A Past Discussion on Qur'anic Emrbyology in SRI: Aijaz, Saifullaah, Ghali and Mahdi!
Denis Giron
Here in SRI there have been a few attempts to discuss embryology in
the Qur'an over the years. The most recent thread is still in a
process of development, and is part of a larger thread on Qur'anic
science, with the main participants being myself, Dr. Saifullaah and
Nadir Ahmed. For that discussion on embryology, consider the following
thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=dd10d076.0302180938.40e0ab13%40posting.google.com
However, it is here that I'd like to comment on a different thread on
the topic of the Qur'an and embryology, this being one that developed
between December of 2001 and February of 2002. This thread was
significant, I think, because the main critic of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology happened to
himself be a Muslim: Imran Aijaz. Both sides of the debate seemed to
walk away feeling the other side did not realize how bad their own
arguments were, and the large size of the thread resulted in many
readers not catching the subtle ups and downs of the debate. It is for
these reasons that I'd like to do a little analysis of the debate,
summing up the general route it took and the problems that plagued the
discussion.
The thread, of some 80 posts, has been archived by google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=a0bkok$nfl$1...@samba.rahul.net
Imran's post opened the thread on Christmas day (Dec. 25), 2001. He
began with a discussion on the appeal to authority, arguing that just
because Keith Moore says XYZ does not necessarily mean XYZ is true.
While discussion in the thread went on regarding the appeal to
authority, there was a sort of hint of silent agreement regarding this
position in the sense that some tried to argue that Moore is not the
only one being called to witness.
Interestingly, Imran wondered aloud if Moore has himself embraced
Islam, and then wrote: "I find it remarkable that a man would provide
proof for the veracity of a religion to which he does not convert to
himself!" On December 26th Dr. Saifullaah confirmed that Moore is not
a Muslim. Now, on December 28th Ghali noted that it does not
necessarily follow that if P is true, I believe P. That argument (in a
vacuum) is not necessarily relevant since Moore presents himself as
believing the Qur'an is from God, yet is not a Muslim (and thus may
not believe the Qur'an is from God), thus the argument might be
different, rather the contradiction: I believe P and I don't believe
P.
Ghali also (in the same argument) hinted at desires and meta-desires
(such as knowing smoking is bad for you, and maybe wanting to quit,
yet not quitting). In this sense, the argument is applicable in that
it is at least plausible that Dr. Moore believes Islam is true, yet
does not embrace Islam for some psychological reason (for example,
maybe he regularly enjoys indulging in a behavior prohibited in
Islam). While I concede that this plausibility makes Ghali's argument
worthwhile (and Imran himself conceded that Moore's not being a Muslim
is not absolute proof), it is still astonishing that Moore himself has
not embraced Islam, and it leaves the door wide open for the
possibility that he himself does not believe the claims he has made
regarding this issue.
Moving away from that small, but interesting point, in Imran's
original post he went into an analysis of the words nutfa, alaqa,
mudhgha, et cetera, and the only one to respond was Ghali (on Dec.
28). Interestingly, on the topic of nutfa, Ghali made a number of
somewhat vague claims and never backed any of them up, such as the
following:
"What is amazing is the fact the quran mentions that this VERY SMALL
extract which is a common predicate among all translations Only
contributed to the embryo rather than ALL the EJACUALTED male fluid.
Secondly that the Ejacualated male fluid decides the sex. Thirdly that
that is a contribution of BOTH sexes as is confirmed by MUTTAWATIR
reports on the prophet and companions."
I am not saying that any of Ghali's claims are wrong. However, I was
not sure what it was that Ghali was even making reference to, and even
if I did know what he meant, he sure didn't present any evidence to
back up the truth of what he meant. Maybe Ghali or someone else could
explain what is being argued in the above? Keep in mind that the main
issue is if any of the above are claims that no human being could have
known in the seventh century...
With regard to alaqa Ghali wrote the following:
"The word Alaqa is a VERBAL noun i.e it literally refers to a clinging
thing. The arabs then went on to use it to describe leeches because
surprise surprise they clinged. So Alaqa here would mean a leech that
CLINGS. Blood clots to the Arabs CLINGED to the skin that is why it
also got its name. One thing in common between most if not all of the
derviations is the fact that the verbal activity Clings is involved.
By Occams razor we start with the simplist i.e. clinging embryo."
I'm not so sure about Ghali's use of Occam's razor at this point.
Furthermore, in the above it seemed like Ghali walked right into
Imran's punch, behaving in a manner quite similar to the way Imran
described proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the
Qur'an in his original post:
"Certain words and phrases in the Qur'an are open to multiple
interpretation and exegeses. What the proponents of the scientific
miracles type polemic are trying to do is to selectively pick out the
exegesis which supports their claims of scientific accuracy. This, I
find to be very arbitrary, why not select the one which would conflict
with science? The main reason is very simple. Because you already have
a presupposition that the Qur'an cannot be wrong."
For example, in a recent thread on gender determination, Shibli Zaman
(whom I have the greatest respect for, being one of the few Muslims in
SRI who is as brilliant as Ghali, Dr. Saifullaah, Omar Mirza or Imran)
argued that because nutfa is understood to be that from which a baby
is formed, it must be a reference to the zygote. The problem is that
he tried to assume the most accurate interpretation, when it is at
least plausible that ancient people could have postulated the wrong
thing for being the source of a child (like solely a drop of semen).
So too with Ghali, as he goes into the extended description above,
offering one possible interpretation, and assuming that is the right
one. It is just as possible that the author of the Qur'an simply meant
a blood clot, and nothing more, and as Imran himself noted, Ibn Sina
saw this as being exactly what the Qur'an was making reference to (and
felt it matched rather perfectly with Galen). To this Ghali only noted
that Muslims (like bin Baaz) can make scientific errors. That's true,
but in the case of Ibn Sina we see that Ghali's interpretation is not
as obvious as he made it out to seem.
With regard to the mudhgha, Ghali wrote the following:
"The fact that the somite stage does resemble teeth marks in flesh is
obvious to see. What is amazing is that this is the period referred to
i.e within the first 42 days (not 120 days) and secondly with the use
of Arabic FAA it is immediate until proven otherwise!"
And again we see that Ghali is applying his exegesis in the way Imran
noted that advocates of the scientific-hermeneutic approach do. First
of all, the Qur'an never mentions somites. When it speaks of
"mudhgha," it could just mean a morsel, irrespective of any teeth
marks (note that Arab scientists in the middle ages spoke of the
formed and unformed mudgha). As for the reference to "faa," Ghali is
again being vague, though in this instance I have an idea what he is
making reference to. As other discussions in SRI have shown, there has
been no good reason given for why one should choose one interpretation
of fakhalaqnaa (in Soorat al-Moominoon) over another, since two
different understandings are arbitrarily applied by those who champion
this approach.
As for the bones being clothed with flesh, that is up for debate, and
further is itself not a miraculous statement (i.e. we know that human
beings said similar things prior to the advent of Islam), thus there
is no need to really consider it as evidence of divine guidance.
Now, while the debate raged on, the thread took a mildly humorous turn
when Mr.Mahdi entered the thread on December 30th and wrote the
following:
"This debate is getting into a tit-for-tat tug-or-war because one side
[Saifullah] is not using the kufr-influenced laws of logic and
philosophy while the other side [Imran] is. So I felt I had to
interject in this debate.... Of course I side with Saifullah because
not only his arguments are more valid and eloquent but he has evidence
to back it up. Imran's on the other hand is using the philosophical
method and approach that were invented by the Kuffar."
Of course the statement itself contains an implicit contradiction.
Mahdi chastized Imran for using "the kufr-influenced laws of logic,"
yet then turns around and states that Dr. Saifullah's arguments are
"more valid." The implication is that Mahdi was somehow able to
determine the validity of the arguments of Imran and Dr. Saifullaah
without himself employing "the kufr-influenced laws of logic," when in
fact validity is a subject firmly within the realm of logic.
Further elucidations of Mahdi's position is not necessary here since
his contribution to the thread was actually a topic discussed in
detail in a Bahai newsgroup a while back, which can be seen here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdfe7cc1.0201261745.26fa4774%40posting.google.com
However, in light of Mahdi's comments, it is important to get into the
real meat of the thread, which was the discussion between Dr.
Saifullaah and Imran. Much of the first few days of their discussion
resulted in the two not fully understanding one another. Imran
originally argued that ad-verecundiam argumentation by itself is not
enough to prove the Qur'an is of a divine origin, and to prove this he
noted that there have been other Western scholars (such as Needham)
who did not seem to find the Qur'an miraculous (Dr. Heger's one
contribution to the thread, on Jan. 5, hinted at a similar thought
when he leaned on the scholarship of Dr. Ursula Weisser).
This did not mean that Aijaz was resting on types like Needham, or
even agreed with Needham's sentiments, but rather he only meant to
elucidate the point that it is irrelevant to claim solely that Western
embryologist so-and-so said XYZ. Dr. Saifullaah continually attacked
Imran's use of Needham, even after Imran said repeatedly that he was
not endorsing Needham's position, but rather only using it to
illustrate a point.
The very point, as has been noted, that Imran wanted to illustrate was
that citing some Western non-Muslim scientist was not enough (and Dr.
Saifullaah implicitly agreed when he argued that he is not resting
everything on Moore, thus he is not just calling to witness just one
Western non-Muslim scientist). Moreover, Dr. Saifullaah complained
that there was no evidence to back up Needham's position (Needham's
position, by the way, was that the Qur'an echoed Aristotle and the
Ayur-Veda), which in itself agreed with Imran's argument that just
citing a big name is not enough (since Dr. Saifullaah was arguing that
also evidence is needed).
It is here that Imran agreed with Dr. Saifullaah, and wondered aloud
what the evidence was for those who agree with Moore. If it is not
just Moore, but rather Moore plus tons of evidence (and Moore being
almost insignificant), what is that evidence? Dr. Saifullaah however
seemed to think that because Imran started the thread, he was the
positive claimant. Imran's original argument was simply that an appeal
to authority is not enough, and despite all the arguing, Dr.
Saifullaah subconsciously agreed since his argument was that his
position is not resting solely on the thoughts of Keith Moore. So now
Imran wanted to know what the evidence was for Dr. Saifullaah's
position, and more importantly what Dr. Saifullaah's position was. On
Dec. 31, Imran wrote the following:
"I am sure Dr. Saifullah has done good research (as he evidently does
based on what we see on his website) on the issue of embryology in the
Qur'an, but I cannot get any more specific with my criticisms unless
he clarifies what his own position is. He writes: "We are not really
obliged to present our case." Well, fair enough. Then the issue comes
to a stand-still while we wait for Dr. Saifullah's article to be put
up on the web (as I assume it's going to be soon enough)."
Unfortunately, it was from this point that the discussion died.
Because Imran had made the grave error of bringing into consideration
the thoughts of Needham, Rashad Khalifa, and even yours truly as part
of various analogies, Dr. Saifullaah went on to poison the well,
implying that, among other things, Imran agrees with liars and cheats,
and critics of Islam who bring no evidence. The reality was that Imran
never claimed to agree with Needham, myself, or Rashad Khalifa, but
that was never acknowledged. Dr. Saifullaah never presented any
positive arguments as he seemed to want to keep Imran in the role of
positive claimant rather than actually have an in depth discussion. On
January 2nd, Imran wrote the following:
"With the ambience of scholastic authority and pious platitutes aside,
I once more request Dr. Saifullah to present his arguments for
embryological veracity in the Qur'an. He has acknowledged that a
proposition that has not been proven false does not qualify
automatically as being true. But he seems reluctant to present any
arguments for his positive assertions. This is important because no
matter what I may have to say, Dr. Saifullah can easily deflect my
claims by saying they are red herrings, strawmen, misinterpreting his
position or whatever. It seems Dr. Saifullah is adamant in his
position that the burden of proof is on the critic of the
embryological polemic to prove the claim wrong. Surely, I would think
it is obvious that even if my criticisms against embryology in the
Qur'an fail, the possibility remains that I'm simply beating a dead
horse. Unless Dr. Saifullah gives positive arguments for his own
position, the claim of embryology being in the Qur'an remains
contestable."
The next day (Jan. 3), Dr. Saifullaah wrote the following:
"I never said I am reluctant to present arguments. I said I will defer
till we get our material arranged and sorted out. I never said that
the evidence will not be presented; my request is that you should have
patience."
It has been more than a year (15 months actually), and as far as I can
glean from the "What's New and Updated?" section of Dr. Saifullaah's
Islamic Awareness site, the article/materials has yet to be presented.
This does not mean some obscure time limit has run out; on the
contrary, Dr. Saifullaah should take all the time he needs (assuming
this paper is still in the works).
Nevertheless, with this look at the discussion, we can see the real
problem. First, Imran was not Jochen Katz, or Denis Giron, or Dr.
Christoph Heger, or Homo Erectus, or some other non-Muslim who wants
to come to SRI and prove the Qur'an is not divine. Rather he was a
Muslim who, for the sake of argument, was willing to take on the role
of skeptic in order to try and objectively discuss a particular form
of apologia (the claim that the Qur'an's statements regarding
embryology is proof that it is from a divine origin). Imran argued
that an appeal to a Western scientist is not enough, and when this was
established, he wanted to know what evidence was in favor of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to Qur'anic embryology. Unfortunately,
the discussion never took off, because many who opposed Imran wanted
to either paint him as an enemy of Islam, or withhold any statements
worth discussion in order to keep Imran in the role of positive
claimant. Hopefully future discussion in SRI on this topic will not
suffer from these same problems.
-Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah
<useless rambling snipped>
> It has been more than a year (15 months actually), and as far as I can
> glean from the "What's New and Updated?" section of Dr. Saifullaah's
> Islamic Awareness site, the article/materials has yet to be presented.
> This does not mean some obscure time limit has run out; on the
> contrary, Dr. Saifullaah should take all the time he needs (assuming
> this paper is still in the works).
Well, I have worked on some articles for more than two years and yet I did
not put it on the web because they still lacked some information. Do you
have any problem with that? When the article on embryology would be
finished, you will know what is in there. So, have patience.
Wassalam
Saifullah