, and therefore not reliable. If this idea is widely accepted in the Muslim world, you should be able to find reliable third sources that report Dr. Moore's ideas. Yopienso (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all sources are web-page articles as it's a very old subject, so do you think any of these would work: http://www.quranandscience.com/human/135-dr-keith-moore-confirms-embryology-in-quran.html, http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html :adamrce —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Is Q&S regarded as a WP:RS? For example http://www.quranandscience.com/islam-and-science-universe/257-all-swimming-in-an-orbit.html looks distinctly dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moore retired a long time ago. Most of what's written are on personal blogs and sites, referring to the early 80s videos, like I did :). I wanted to show something that people can actually see, but guess I'm kind of in a dead end and only have his book as a source. Of course his contributions and awards in science considers his books RS, while they're even used in many universities around the world, including the U.S.

Therefore, shall I add the source like this?: <ref>Moore, Keith. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With Islamic Additions (ISBN 0721664725), 1982.</ref> adamrce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

(I un-hid your ref tag, so we can see it) You say the book is called The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With Islamic Additions - but I see it without the Islamic bit, e.g. [31]. Also (sorry for being so relentlessly negative): if the idea is sourced to only one person, it doesn't really belong here (though it might belong in his article). Unless other people have picked up his idea, and endorsed it, it isn't (by definition) notable. That pretty well applies to any text that you have to introduce with Dr X says that Y. You need to be able to write The idea Y, as shown in numerous texts including Dr X, if you see what I'm trying to say William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No sir absolutely not. I don't see you negative, just logical. It's a very sensitive topic and I also don't want to put a weak source then have it deleted after a week or so. Ya, guess Q&S is written by a pathetic person that doesn't know what he's talking about. The problem is that the subject is in the early 80s, and Dr. Keith and the other scientists has been criticized alot because of this, based on a religious hate, so he even refused to make interviews anymore. That's why there's not much reliable sources around, even though Dr. Keith's books are still used in many universities in U.S. and Canada. And sorry about the book, I noticed that he has two versions of 3rd addition, the second one has "with Islamic Additions" where he adds the Quranic scriptures to his book. I gave you the wrong ISBN, so here is some electronic samples:http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/b6147.html. Furthermore, there's an article in Wall Street Journal in 2004 about this topic also http://www.weatheranswer.com/public/wstjournal%20012302.txt. The topic needs subscription, so do you think it would be better if I print a copy with my subscription to a PDF? Therefore, do you think these sources are enough: My first sentance about his biography with his AAA website page; My second sentance about the relation with the Quran, sourcing his "with Islamic Addition" book's ISBN with the Wall Street Journal article in a PDF. Thanks for your support, and sorry for my limited knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamrce (talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of See also links

The See also link to Bahá'í Faith and science was removed with the reason "Bahá'í Faith has nothing to do with Qur'an. The word Qur'an is NOT even mentioned in the Bahá'í Faith page". However, the See also section is more about what readers might find interesting by way of related reading, we are also considering merging this with Islam and science, and the Bahá'í Faith does recognise Mohammed as one of its messengers. In fact, I think it might be useful to add a couple more links if we have other "X and science" articles relating to other religions. Anyway, I've restored the link - what do people think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just see it kind of weird, precisely on Bahá'í Faith. They're using the Quran and Mohammed to prove many of their concepts, even though they know that the Quran say there will be no prophets after Mohammed. I just see their page kind-of offensive to this.

Christianity and Science & Judaism and Science are logical to add, btw. Just a POV AdvertAdam ^talk 07:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't omit links to pages about religion X from religion Y just because believers of Y find X offensive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean offensive as their belief, but manipulating Quranic text in their books to prove their religion. Anyways, I see the "Relationship between religion and science" a good choice, as it explains all faiths. AdvertAdam ^talk 19:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many see-also is often a sign that text isn't being folded into the article (just a comment, I'm not arguing to remove them) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a thought - might it be better to have just one "See also" link to Relationship between religion and science, as that covers a lot of faiths and has links to specific articles? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"even more than christians"

Adamrce, you caught me right in the middle of another undoing of your undone undoing lol. I appreciate your comment - and I am not looking for an edit war. I will explain my side. The claim we are mostly going back and forth on seems to be when Edis said that Muslims may have more motivation than Christians to reconcile science with their holy book. My main issue with the deletion was that it is legitimately Edis' criticism. He made that comment in the interview. It also seems a valid point that, the more people tend to take the book literally whilst respecting science, the more motive they have. I should ask why we would eliminate that part of the criticism particularly.-Tesseract²(talk) 02:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's one person's opinion, and not a very notable, or even correct, one. Perhaps you are not familiar with Christian fundamentalism? Abdullajh (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry bro, it all came fast :p. Why do you ignore my summaries? Why should a criticism be mentioned if it's logically nonsense? Which is more logic: the people that look for connection between current science and historical scripture (Muslims); OR the people that have a science class based on their scripture (Christian Schools), even while the professors whom teach it knows that it's against science? If you don't agree with my point, let me know to bring you sources :) AdvertAdam ^talk 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of Universe

I tried to enter it here Non-Muslim Scientists embraced Islam after discovering the Miracles of the Noble Quran! Scientists’ Comments On The Qur’an Extracts from the video This is the Truth by Sheikh Abdul-Majeed A. al-Zindani,

In the holy Quran - "And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders" [32]- 51:47. The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states.

That the Quran mentioned such a fact centuries before the invention of the first telescope, at a time when there was primitive knowledge in science, is considered remarkable. This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself. Could it be that he had truly received divine revelation from the Creator and Originator of the universe?[33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs) 07:05, 19 May 2011

Thanks. However, I wonder if you are aware that other translations are different? The std wiki template ^[51:47] leads to text like " And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample." which is rather less exciting. I've revised your edit accordingly.

Also, please don't copy text in from external sources ("That the Quran mentioned such a fact centuries before the invention of the first telescope...") because of WP:COPYVIO. Even more, please don't copy ideas from partisan websites without verifying them William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a brief explanation . Waitng to see some of your contribution in this article. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues

When we mention living people we must have rock solid sources. I've removed several claims that signally failed to have such sources. This includes the Keith Moore bit which I removed after reading the discussion on his talk page. See WP:BLP for the policy behind my removal. If you disagree, take it to WP:BLPN where such issues should be discussed - I see Moore's been discussed here before. The other names had a blog and a book as sources, the blog clearly fails WP:RS and I believe the book does also, both as there's no evidence it meets our criteria and the sources it uses are in some cases clearly not reliable by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems, Problerms, Problems

Currently the article is not complying with WP:OR and WP:RS. Most of the websites are not acceptable as sources nor is personal interpretation of Qu'ran verses as a scientific content ("some people think" basically giving a personal interpretation of some Qur'an verses). Another problem is that citation of some the (print) sources are not accurate enough. One cannot simple cite and article of a "encyclopedia of Qur'an" (there might be several or several rather different editions, some of them might even fail our requirements for sources). At the very least there needs to be an editor and the publishing company and publication date as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of Universe

Material removed from the article reposted here for no very clear reason

- - Verse [51:47] says in one translation "And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders" . Some have interpreted it to be a reference to what is now know as the metric expansion of space. However, "and indeed We are the expanders" is more commonly translated as "for it is We Who create the vastness of space", or "We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)", or "We are the makers of things ample." Black holes and death of stars [77:8] "So, when the stars will be extinguished" 77:8. Verse [77:8] also in another verse "But nay! I swear by the stars, That run their course (and) hide themselves" [81:15] Some have interpreted to be a reference to what we now know as Death of stars."Prof. Naggar explains, the scholars used to interpret the verse metaphorically, but the astronomers in the late 20th century to find a scientific fact, namely the so-called "Black Hole" (Black Hole)." "This surah does not speak about black holes at all, but about the Day of Decision (aka Day of Judgment). Therefore, it cannot possibly refer to black holes which were formed and continue to be formed long before this specific day" . It is also translated as "Then when the stars become dim" or "So when the stars are put out" or - "So when the stars are made to lose their light"[77:8] Movement of mountains [27:88] says "And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah, who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do. Some people have interpreted as what we know as Continental drift and Plate tectonics. "This motion of mountains is caused by the movement of the Earth’s crust that they are located on." References mentioned in the same page Tauhidaerospace (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Movement of mountains section

Christopher_Connor (talk · contribs) so he removed Movement of mountains, expansion of universe, and Black holes and death of stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs) (refactored by WMC to remove personal attacks)

References of expansion of universe

Well I can't speak for Christopher Connor and issues he might have in WP elsewhere, but all the listed content above has big issues. In particular all cited sources (possibly except the first one) don't seems to acceptable by WP standards, i.e. the removal was justified for now and it should should not included again until there are acceptable sources for it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Movement of mountains

^[27:88] says "And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah, who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do. Some people have interpreted as what we know as Continental drift and Plate tectonics. In a book written by Maurice Bucaille it said, "According to modern ideas, the dominating factor in the formation of the land that emerged was the development of mountain ranges. The evolution of the land, from the primary to the quaternary era, is classed according to 'orogenic phases' that are themselves grouped into 'cycles' of the same name since the formation of all mountains reliefs had repercussions on the balance between the sea and the continents. It made some parts of the land disappear and others emerge, and for hundreds of millions of years it has altered the surface distribution of the continents and oceans: the former at present only occupying three tenths of the surface of this planet. In this way it is possible to give a very rough outline of the transformations that have taken place over the last hundreds of millions of years.".

However in another Verse ^[79:32],^[31:10], ^[21:31] "Modern geologists describe the folds in the Earth as giving foundations to themountains, and their dimensions go roughly one mile to roughly 10 miles. The stability of the Earth's crust results from the phenomenon of these folds. So it is not surprising to find reflections on the mountains in certain passages of the Qur'an, such as the following: --sura 79, verse 32: "And the mountains (God) has fixed them firmly." --sura 31, verse 10: "(God) has cast into the ground (mountains) standing firm, so that it does not shake with you." The same phrase is repeated in sura 16, verse 15; and the same idea is expressed with hardly any change in sura 21, verse 31: "We have placed in the ground (mountains) standing firm so that it does not shake with them." In an argument it states that "The observation here is that Islamists equate ‘deep mountain roots’ with ‘pegs’. There are several difficulties with this interpretation in that not all mountains have peg-like roots. An analysis of mountain formation reveals the fact that not all mountains have peg-like roots, for example volcanoes; those formed by extension and faulting" These verses express the idea that the way the mountains are laid out ensures stability and is in complete agreement with geological data.">.

This is all twaddle

Is this article supposed to be a joke? What is

The Qur'an talks about cosmic orbital motion: "It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit" [36:40] at a period of time when the common belief was that earth was stationary

supposed to mean? We're quoting some text which clearly believes in a stationary earth, with the sun and moon orbiting it, and claiming it demonstrates that the Koran thinks the earth was in orbit? Who wrote this stuff? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Connolley, please be civil. "Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect." Your logic is impeccable, but your comments and edit summaries (don't be silly, of course it doesn't; this is twaddle; re-rm nonsense about gametes) are disrespectful. I don't think this article is supposed to be a joke. It's a serious one that needed editing, which you did well. The internet abounds with attempts to see science in the Qur'an. Here are a few sites: Quran and Science. About Islam. Answering Islam. You--or we--can engage and work together with other editors on this article rather than offend or alienate them with insults. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as the issue is concerned, Connoly is right though. The article is unacceptable for WP in its current state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of Universe

Verse ^[51:47] says in one translation "And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders" [34], and in another "We will continue to expand it." Some have interpreted it to be a reference to what is now know as the metric expansion of space. However, the clause is more commonly translated as "for it is We Who create the vastness of space", or "We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)", or "We are the makers of things ample." " "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."'Heaven' is the translation of the word sama' and this is exactly the extra-terrestrial world that is meant. 'We are expanding it' is the translation of the plural present participle musi'una of the verb ausa'a meaning 'to make wider, more spacious, to extend, to expand'Others sense the meaning, but are afraid to commit themselves: Hamidullah in his translation of the Qur'an talks of the widening of the heavens and space, but he includes a question mark. Finally, there are those who arm themselves with authorized scientific opinion in their commentaries and give the meaning stated here. This is true in the case of the Muntakab, a book of commentaries edited by the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Cairo. It refers to the expansion of the Universe in totally unambiguous terms."

According to Zakir Naik "In 1925, American astronomer Edwin Hubble, provided observational evidence that all galaxies are moving away from one another, which implies that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is now an established scientific fact. This is what the Qur’an says regarding the nature of the universe: “With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: For it is We Who create the vastness of Space.” [Al-Qur’an 51:47] The Arabic word musioon is correctly translated as ‘expanding it’, and it refers to the creation of the expanding vastness of the universe.

In critisism to it Dr William Campbell said "The fact that the universe is vast is prosaic and obvious. There is no mention of expanding universe in this verse. Any illiterate man could look around himself and see the world is vast. To the ancient people even the Earth looked vast. To us it looks very small. Some modern translators of the Quran have tried to give a scientific spin to the Quran and have translated the word continuity stating that the universe is expanding. This is not true. The word مُوسِعُونَhas no such connotation"

Stephen Hawking mentioned in his book a brief history of time- It was also on the London Sunday Times best-seller list for more than four years. that
"The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century". "Some may say that the presence of astronomical facts in the Qur’an is not surprising since the Arabs were advanced in the field of astronomy. They are correct in acknowledging the advancement of the Arabs in the field of astronomy. However they fail to realize that the Qur’an was revealed centuries before the Arabs excelled in astronomy. Moreover many of the scientific facts mentioned above, such as the origin of the universe with a Big Bang, were not known to the Arabs even at the peak of their scientific advancement. The scientific facts mentioned in the Qur’an are therefore not due to the Arabs’ advancement in astronomy. Indeed, the reverse is true: they advanced in astronomy, because astronomy occupies a place in the Qur’an".

Some related information which could be added in Evolution- Encyclopedia of Science and Religion

<ref>{{cite book|last=Huyssteen|first=Wentzel Van|title=Encyclopedia of Science and Religion|year=2003|publisher=MacMillan|isbn=0028657047|pages466,773|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=HIcYAAAAIAAJ&q=Encyclopedia+of+Science+and+Religion+MacMillan&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Science+and+Religion+MacMillan&hl=en&ei=ZP7ZTYLwHMHm0QGSs6H8Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA}}</ref>

First I'd like to thank everyone for their concern about my research regarding the Quran and science. I have thoroughly searched for reliable sources and I've included here to make it acceptable. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Any ideas how to add "Three Dark Stages of the Baby in the Womb"

"In the Qur'an, it is related that man is created through a three-stage process in the mother's womb.

"... He creates you stage by stage in your mothers' wombs in threefold darkness.

That is Allah, your Lord. Sovereignty is His. There is no god but Him. So what has made you deviate? "(Qur'an, 39:6)[35]

Translated into English as "a threefold darkness," indicates three dark regions involved during the development of the embryo. These are:

The darkness of the abdomen

The darkness of the womb

The darkness of the placenta

As we have seen, modern biology has revealed that the embryological development of the baby takes place in the manner revealed in the verse, in three dark regions. Moreover, advances in the science of embryology show that these regions consist of three layers each.

The lateral abdominal wall comprises three layers: the external oblique, the internal oblique, and transverses abdominis muscles.

Similarly, the wall of the womb also consists of three layers: the epimetrium, the myometrium and the endometrium.

Similarly again, the placenta surrounding the embryo also consists of three layers: the amnion (the internal membrane around the fetus), the chorion (the middle amnion layer) and the decidua (outer amnion layer.)

It is also pointed out in this verse that a human being is created in the mother's womb in three distinct stages."[36]

Why would you want to add it? It is there already Qur'an_and_science#Embryology (ugh. Yukky apostrophe!) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it doesn't provide a description its hard to understand it. It would be easier if it could be thoroughly described uing sources. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

External links

Miracles of Quran--Tauhidaerospace (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC) -- Tauhidaerospace (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

At first glance that doesn't look like an appropriate external link to me. I don't quite see that the website's editor is a notable expert nor imho does it contain high quality content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar look at his Biography he is an notable expert. Tauhidaerospace (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources

allvoices.com is not a reliable source by our criteria: "Allvoices is a global, open-media news site where anyone can report from anywhere" is not acceptable. nxtnews.com/ I've brought up at WP:RSN where I've also brought up the article. It appears to hold copyvio and if so we cannot link to it. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the recent post above, my first note is that we never use Wikipedia as a source.

Going through the other sources, the 1st is just a blog 'AdvertAdam', fails WP:RS, no evidence of expertise, etc as well (this doesn't apply to the podcast blog removed, we can use the podcast for the interviewed person's views). We then have YouTube and that fails until it can be proven there is no copyright violation. That's the way it works, it needs to be shown it isn't copyvio, not shown that it is. 'TheTrueCall' is not a reliable source either but it should be easy to find a translation of the Qur'an that is. Wikiislam is a wiki, not a reliable source. The BBC link is someone's upload to their personal space, fails WP:RS as well, it isn't the BBC itself. The NASA link doesn't mention the Qur'an so can't be used, sources must mention the subject, see WP:OR. Ditto the Hawking site. Naik is self-published but notable so can be used so long as we say "According to Zakir Naik. The nxtnews link is just a blog, can't use it.

That leaves Maurice Bucaille, and I'll add a section on him. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Bucaille

I think we should have a separate section for Maurice Bucaille and Bucaillism, not using him for other sections. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, he's really strike as an acceptable source either--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)