Embryology In The Qur'an? A General Response.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum everyone.

In this posting I would like to explain why I think the scientific miracles
argument apologists use, in particular with respect to embryology, is not a
successful argument. This is a general posting for anyone who is interested in
the subject, since I received a few responses from a number of people replying
to a recent thread on revelation claiming embryology in the Qur'an has some-
thing to offer.

Now, I am certainly not a neophyte with respect to apologetics. I've read
pretty much every single argument Muslim apologists use, and I am definitely
familiar with the 'scientific-miracles' polemic which is common currency
these days. Do I accept it? No, I do not. For a number of reasons. But let
me explain some of the problems by looking at the issue of embryology in the
Qur'an.

First, I would like to point out that it is simply a *fallacy* to claim that
an argument has weight simply because so-and-so said such-and-such about the
miraculousness of the Qur'an. Sure, Keith Moore et al, may think that what
the Qur'an has to say about embryology is testimony to its divine origin but
so what? (And BTW, has Moore become a Muslim, just out of interest? I would
like to know if anybody has the answer to this. If not, I find it remarkable
that a man would provide proof for the veracity of a religion to which he
does not convert to himself!) Please see the following link for more details:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

How many scientists apart from Moore agree with him? What do you think would
happen if you walked into a university with your Qur'an, straight into the
biology department, opened it up to the relevant pages, asking the professor
there: "Do these passages speak of embryology?" I don't think you would get
the kind of romanticized response dreamt of by apologists. For a legitimate
appeal to authority, two conditions must be satisfied:

(1) The authority must be an authority in the field concerned.
(2) There must be a *general consensus* among authorities that a particular
view is correct.

Unfortunately, with respect to (2) the Qur'an fails. Since I am unaware of
any general consensus among embryologists that the Qur'anic descriptions of
the creation of man are scientifically correct. What this points out is that
it is useless to simply play the game of my-scholars-vs-your-scholars, thus
we need to look at the *arguments* themselves.

So, let's move on ... the framework of the 'scientific-miracles' case is
roughly put as follows:

1. The Qur'an contains scientific fact X.
2. X could only have come from God.
-----------------------------------------
3. Therefore, the Qur'an is from God.

It must be pointed out however, that before the apologist even gets off the
ground with his polemic, he has launched himself at the poor recipient of the
argument striding with enormous presuppositions under his arms. What are
these presuppositions? Very simple. The entire traditional biography of the
Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an (i.e. the sources of the origins of Islam) is
taken as being self-evident. Why on earth should this be taken as being true?
(Remember, I am speaking from the point of view of a person who is not Muslim
and is listening and evaluating this argument being presented by an apologist)

Let's begin with the sources of Islam. These are (generally speaking):

1. Sira and Maghazai.
2. Manuscripts.
3. Non-Muslim sources.
4. Archaeology.
5. Qur'an.
6. Hadith.

What the apologist wants us to believe, is that the above sources provide
authentic information about the origins of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and
the Qur'an. This is a huge presupposition, the granting of which is to
concede the argument, pretty much. Yet, this is precisely where the heart
of argument lies. The reason for this is because these sources are the
basis for a number of sub-contentions which are vital to the success of
the polemic. For example,

1. The Prophet Muhammad's biographical details are correct (i.e. he was an
honest man, illiterate, had no access to outside information which could
have helped him, etc, etc).
2. Qur'anic details are correct (i.e. Qur'anic authenticity, compilation,
etc).
3. General history in the Arabian peninsula at the time of the Prophet (i.e.
about his companions, knowledge available at the time, etc).

Yet all three of these contentions are open to question. For example, it is
well known the details surrounding the origins of early Islam have been, it
must be admitted, covered with mythological encrustations.

Therefore, premise (2) of the argument has to be proven with more force and
effort. It is not enough to merely presuppose the traditional history of
Islam.

That's why, for example, a Muslim is hardly going to be moved by some poor
Christian who tries the infamous C.S. Lewis trilemma:

1. Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic.
2. He was not a Liar or Lunatic.
------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, he was Lord.

The entire framework is wrong, the Muslim will argue, because the argument
makes unwarranted presuppositions. So too for the 'scientific-miracles' type
polemics.

When scientists are testing a theory, they always look for compatibility with
background information. So, it must be shown that good background evidence is
indeed available for the scientific miracles argument.

Let's move on. Suppose, for the sake of argument, we accept this titanic
presupposition, that the sources of Islam paint an honest, authentic picture
about the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an. Then what? I think my next attack
on the polemic must be this pathetic declaration made on one of the pages
that disseminate this type of pseudo-apologia:

"It must be clarified however, that the faith of Muslims is not conditioned
upon whether or not scientific fact coincides with what is found in the
Qur’aan or in authentic statements (hadeeth) of the Prophet Muhammad
(sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam 1). If scientific discoveries coincide with
what has already been uncovered or mentioned in the Qur’aan, it is then
viewed as a confirmation of what was already held as true and it may also be
a clarification of those matters which may have been beyond the scope of
human knowledge at any given time. The case may arise however, where the
views held by scientific circles may conflict with assertions made in the
Qur’aan and the authentic hadeeth. In such a case, Muslims are duty bound to
accept what is evident in the religious texts and should scrutinize what is
held to be the scientific view."
(http://www.it-is-truth.org/chapters/wwwpreface.htm)

Do you understand what is being said here? The poor apologist is effectively
immunizing himself from *any* kinds of objections/criticisms. He's saying:

1. If the Qur'an agrees with science, then it adds weight to its claims of
divine origins.
2. If the Qur'an DISagrees with science, then science is wrong, because the
Qur'an is divine in origin anyway.

So science can be used for VERIFICATION purposes, not FALSIFICATION purposes.
But this renders the whole enterprises worthless. Consider the fact that the
Muslim apologist who uses it is conceding that his faith does not depend on
such polemics, because he knows he's right irrespective of what the argument
is, the poor chap has got his cart before the horse. Also consider the fact
that the recipient of the argument can *never be correct* in his criticisms
of the polemic because if science contradicts the Qur'an, then science is
wrong, not the Qur'an. So it's a win-win situation. That's why I think the
whole enterprises is a silly, worthless pursuit, even at this stage.

Also, how ironic it is, that the major component of any SCIENCE is the fact
that falsification is a possibility (e.g. Popperian views). For any kind of
proposition to be scientific, it must be open to falsification. But what the
apologist has just done here is chuck falsification out the window. One can
therefore, hardly call his enterprise 'science in the Qur'an'! What if a
person used science *against* the Qur'an? What if he argued that science has
never heard the ideas of virgin births, resurrections from the dead and so
on? What if he claimed that this *discredits* Qur'anic authenticity in sofar
as it claims to be divine in its origins? Of course, the apologist will just
deflect this objection by arguing that because the Qur'an is a miracle from
God anyway, it cannot possibly be wrong. Thus, there is a vicious circularity
embedded in the whole game which needs to be pulled out and exposed.

Moving on, now we come to the argument itself. The stages of the embryological
development are mentioned in the Qur'an yes, but are not miraculous, or special
in any way. The Qur'an simply speaks of man going from the stage of Nutfah ->
Alaqa -> Mudgah -> Bones -> Clothing with Flesh -> Final creature (75:38).

NUTFAH: All of the major Qur'an translators read the word "nutfah" as being
"a drop of thickened fluid" (Pickthall), "a drop of mingled sperm" (Yusuf
Ali), "a small life-germ" (Shakir). Yusuf Ali somehows manages to introduce
the word "mingled" when it is not actually present in the Arabic text at all.
Nothing special here.

ALAQAH: The word "alaqah" is usually translated as a clot (Pickthall,
Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan, Hamidullah). Not only is this
*scientifically* erroneous, for the nutfah does not become a clot at all,
Mauricle Bucaille translates "alaqah" as a clot that "clings" which doesn't
make it any better, as Aristotle correctly described the function of the
umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus wall in the fourth
century B.C. But this meaning has been forced into the Qur'an by Bucaille
because it was not present in any commentators before.

MUDGAH: Nothing miraculous again. It obvious that flesh must have come at
some time after the nutfah/alaqah stage of human development.

BONES, CLOTHED WITH FLESH: Ditto.

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. But this is precisely what is being attempted at a demonstration, so
the argument begs the question on what correct exegesis is.

For example, Ibn Sina, writing in Arabic, had tried to reconcile the Greek
ideas he had acquired from Aristotelian traditions with the Qur'an, and
turned out to be wrong. In the same way, what the apologist is trying to do
is reconcile with the Quran, some of the ideas mentioned by the likes of
Bucaille and Moore.

The fundamental mistake here, is what William Campbell has called the
ETYMOLOGICAL FALLACY, where you claim that the latest interpretation of some
word or phrase is the right one, and all of the older ones are wrong, or
vice versa. Ibn Sina INTERPRETED the Qur'an to be perfectly in harmony with
Galen's embryological account. And the modern day apologist has INTERPRETED
the Qur'an to be perfectly in harmony with modern embryology. Why should I
accept *his* interpretation and not Ibn Sina's? On what *basis* does the
apologist claim that the medievals have *interpreted* the Qur'an wrongly?

The problem with the word "alaqah" to use an example, is that, for the past
hundreds of years, it has mainly been used to refer to the word "clot". Now,
a new meaning has been introduced by modern writers, which they claim is
perfectly in harmony with modern science. But why should this be allowed?
Why should I accept this claim without any evidence? And even if, it can be
proved, say, that the word "alaqah" can *possibly* refer to a leech-like
clot, etc, what makes you think that *this* is the correct possibility? For
example, in my Oxford Dictionary, the word "clear" has a number of meaings:

1. To become transparent.
2. To remove.
3. To be innocent.
4. To get past something without touching it.
5. To get permission for ...
6. To give/get official approval.
7. To pass a cheque through a clearing house.

And list goes on ... (there are over ten such different meanings). Suppose I
tell someone, "It's clear!" - unless I give you a context to understand the
word, it's meaningless. What do I mean? Perhaps I am referring to the sky
becoming clear, perhaps I am referring to a lake next by which I am looking
at, how would you know? Similarly, there is too little context around the word
"alaqah" in the Qur'an to be definitely sure which meaning is the correct one.

One cannot begin their argument with the assumption that the Qur'an is correct,
otherwise, the whole argument would be circular. Bucaille for example, wants to
say that the popular translation of the word "alaqah" into "clot" (let us not
forget that the Arabic commentators too, had accepted the word to refer to a
clot), is wrong because of lack of scientific knowledge/interpretation. In this
statement, one silently assume that the Qur'an CANNOT be wrong. The possibility
one is overlooking is that the Qur'an DOES in fact refer to a CLOT, and that
the popular translation/interpretation was in fact CORRECT, but that ultimately
both the Qur'an and the popular translation/interpretation are WRONG. The
reason apologists do not consider this possibility is simply because it's not
an option for them. As I said before, it's a win-win situation. If the Qur'an
agrees with science, then it is a miracle. If it disagrees with science then it
is still a miracle because it is the Word of God and the conflict approach is
wrong.

Finally, according the the famous biochemist and embryologist Joseph Needham
(A History Of Embryology, Cambridge University Press, 1959),

"Arabic science, so justly famed for its success in certain fields such as
optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology ... [the Qur'an
is a] seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayur-Veda." (p. 82)

See the problem with interpretations?

In conclusion, it is fallacious to claim the 'scientific miracles' argument
has any weight on the basis of authority (e.g. Keith Moore et al). The polemic
makes an enormous presupposition regarding traditional Islamic history of the
Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, the veracity of which is crucial in deciding
whether the argument is successful. This must be addressed prior to engaging
in the subject. Even if, for the sake of argument, this was granted, we still
have two problems. First, the 'scientific principle' is not fair, in that we
can only use it for verification purposes and not falsification (by the
apologists own admission). And second, we do not find anything miraculous in
the Qur'an with respect to embryology because the exegesis is so flexible, and
therefore, the specific exegesis of words such as alaqah, etc is arbitrary.

As I said before, respect should be shown for the Qur'an by leaving it out of
such silly polemics. The Qur'an is not a scientific text-book. It is a
scripture which speaks on matters of metaphysics and theology. As we know very
well, theology and metaphysics struggle to maintain consistency with pure
scientific analysis. But that is a debate for another day.

--
Wasalaam,

Imran Aijaz
imran...@xtra.co.nz

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 26 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> First, I would like to point out that it is simply a *fallacy* to claim that
> an argument has weight simply because so-and-so said such-and-such about the
> miraculousness of the Qur'an. Sure, Keith Moore et al, may think that what
> the Qur'an has to say about embryology is testimony to its divine origin but
> so what? (And BTW, has Moore become a Muslim, just out of interest? I would
> like to know if anybody has the answer to this. If not, I find it remarkable
> that a man would provide proof for the veracity of a religion to which he
> does not convert to himself!) Please see the following link for more details:
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I would say that the meat of the argument of Imran is just here, i.e., the
embryology in the Qur'an is nothing but appeal to authority. In scientific
publications, it is well-known that a publication quotes other publication
to verify aspects of what is said in it. It is considered acceptable and
even encouraged to a degree that not doing so would result in the
declining of the publication for printing in a journal. Since I have
published and refereed papers, I know this as a first hand information.
Here we do not call upon the fallacy of appeal to authority because there
is nothing of that sort. The people who have been in a particular field
for a long time and have published and contributed extensively are
considered authorities. Keith Moore is a well-known authority in his field
and asking him about the issues of embryology would not constitute a
fallacy of appeal to authority. It is like a text book on relativistic
mechanics quoting Einstein theory of relativity being blamed for appeal to
authority. So much for this issue.

The next one is whether Moore is a Muslim. He said in a programme
organized by MSA in Canada that he is not and he gave his own reasons
for it.

Keith Moore is not the only guy who was involved in this programme of
embryology. Other eminent scientists such as Persaud, Johnson and others
were involved in this for considerable amount of time. It also needs to be
mentioned that the words used in the Qur'an and hadith for describing
various stages of development were studying using classical Arabic
dictionaries before interpretation was carried out. Also see:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html

Further Moore himself had mentioned in the video (if I remember correctly)
that the embryology committee had invited the people who are best in the
field.

> How many scientists apart from Moore agree with him? What do you think would
> happen if you walked into a university with your Qur'an, straight into the
> biology department, opened it up to the relevant pages, asking the professor
> there: "Do these passages speak of embryology?" I don't think you would get
> the kind of romanticized response dreamt of by apologists. For a legitimate
> appeal to authority, two conditions must be satisfied:
>
> (1) The authority must be an authority in the field concerned.
> (2) There must be a *general consensus* among authorities that a particular
> view is correct.

Both Moore and Persaud are well-known authorities: that takes away your
first point. As per the second what is meant by *general consensus*, three
people? Four people? Ten people? Hundreds? Who set the standards? In many
fields of science there is no general consensus any way! There is always
going to be some people who would not agree in toto with all the issues.
This is science and we accept it!

> Finally, according the the famous biochemist and embryologist Joseph Needham
> (A History Of Embryology, Cambridge University Press, 1959),
>
> "Arabic science, so justly famed for its success in certain fields such as
> optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology ... [the Qur'an
> is a] seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayur-Veda." (p. 82)

We should ask Imran now on what basis did Needham claimed it? Would he
please enlighten us with the evidences of Needham?

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[Altway]

<imran...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a0bkok$nfl$1...@samba.rahul.net...

> In this posting I would like to explain why I think the scientific
miracles
> argument apologists use, in particular with respect to embryology, is not
a
successful argument. This is a general posting for anyone who is interested
in
the subject, since I received a few responses from a number of people
replying
to a recent thread on revelation claiming embryology in the Qur'an has
some-

> First, I would like to point out that it is simply a *fallacy* to claim

that
> an argument has weight simply because so-and-so said such-and-such about
the
miraculousness of the Qur'an. Sure, Keith Moore et al, may think that what
the Qur'an has to say about embryology is testimony to its divine origin
but
so what? (And BTW, has Moore become a Muslim, just out of interest? I would
like to know if anybody has the answer to this.

> How many scientists apart from Moore agree with him? What do you think

would
> happen if you walked into a university with your Qur'an, straight into the
> biology department, opened it up to the relevant pages, asking the
professor
> there: "Do these passages speak of embryology?" I don't think you would
get
> the kind of romanticized response dreamt of by apologists. For a
legitimate
> appeal to authority, two conditions must be satisfied:

> (1) The authority must be an authority in the field concerned.
> (2) There must be a *general consensus* among authorities that a
particular
view is correct.

> So science can be used for VERIFICATION purposes, not FALSIFICATION

purposes.
> But this renders the whole enterprises worthless. Consider the fact that
the
> Muslim apologist who uses it is conceding that his faith does not depend
on
such polemics, because he knows he's right irrespective of what the
argument
is, the poor chap has got his cart before the horse. Also consider the fact
that the recipient of the argument can *never be correct* in his criticisms
of the polemic because if science contradicts the Qur'an, then science is
wrong, not the Qur'an. So it's a win-win situation. That's why I think the
whole enterprises is a silly, worthless pursuit, even at this stage.

etc etc etc

Comment:-
Unfortunately, the whole argument though correct from the rational point of
view is quite irrelevant to revealed religion or to direct experience.
There are certainly different ways of interpreting experiential data and
also revealed statements
but this does not have much to do with these kinds of arguments.

Psychologists often illustrate the point with inkblot images. Another
favourite are drawings which can be seen in more than one way. There is a
drawing which can be seen as a vase or as two heads in profile facing each
other. Another can be seen as a view from above of stairs going down, or
else as a view from below of the underside of stairs going up.

It is not possible to see both views - one can either see or or the other.
Some people can never see the other because they have some psychological
obstruction against it. Someone may paint a picture or write a description
intending one thing but the reader may understand quite another.

We interact with the rest of Reality - do not only perceive it but interpret
it as relating to us. This requires a conceptual system or framework of
reference. As pointed out before, the Quran provides a self-consistent
framework of reference within which all things are interpreted. It cannot be
judged by external criteria.

There is an irreconcilable difference between those who wish to judge all
things including the Quran by "Philosophy" or "Rationalism" or what ever
they have been conditioned to by an alien educational or cultural system and
those who take the Quran as the criterion by which to judge all things.

--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com

.

[Johnny]

Assalam Alaiqum.

Just wondering, have you checked this out:-

http://www.aquaire.clara.net/

Just curious. From what I have seen (online debates, Zakir
Naik/Campbell, Jamal Badawi debates) Muslims do have a good argument
to make and can refute the aristotle stuff and the objections critics
may have to raise as far as embryology is concerned. Sure some, or
infact many claims regarding the scientific miracle of the Quran can
be exagerrated or concocted from thin air.

"It should be remembered, however, that the Quran is not meant to be a
book primarily devoted to a discussion of 'science', but rather a book
that is meant for the guidance of mankind. As such, any references to
subjects of a scientific nature are typically brief and not very
descriptive. 574"

574. Although this is not always the case -- an exception being the
evolution of the human embryo, which is described in vivid detail in
the Quran."

[Abu Amaar Yasir Qadhi. "An Introduction To The Sciences Of The
Quran" pg. 279]

On the same topic, he says:

"Also, it is essential that scientific facts are not read in where
they do not exist. Unfortunately, this has become all too common
trend among 'modernistic' Muslims who have specialised in science, but
are not very familiar with the interpretation of the Quran. 578 Once
again, the Quran "...is a book of guidance...and not a book of
science, nor a mine of cryptic notes on scientific facts."579"

[pg 282]

Johnny.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> Psychologists often illustrate the point with inkblot images. Another
> favourite are drawings which can be seen in more than one way. There is a
> drawing which can be seen as a vase or as two heads in profile facing each
> other. Another can be seen as a view from above of stairs going down, or
> else as a view from below of the underside of stairs going up.

Absolutely. I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Perhaps the main
problem, as I was explaining to Dr. Saifullah, is that the enterprise of
Islamic apologetics, fails to take this into consideration. It needs to be
re-adjusted in my opinion. Perhaps Muhammad Iqbal was correct after all
when he pointed out, in his "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam"
that human experience is the key to understanding the world of God. One
must remember that it is hardly after a course in apologetics that people
come to faith in God. It is often a very deep and personal thing.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> I would say that the meat of the argument of Imran is just here, i.e., the
> embryology in the Qur'an is nothing but appeal to authority. In scientific

Well, if you re-read my posting, you'll know that this was just one of the
main preliminaries I had mentioned. I'm not using this as an argument against
the possibility of constructing a successful polemic, but rather, I just want
to point out that it is *inadequate* to simply make an appeal to authority.

<...>

> We should ask Imran now on what basis did Needham claimed it? Would he
> please enlighten us with the evidences of Needham?

I read through his book. Now, I'm not at all saying that I endorse his
arguments. Rather, I just wanted to point out that here we have another case
of an embryologist, one who was a decent authority on the subject. According
to Needham, the Qur'an is a 7th century echo of Aristotle. See the problem
with appeals to authority? My quotation of Needham was simply intended to
show how people can interpret religious texts in different ways. One sees
scientific miracles in them, while another may see nothing of the sort.

Dr. Saifullah is probably wondering by now as to what kind of approach I'm
endorsing with respect to the Qur'an. Personally, at the moment, I am taking
the 'Ghazalian/Kantian' approach which leaves aside such apologetics and
looks more closely at human experience. And I think the Qur'an contains, to
borrow a phrase from al-Ghazali, "pearls" which really penetrate the whole
sphere of human experience. But I believe, contra Ghazali, that a synthesis
of rationality and human experience is fully possible. That, I am still in
the process of investigating! :-)

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 27 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Well, if you re-read my posting, you'll know that this was just one of the

> main preliminaries I had mentioned. I'm not using this as an argument against
> the possibility of constructing a successful polemic, but rather, I just want
> to point out that it is *inadequate* to simply make an appeal to authority.

Okay, if this what you meant then you really do not have an argument at
all with respect to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I really
think that this kind of an argument in science is nothing but clutching of
staws and only propagated by those who are unaware how scientific thought
has developed over the period of time by using well-known authorities and
sub-authorities and sub-sub-authorties. But anyway...

> > We should ask Imran now on what basis did Needham claimed it? Would he
> > please enlighten us with the evidences of Needham?
>

> I read through his book. Now, I'm not at all saying that I endorse his
> arguments. Rather, I just wanted to point out that here we have another case
> of an embryologist, one who was a decent authority on the subject. According
> to Needham, the Qur'an is a 7th century echo of Aristotle. See the problem
> with appeals to authority? My quotation of Needham was simply intended to
> show how people can interpret religious texts in different ways. One sees
> scientific miracles in them, while another may see nothing of the sort.

What I do not really like is people quoting without understanding the
argument. Imran was asked about the evidences which Needham had in his
attic to show that the embryology in the Qur'an was just an Ayurveda or
Aristole or whatever. I did not ask this question just for fun; I asked it
because I have read Needham's book long time ago and I remember very well
that Needham has no evidences to back-up. And as you can see Imran has
neither either. Now we move over to Aristotle. Now anybody who has read
Aristole's work know that the Qur'anic and Prophetic statements about
embryology do not match with Aristotle. I would leave this as a homework
for Imran. Nota bene: it is not the appeal to authority but to read a book
carefully enough to understand what is says and what evidences it presents
to support what it says. Needham's book is quite old and recent research
has been carried out by Moore, Persaud (who himself is well-versed with
the history of embryology just in case if Imran is unaware of it!) et al.
have shown otherwise. One may wish to live in the past or develop the
argument along the lines of Heger by calling it a "hoax" and make
embryological data in the Islamic sources look poor. It is a classic case
of poisoning the well.

> Dr. Saifullah is probably wondering by now as to what kind of approach I'm
> endorsing with respect to the Qur'an. Personally, at the moment, I am taking
> the 'Ghazalian/Kantian' approach which leaves aside such apologetics and
> looks more closely at human experience. And I think the Qur'an contains, to
> borrow a phrase from al-Ghazali, "pearls" which really penetrate the whole
> sphere of human experience. But I believe, contra Ghazali, that a synthesis
> of rationality and human experience is fully possible. That, I am still in
> the process of investigating! :-)

Imran, we only started to begin questioning your ideas and evidences. We
have not even entered the meat of the argument about the issues of alaqah,
mudgah et al. versus Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates. We will play your
game to see what you are upto, if you like. It is always to good idea to
give a good impression in the first step you take. Invoking the blessing
of Ghazali I would assume is a bad idea at least in this case. And in the
meantime you can always watch the video of Zakir Naik and William
Campbell, where the former used latter's own approaches to discuss the
issue of embryology. And indeed it was a very interesting discussion to
watch.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[ghali]

Assallam Allekkum...

> First, I would like to point out that it is simply a *fallacy* to claim that
> an argument has weight simply because so-and-so said such-and-such about the
> miraculousness of the Qur'an. Sure, Keith Moore et al, may think that what
> the Qur'an has to say about embryology is testimony to its divine origin but
> so what? (And BTW, has Moore become a Muslim, just out of interest? I would
> like to know if anybody has the answer to this. If not, I find it remarkable
> that a man would provide proof for the veracity of a religion to which he
> does not convert to himself!)

In fact Keith moore did say that the Prophet muhammad (Pbuh) did have
the same source as Jesus (AS) i.e. Allah in one of his interviews but
their is also the emotional leap. Many people know that smoking is bad
for them. Do they stop? So the argument is fallicious it assumes a
causal theory with regards to beliefs. i.e. P is true therefore I
believe P. It does not follow sorry! Poor Logic!
No one is claiming that appealling to authority is an evidence in
itself, but one of the main barriers Muslims have (a psychological
one!) is the fact that they are not trusted,being biased. So quoting
one of the most eminient Anatomists in this field helps overcome this
barrier. It makes people pay attention and look at the FACTS!

>
> How many scientists apart from Moore agree with him? What do you think would
> happen if you walked into a university with your Qur'an, straight into the
> biology department, opened it up to the relevant pages, asking the professor
> there: "Do these passages speak of embryology?" I don't think you would get
> the kind of romanticized response dreamt of by apologists. For a legitimate
> appeal to authority, two conditions must be satisfied:
>
> (1) The authority must be an authority in the field concerned.
> (2) There must be a *general consensus* among authorities that a particular
> view is correct.

Really? Where did you get this one? How does a general IJMA make
something logically valid? So if you have other embryologists then
bring their objections up front! Campbell will be dealt with.

> So, let's move on ... the framework of the 'scientific-miracles' case is
> roughly put as follows:
>
> 1. The Qur'an contains scientific fact X.
> 2. X could only have come from God.
> -----------------------------------------
> 3. Therefore, the Qur'an is from God.

With regards your first premnise. We have again and again given enough
valid refutations of the usual orientalist diatribe. You repeating it
does not make it in anyway true. Just rather boring. Where is your
problem with Hadith / Specifics! Where is your problem with seera,
maghazi? Specifics! Where is your problem with manuscripts ?
Specifics! Not appealing to AUTHORITY. Remember you previous argument!

>
> Therefore, premise (2) of the argument has to be proven with more force and
> effort. It is not enough to merely presuppose the traditional history of
> Islam.

And it is not enough to presuppose the usual Orientalist arguments!

>
> Do you understand what is being said here? The poor apologist is effectively
> immunizing himself from *any* kinds of objections/criticisms. He's saying:
>
> 1. If the Qur'an agrees with science, then it adds weight to its claims of
> divine origins.
> 2. If the Qur'an DISagrees with science, then science is wrong, because the
> Qur'an is divine in origin anyway.
>
> So science can be used for VERIFICATION purposes, not FALSIFICATION purposes.
> But this renders the whole enterprises worthless.

Imran this has been answered by me. Just to say that your Weak
verfication principle does not stand the test of coherence. i.e that
sense experience need only contribute to SOME evidence. Watch

Universal ie not verifable by ANY sense experience. How do you know
your sample is correct?

If it is falsifiable then their is the possiblity of statements not
having ANY sense experience as a basis. Therefore a refutation, or at
least a qualification. All the Quran needs to do is have some of its
proofs based on logic and sensation not ALL as long as it is coherent!

> NUTFAH: All of the major Qur'an translators read the word "nutfah" as being
> "a drop of thickened fluid" (Pickthall), "a drop of mingled sperm" (Yusuf
> Ali), "a small life-germ" (Shakir). Yusuf Ali somehows manages to introduce
> the word "mingled" when it is not actually present in the Arabic text at all.
> Nothing special here.

Well not exactly! Read the linkup by Johanny and wait for saifullah's
up and coming refutation which is even stronger!. 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. And yes I am willing to go into your
problems with Hadith and the tafsir!

>
> > MUDGAH: Nothing miraculous again. It obvious that flesh must have come at
> some time after the nutfah/alaqah stage of human development.

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!

> BONES, CLOTHED WITH FLESH: Ditto.

Whatever! But it does happen. I Know personaly studying Head and Neck
Anatomy as part of my Primary Fellowship in Dentistry and my future
Orthodontist course( Sorry with the appeal to "authority") that the
facial musculature, well soft tissue in general, does guide bone
formation i.e the functional matrix theory where msule is LITERALLY
clothing the bone. At least here, anyway no CONTRADICTION.

> For example, Ibn Sina, writing in Arabic, had tried to reconcile the Greek
> ideas he had acquired from Aristotelian traditions with the Qur'an, and
> turned out to be wrong. In the same way, what the apologist is trying to do
> is reconcile with the Quran, some of the ideas mentioned by the likes of
> Bucaille and Moore.

I am not here to defend Ibn Sina. Ibn Baz also early on believed the
earth was flat and.... No argument here just a history lesson!

> 1. To become transparent.
> 2. To remove.
> 3. To be innocent.
> 4. To get past something without touching it.
> 5. To get permission for ...
> 6. To give/get official approval.
> 7. To pass a cheque through a clearing house.
>
> And list goes on ... (there are over ten such different meanings). Suppose I
> tell someone, "It's clear!" - unless I give you a context to understand the
> word, it's meaningless. What do I mean? Perhaps I am referring to the sky
> becoming clear, perhaps I am referring to a lake next by which I am looking
> at, how would you know? Similarly, there is too little context around the word
> "alaqah" in the Qur'an to be definitely sure which meaning is the correct one.
>
> One cannot begin their argument with the assumption that the Qur'an is correct,
> otherwise, the whole argument would be circular.

Simply put a fallacy of equivcation. Try this though. 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.
LOGICALLY it is on you to provide evidence for the more complex
derivations. I am willing to go into the proof of this!

> Finally, according the the famous biochemist and embryologist Joseph Needham
> (A History Of Embryology, Cambridge University Press, 1959),
>
> "Arabic science, so justly famed for its success in certain fields such as
> optics and astronomy, was not of great help to embryology ... [the Qur'an
> is a] seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayur-Veda." (p. 82)

Saifullah adequately dealt with this

> In conclusion, it is fallacious to claim the 'scientific miracles' argument
> has any weight on the basis of authority (e.g. Keith Moore et al). The polemic
> makes an enormous presupposition regarding traditional Islamic history of the
> Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, the veracity of which is crucial in deciding
> whether the argument is successful. This must be addressed prior to engaging
> in the subject. Even if, for the sake of argument, this was granted, we still
> have two problems. First, the 'scientific principle' is not fair, in that we
> can only use it for verification purposes and not falsification (by the
> apologists own admission). And second, we do not find anything miraculous in
> the Qur'an with respect to embryology because the exegesis is so flexible, and
> therefore, the specific exegesis of words such as alaqah, etc is arbitrary.

In conclusion all above is not as it seems.

> As I said before, respect should be shown for the Qur'an by leaving it out of
> such silly polemics. The Qur'an is not a scientific text-book. It is a
> scripture which speaks on matters of metaphysics and theology. As we know very
> well, theology and metaphysics struggle to maintain consistency with pure
> scientific analysis. But that is a debate for another day.

You know your Kantian Ghazzalian Mystical experience is going to run
foul with the Private language argument of Wittgenstien. Another story
of academic .....(sorry a bit rude). But how does Kant relate to
sufism?

Ghali

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

GHALI

> In fact Keith moore did say that the Prophet muhammad (Pbuh) did have
> the same source as Jesus (AS) i.e. Allah in one of his interviews but
> their is also the emotional leap. Many people know that smoking is bad
> for them. Do they stop? So the argument is fallicious it assumes a
> causal theory with regards to beliefs. i.e. P is true therefore I
> believe P. It does not follow sorry! Poor Logic!

IMRAN
I wasn't presenting any argument, I just remarked that *if* Moore did not
acknowledge the truth of Islam, then it would have been remarkably curious
why he should be presenting evidence for its truth. But this is a just a
side issue.

GHALI

> No one is claiming that appealling to authority is an evidence in
> itself, but one of the main barriers Muslims have (a psychological
> one!) is the fact that they are not trusted,being biased. So quoting
> one of the most eminient Anatomists in this field helps overcome this
> barrier. It makes people pay attention and look at the FACTS!

IMRAN
OK, this is true.

GHALI

> Really? Where did you get this one? How does a general IJMA make
> something logically valid? So if you have other embryologists then
> bring their objections up front! Campbell will be dealt with.

IMRAN
Woah, hold your horses. I never said a consensus makes something valid. All
I said was that a legitimate appeal to authority needs to satisfy those two
conditions, generally speaking. The question of how much epistemic certainty
is provided by the legitimate appeal remains another matter of discussion.
For example, in medieval times when the majority believed that the earth was
flat, the consensus turned out to be incorrect. All this points out the kind
of problems we have to deal with when making appeals to authority. So that's
why I said we need to scrutinize the *arguments* rather than play the game
of my-scholars-vs-your-scholars.

GHALI

> With regards your first premnise. We have again and again given enough
> valid refutations of the usual orientalist diatribe. You repeating it
> does not make it in anyway true. Just rather boring. Where is your
> problem with Hadith / Specifics! Where is your problem with seera,
> maghazi? Specifics! Where is your problem with manuscripts ?
> Specifics! Not appealing to AUTHORITY. Remember you previous argument!

IMRAN
Ah, yes ... a subtle move. Hang on, remember, I am not the one whipping
up the argument. If *you* claim that your argument works, then the burden
of proof is on *you* to give me reasons for all of your assumptions that
you make. Remember, I'm the skeptic with respect to this polemic. You see
Ghali, you've simply shifted the burden of proof on me. All I ask is some
simple proof for why someone should accept the sources of Islam as being
authentic (since this is a crucial preliminary to the argument)? Surely,
you're not going to claim that the sources are true simply because some-
one has not proven them to be false (assuming that is the case)? So give
me your positive arguments before I offer any negative criticisms. That
way, we won't be wasting any time attacking straw men.

GHALI

> And it is not enough to presuppose the usual Orientalist arguments!

IMRAN
Again, who even mentioned Orientalist arguments? Must *every* single
criticism of the sources of Islam be Orientalist?

GHALI

> Imran this has been answered by me. Just to say that your Weak
> verfication principle does not stand the test of coherence. i.e that
> sense experience need only contribute to SOME evidence. Watch
> Universal ie not verifable by ANY sense experience. How do you know
> your sample is correct?

<...>

> If it is falsifiable then their is the possiblity of statements not
> having ANY sense experience as a basis. Therefore a refutation, or at
> least a qualification. All the Quran needs to do is have some of its
> proofs based on logic and sensation not ALL as long as it is coherent!

IMRAN
OK, let me ask you this, as this is probably the best way go about the
whole issue:

Do you believe the Bhagavad Gita to be a poem describing a conversation
between the warrior Arjuna and his charioteer Krishna? Do you entertain the
possibility that the Angel Moroni delivered golden plates to Joseph Smith?

If not, why not? And on what principle do you reject this claim?

<snipped discussion on embryology in the Qur'an!>

I think the best course of dialogue is for you to give me some comments on
the above question, and perhaps give me a brief sketch of how you see that
the argument from scientific miracles works. Just a quick account. Then, I
can respond with my own comments. That's the best way to go about it.

GHALI

> You know your Kantian Ghazzalian Mystical experience is going to run
> foul with the Private language argument of Wittgenstien. Another story
> of academic .....(sorry a bit rude). But how does Kant relate to
> sufism?

IMRAN
Basically, the Ghazalian/Kantian criticisms of "pure reason" is what I was
talking about. The vast majority of believers in God today do not base their
belief on rational analysis/arguments. In fact, some distinguished theists
such as Karl Barth reject the enterprise of apologetics. Others like Alvin
Plantinga speak of "properly basic" beliefs, and belief in God being one of
them.

If everyone used their reason, you would expect an erratic distribution of
religions on the world map. But clearly, that is not the case. For example,
Saudi Arabia is something like 99% Muslim, while New Zealand is, according
to the census, over 70% Christian, etc.

The reason such observations are important is because sometimes, apologists
keep on pressing their case so desparately, coming up with arguments and
counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments, they fail to realize that
revelation from God is universal, and is meant for everyone, from the farmer
to the rocket scientist. Therefore, it must have a universally accessible
medium. Most theists would agree that this is religious experience.

So, for example, a woman who had never heard of Islam in a Christian country
hears a Muslim sermon, or the Qur'an or whatever, over the radio, and then
goes on to believe in God, she is within her rational rights to do so. But I
still believe that religious experience can be synthesized with rationality
(of some sort). And it needs to be to avoid the sort of problems I mentioned
in this message. That's why we need to reconstruct religious thought taking
these factors into consideration.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Okay, if this what you meant then you really do not have an argument at
> all with respect to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. I really
> think that this kind of an argument in science is nothing but clutching of
> staws and only propagated by those who are unaware how scientific thought
> has developed over the period of time by using well-known authorities and
> sub-authorities and sub-sub-authorties. But anyway...

IMRAN
Appeals to authority are not an open and shut case. Some are legitimate, and
some are not. For further details, I advise the interested reader to visit the
following link:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Dr. Saifullah must understand the important distinction between valid and
invalid appeals to authority. The reason I mention this as a prefatory remark
is because numerous websites propagating science in the Qur'an seem to hint
at the fact that simply because we have testimony from a handful of professors
who apparently give credence to the Qur'anic statements speaking of science
being correct, this somehow validates the argument.

If Dr. Saifullah visits the aforementioned link, he will come across a number
of propositions which need to be met before he can proffer his case of science
in the Qur'an as being valid based on authority. These near universal standards
are:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the
subject in question.
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
6. The authority in question must be identified.

The burden of proof rests on Dr. Saifullah, being the one who is asserting,
to show us that the enterprise of scientific apologetics passes through this
criteria. This, as far as I am aware, has not been done by any proponent of
this particular polemic, especially proposition (3).

DR. SAIFULLAH

> What I do not really like is people quoting without understanding the
> argument. Imran was asked about the evidences which Needham had in his
> attic to show that the embryology in the Qur'an was just an Ayurveda or
> Aristole or whatever. I did not ask this question just for fun; I asked it
> because I have read Needham's book long time ago and I remember very well
> that Needham has no evidences to back-up. And as you can see Imran has
> neither either. Now we move over to Aristotle. Now anybody who has read

IMRAN
At the risk of repeating myself, I was not quoting Needham just for fun. I
wanted to point out to Dr. Saifullah that Needham was another qualified man
with respect to the subject matter in question (embryology). A friend gave
me Needham's book (who happens to be another Muslim who has abandoned this
pursuit of establishing embryological veracity in the Qur'an) and I skimmed
through it, but read carefully the relevant parts referring to the Qur'an.
Needham, Contra Moore, does not see any sort of reference to scientific
miracles. This is indicative of the fact that such sharp contrasts show us
there is disagreement among authorities. And therefore, we need to look at
the *arguments* more closely, scrutinize them, and draw our own conclusions.

The link I mention above has this to say:

"If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts
within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority
using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made
and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and
"supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would
tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by
consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such
a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by
Appeals to Authority."

Furthermore, the disagreements stem from the exegesis of the Qur'anic text
in question which should usher the alert reader to the conclusion that it's
a game of *interpretation*. Perhaps Keith Moore et al see science in the
Qur'an, others do not. What Dr. Saifullah has to show us is that the issue
of embryology in the Qur'an is victorious based on a watertight exegesis,
that there can be no other possible (non-miraculous) interpretations of the
verses in question.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Aristole's work know that the Qur'anic and Prophetic statements about
> embryology do not match with Aristotle. I would leave this as a homework
> for Imran. Nota bene: it is not the appeal to authority but to read a book
> carefully enough to understand what is says and what evidences it presents
> to support what it says. Needham's book is quite old and recent research
> has been carried out by Moore, Persaud (who himself is well-versed with
> the history of embryology just in case if Imran is unaware of it!) et al.
> have shown otherwise. One may wish to live in the past or develop the
> argument along the lines of Heger by calling it a "hoax" and make
> embryological data in the Islamic sources look poor. It is a classic case
> of poisoning the well.

IMRAN
Now, risking Dr. Saifullah's stern censure, I would like to use one simple
example from Answering Islam to demonstrate my point, that one of the main
objections is the issue of interpretation:

"If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here
between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it
was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the
similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies
at the University of Cambridge concludes,

'The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for
believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no
doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an
and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe
the Galenic stages'"

(http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Science/embryo.html)

Thus, we have two interpretations stemming from the *same* religious text,
i.e. medieval Muslim thought as exemplified by Ibn Sina and so on, and our
modern day scientific miracles camp. To say that the Ibn Sinian exegesis
was wrong, and the modern one right is too simple. One what *basis* does
one claim that the modern exegesis is correct? This too needs to be looked
at and answered with further elaboration.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Imran, we only started to begin questioning your ideas and evidences. We
> have not even entered the meat of the argument about the issues of alaqah,
> mudgah et al. versus Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates. We will play your
> game to see what you are upto, if you like. It is always to good idea to
> give a good impression in the first step you take. Invoking the blessing
> of Ghazali I would assume is a bad idea at least in this case. And in the
> meantime you can always watch the video of Zakir Naik and William
> Campbell, where the former used latter's own approaches to discuss the
> issue of embryology. And indeed it was a very interesting discussion to
> watch.

IMRAN
Well Dr. Saifullah, as you are surely aware by know, I do not accept the
whole enterprise of extracting scientific miracles from the Qur'an. There
are a number of criticisms I have made, but perhaps the best thing to do is
to have us listen to you, present your case for embryology in the Qur'an.
That way, the risk of misconstruing your position is minimized as is the
possible charge from you that I am addressing a straw man. So perhaps you
would like to sketch out briefly your position before I respond to it. This
way, we will be fulfilling a very old tradition of logic, viz., that he who
asserts must prove. I am skeptical as to whether a coherent picture of the
'scientific-miracles' polemic can be constructed, and will remain so unless
someone can submit a decent, non-fallacious argument.

I think you also misconstrued my mention of Ghazali and Kant. Far from
seeking blessings from the great theologian of Islam, I was simply pointing
out a strong influence from him. Simply that the believer, if he really is
being honest to himself, should not really have any vested theological
interested in polemics and apologia. They are, perhaps, optional and can be
bracketed (a subject to be discussed another day).

Regarding the Naik vs. Campbell video, I have watched it months ago, and to
be quite honest, there is hardly anything original being presented by Naik,
who seems to have become the current champion of the scientific miracles
polemic. All of his arguments are re-hashed, and as a matter of fact, in a
another video I saw, I realized that Naik was plagiarising (to be blunt)
word for word from Gary Miller. Now, to use someone's source material isn't
a bad thing, as long as one makes a reference to the source. The failure to
do so not only points out bad academic ethics, but also demonstrates that
the man has nothing original to offer.

A final comment ... although I think of this as being serious, if you
consider postings of mine to be a 'game', then so be it. The ball is now in
your court.

[ghali]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> IMRAN
> Ah, yes ... a subtle move. Hang on, remember, I am not the one whipping
> up the argument. If *you* claim that your argument works, then the burden
> of proof is on *you* to give me reasons for all of your assumptions that
> you make. Remember, I'm the skeptic with respect to this polemic. You see
> Ghali, you've simply shifted the burden of proof on me. All I ask is some
> simple proof for why someone should accept the sources of Islam as being
> authentic (since this is a crucial preliminary to the argument)? Surely,
> you're not going to claim that the sources are true simply because some-
> one has not proven them to be false (assuming that is the case)? So give
> me your positive arguments before I offer any negative criticisms. That
> way, we won't be wasting any time attacking straw men.

But we have given POSITIVE evidence to overide the skeptics. This will
lead us into a massive outpouring of facts, so an example. The daft
theory by smith, gildchrist, crone et al that the full codex of the
Quran was only put together at about 150 years after his death (does
gildchrist actually say this?) We HAVE SIGNIFICANT manuscripts that
have been carbon dated . We do not need to go into M.A.S. The range of
carbon dating is usally about 80 years with the figure quoted the most
likely on a probability scale. The most extreme range being only a 5 %
chance. The Hussain Manuscript in Cairo see Saifulllah's site has been
dated to around 20 to 30 years of the prophets death. Therefore MAX
period would be about 50 to 60 years after his death i.e early 8th
century A.D. The Tashkent has also been carbon dated see sammfogg's
site ( the famous controvertial art collector) One of its leaflets has
at LEAST been dated to early 8th century i.e about 70-80 yeears after
his death , here the outer edge of the dating, perhaps Earlier.
Contact the site if you wish! We have many many other manuscritps from
Yemen, Medina, Bahrain, France etc etc from first and second century.
This MASSIVE RANDOMISED STATISTICAL sammple in every case shows no
PROBLEM in the orthodox theory. Now I want to ask you, if this
muttwatir manuscript correspndance to the Quran in EVERY circumstance
(the copying errors and mistakes can be accounted for and checked)is
not enough then how do you differentiate between fact and fiction.
Remember the schools of the revisionist tends to be post-modernist. A
problem for academic departments. We can go into the paradox's of
post-modernism if you wish. The hadith can be given just as strong an
argument.

Finally with the premise of skeptism. We have a problem if the initial
premise of Humanity is CONSPIRACY until proven otherwise. Remember
language has an essentially Human component (see Reason truth and
history's appendix for the proof provided by Putnam)With this we are
lead to RADICAL doubt for even the words we use cannot be trusted.
Language is not JUST correspondence to reality.
So the premise is on those who cry CONSPRIACY not the other way
around!

> IMRAN
> Again, who even mentioned Orientalist arguments? Must *every* single
> criticism of the sources of Islam be Orientalist?

Alright then what have you got to contribute?

> IMRAN
> OK, let me ask you this, as this is probably the best way go about the
> whole issue:
>
> Do you believe the Bhagavad Gita to be a poem describing a conversation
> between the warrior Arjuna and his charioteer Krishna? Do you entertain the
> possibility that the Angel Moroni delivered golden plates to Joseph Smith?
>

> If not, why not? And on what principle do you reject this ?

I think we have closed the dialogue here. You have not provided me
with the Universal priniple that is coherent. Rememeber my position is
that it valuable but not the WHOLE story. Anyway these appeals to
emotion I think is that all is left here. It is possible that Allah
could reveal to Joseph smith Golden plates but you are right he needs
proof but once that is provided if he maked non-observational claims
then their is no problem. That is all I have said. The above examples
surely have no evidence whatsoever. So in this case we say it is false
because the proof is self refering. It is true because the Jay smith
said so. A Logical fact!

> I think the best course of dialogue is for you to give me some comments on
> the above question, and perhaps give me a brief sketch of how you see that
> the argument from scientific miracles works. Just a quick account. Then, I
> can respond with my own comments. That's the best way to go about it.

Well I have initiated some refutations so what did you think of them?

> IMRAN
> Basically, the Ghazalian/Kantian criticisms of "pure reason" is what I was
> talking about. The vast majority of believers in God today do not base their
> belief on rational analysis/arguments. In fact, some distinguished theists
> such as Karl Barth reject the enterprise of apologetics. Others like Alvin
> Plantinga speak of "properly basic" beliefs, and belief in God being one of
> them.

Religious experience is a PRIVATE object and if it is the SOLE proof
that Muhammed is the prophet then we have a BIG problem of using the
argument i.e just mentioned (Details in Appendix 1 of Sexual Desire by
the Conservative British Philosopher Roger Scruton) Even Swinburrne
objects to this as a source, See Coherence

>
If everyone used their reason, you would expect an erratic
distribution of
> religions on the world map. But clearly, that is not the case. For example,
> Saudi Arabia is something like 99% Muslim, while New Zealand is, according
> to the census, over 70% Christian, etc.

No not really, the smoking exampe just does refute this. Casual
theories of action are a problem. From the Knowledge that p it does
not follow that the person acts on P let alone believe in it. So which
reference in a scientific journal have you used to verify the fact
that the truth of Islam will lead to an erratic distribution?? A
strange premise!

> So, for example, a woman who had never heard of Islam in a Christian country
> hears a Muslim sermon, or the Qur'an or whatever, over the radio, and then
> goes on to believe in God, she is within her rational rights to do so. But I
> still believe that religious experience can be synthesized with rationality
> (of some sort). And it needs to be to avoid the sort of problems I mentioned
> in this message. That's why we need to reconstruct religious thought taking
> these factors into consideration.

This synthesis of rationality is what I am looking for . So give me a
synthetic proof that Muhammed is the prophet! As for the reasons for
conversion they are multiple fold. Some DISTINGUSHED scientists have
accepted Islam because of the scientific proof! But Islam does allow
one to accept the religion as long as the premise is not "My Father
said so" i.e. Taqlid in Aqueedah.

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 29 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

> > With regards your first premnise. We have again and again given enough
> > valid refutations of the usual orientalist diatribe. You repeating it
> > does not make it in anyway true. Just rather boring. Where is your
> > problem with Hadith / Specifics! Where is your problem with seera,
> > maghazi? Specifics! Where is your problem with manuscripts ?
> > Specifics! Not appealing to AUTHORITY. Remember you previous argument!
>

> IMRAN
> Ah, yes ... a subtle move. Hang on, remember, I am not the one whipping
> up the argument. If *you* claim that your argument works, then the burden
> of proof is on *you* to give me reasons for all of your assumptions that
> you make. Remember, I'm the skeptic with respect to this polemic. You see
> Ghali, you've simply shifted the burden of proof on me. All I ask is some
> simple proof for why someone should accept the sources of Islam as being

I find this rather strange. It was Imran who kicked off the issue of
authenticity and transmission of Qur'an, Hadith, Sirah et al. and when
Ghali asked him to point out his specific problems with Hadith, Sirah,
Maghazi, Mss etc. Imran changes this as shifting burden of proof. This is
not the way one makes his case on various aspects of embryology. It was
Imran who pointed out the issue of authenticity and transmission and it is
he who has to substantiate his claim along with specifics. I prefer that
the argument does not go the way the one like Needham and ends up as if
Imran is clutching his straws.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 28 Dec 2001, ghali wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> No one is claiming that appealling to authority is an evidence in

> itself, but one of the main barriers Muslims have (a psychological
> one!) is the fact that they are not trusted,being biased. So quoting
> one of the most eminient Anatomists in this field helps overcome this
> barrier. It makes people pay attention and look at the FACTS!

Imran's other argument apart from "Appeal to Authority" was of the
reliablity of the transmission of the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, Maghazi,
Tafseer etc. Much of the skepticism is *only* from the Orientalists not
Muslims. So, in turn, even if an analysis by a Muslim on this issue is
presented it is highly likely that it will be rejected on the arguments
based on "Appeal to Authority" even though the Muslim may be an authority.
Honestly, I do not see a good outlook for continuation of the argument if
the basics are not set properly.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 29 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Appeals to authority are not an open and shut case. Some are legitimate, and

> some are not. For further details, I advise the interested reader to visit the
> following link:

Now you have started to make more sense about the issue of "Appeal to
Authority" which is more in the line of what I have already said
concerning the modus operandi of science. Hence guiding me a link is
rather superfluous.

> Dr. Saifullah must understand the important distinction between valid and
> invalid appeals to authority. The reason I mention this as a prefatory remark
> is because numerous websites propagating science in the Qur'an seem to hint
> at the fact that simply because we have testimony from a handful of professors
> who apparently give credence to the Qur'anic statements speaking of science
> being correct, this somehow validates the argument.

There is obviously no "appeal to authority". Shaykh al-Zindaani invited
non-Muslims who are well-known in their respective fields to get the
clarification on the issue of embryology among other things in the Qur'an.
Asking well-known people in their respective fields does not make the
argument "appeal to authority". And remember it was non-Muslims not
Muslims just in case somebody who is ridiculous enough to try an argument
along familiar lines.

Shaykh al-Zindaani did invite handful of people who were well-known in
their field. Does that make the argument less valid? Or does it make it
invalid?

> 1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
> 2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
> 3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the
> subject in question.
> 4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
> 5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
> 6. The authority in question must be identified.

So, Imran please tell us what is wrong with what Shaykh al-Zindaani has
done with what you see in the above statements?

> The burden of proof rests on Dr. Saifullah, being the one who is asserting,
> to show us that the enterprise of scientific apologetics passes through this
> criteria. This, as far as I am aware, has not been done by any proponent of
> this particular polemic, especially proposition (3).

Now the whole argument here rests on what is meant by "adequate" as stated
in [3]. Will Imran who was kind enough to provide the link will also be
kind enough to state the sub-issues in the proposition [3]. I know for
sure that there are 4 embryologist and anatomists who have agreed to the
statements in the Qur'an. There may be more but I have to investigate. For
those who have agreed, I have their publications with me. So, it is not
about "apologetics".

> At the risk of repeating myself, I was not quoting Needham just for fun. I
> wanted to point out to Dr. Saifullah that Needham was another qualified man
> with respect to the subject matter in question (embryology). A friend gave
> me Needham's book (who happens to be another Muslim who has abandoned this
> pursuit of establishing embryological veracity in the Qur'an) and I skimmed
> through it, but read carefully the relevant parts referring to the Qur'an.

I thought Needham one of your main arguments. What about the evidence from
him? None so far because there is none in his book either. I wonder how
people who do not produce evidence suddenly bear that mantle of yet
another "qualified man". And people who read them are equally foolish
enough to believe!

> Needham, Contra Moore, does not see any sort of reference to scientific
> miracles. This is indicative of the fact that such sharp contrasts show us
> there is disagreement among authorities. And therefore, we need to look at
> the *arguments* more closely, scrutinize them, and draw our own conclusions.

Needham, Contra Moore did his work some 20-30 years ago. Science moves own
and so does history. The authorities in the field have shifted and Needham
is not alive to tell his ideas about the embryology in the Qur'an and
Hadith. As a side issue Needham does not claim to be an authority on the
embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith. One wonders what happened to Imran's
proposition no. 2. Has he forgotton or has he started to apply it
selectively?

About the *arguments* Needham had none and by default Imran too has none
except for a statement. Perhaps it is high time we draw our own
conlclusions.

> Furthermore, the disagreements stem from the exegesis of the Qur'anic text
> in question which should usher the alert reader to the conclusion that it's
> a game of *interpretation*. Perhaps Keith Moore et al see science in the
> Qur'an, others do not. What Dr. Saifullah has to show us is that the issue
> of embryology in the Qur'an is victorious based on a watertight exegesis,
> that there can be no other possible (non-miraculous) interpretations of the
> verses in question.

Sorry, who are these "other" who do not see science in the Qur'an?
Needham? We already said enough about Needham and so have you? No evidence
and hence no argument: Case closed. Let us move ahead.

> "If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here
> between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it
> was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the
> similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies
> at the University of Cambridge concludes,
>
> 'The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for
> believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no
> doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an
> and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe
> the Galenic stages'"

What is that suppose to mean? It surely does not say the Qur'an was copied
>from the Galenic or Aristotle's accounts. It only says how Muslims used
Qur'anic terms to identify Galenic stages not the vice versa. So, they
interpreted Galen with the Qur'an.

> Thus, we have two interpretations stemming from the *same* religious text,
> i.e. medieval Muslim thought as exemplified by Ibn Sina and so on, and our
> modern day scientific miracles camp. To say that the Ibn Sinian exegesis
> was wrong, and the modern one right is too simple. One what *basis* does
> one claim that the modern exegesis is correct? This too needs to be looked
> at and answered with further elaboration.

As I had already mentioned, have patience.... and you will find yourself
learning more about the history of embryology, insha'allah.

> Well Dr. Saifullah, as you are surely aware by know, I do not accept the
> whole enterprise of extracting scientific miracles from the Qur'an. There
> are a number of criticisms I have made, but perhaps the best thing to do is

> to have us listen to you, present your case for embryology in the Qur'an.

You do not have to accept and you are not obliged to accept. But then do
not present us with Needham or "Appeal to Authority" at the same time.
They do more disservice to your cause than ours.

> Regarding the Naik vs. Campbell video, I have watched it months ago, and to
> be quite honest, there is hardly anything original being presented by Naik,
> who seems to have become the current champion of the scientific miracles
> polemic. All of his arguments are re-hashed, and as a matter of fact, in a
> another video I saw, I realized that Naik was plagiarising (to be blunt)
> word for word from Gary Miller. Now, to use someone's source material isn't
> a bad thing, as long as one makes a reference to the source. The failure to
> do so not only points out bad academic ethics, but also demonstrates that
> the man has nothing original to offer.

It is not about whether one is being original or not. It is about whether
one is correct or not. Campbell has already shown where he stands and we
know that he has nothing to offer new on the subjects which he discussed
and at times he was so blatantly wrong.

As far as Naik is concerned, he has done what he could do best: A good
debate on the outstanding issues. The contention of whether one needs to
quote each and everybody's material that is used in the debate is itself
debatable. Usually in lectures and debates unlike publications one is not
obliged to say each and every contributer to the material. At least I have
not seen this as a requirement from various international conferences that
I had attended on subjects in science.

Naik being a plagiarizer, I am not sure. I have a great deal of Gary
Miller material but none to substantiate your claim. Perhaps you will
enlighten us here again as you have done with Needham. We surely do not
want your earlier kind of a reply.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 29 Dec 2001, ghali wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Contact the site if you wish! We have many many other manuscritps from

> Yemen, Medina, Bahrain, France etc etc from first and second century.
> This MASSIVE RANDOMISED STATISTICAL sammple in every case shows no
> PROBLEM in the orthodox theory. Now I want to ask you, if this
> muttwatir manuscript correspndance to the Quran in EVERY circumstance
> (the copying errors and mistakes can be accounted for and checked)is
> not enough then how do you differentiate between fact and fiction.
> Remember the schools of the revisionist tends to be post-modernist. A
> problem for academic departments. We can go into the paradox's of
> post-modernism if you wish. The hadith can be given just as strong an
> argument.

I will only make a comment on the above paragraph.

It is just not the question of number of Mss that are statiscally random.
It proves part of the position of orthodoxy. It is also that many of the
Mss now have been studied for what Qiraa'aat that they represent.
Previously, it was assumed by the Orientalist scholars that the Qiraa'aat
originated due to the fact that the early Qur'anic Mss were undotted and
hence proliferation of readings until Ibn Mujahid had put the brakes on
4th century of hijra. However, recent research has shown that the dotting
was already being done in Arabic script as early as 22 AH (insha'allah
watch for an update at Islamic Awareness on this issue!) and many Islamic
inscriptions show dotting much before al-Hajjaj introduced dotting in the
Qur'an. See for example,

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/muwinsc1.html

The early hijazi Mss of the Qur'an do contain sparse dotting.

Coming to the issue of Qiraa'aat, recent research has shown that Qiraa'aat
can be identified in the Qur'anic Mss and one such Mss is Arabe 32a at
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, from first century of hijra in Hijazi
script which is written according to the reading of Ibn Amir the Syrian
[d. 118/736]. The idenitification was done by studying the consonantal
structure of the Mss. More details at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/#d

The bottom line here is that slowly things are coming up which are proving
that the orthodox writings on the Qiraa'aat and Qur'an are accurate
especially on the issue of mutawatir transmission. It is a matter of time
before more early Mss are examined and the Qiraa'aat in which they were
written is deciphered, insha'allah.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> I find this rather strange. It was Imran who kicked off the issue of
> authenticity and transmission of Qur'an, Hadith, Sirah et al. and when
> Ghali asked him to point out his specific problems with Hadith, Sirah,
> Maghazi, Mss etc. Imran changes this as shifting burden of proof. This is
> not the way one makes his case on various aspects of embryology. It was
> Imran who pointed out the issue of authenticity and transmission and it is
> he who has to substantiate his claim along with specifics. I prefer that
> the argument does not go the way the one like Needham and ends up as if
> Imran is clutching his straws.

IMRAN
As I had pointed out before, yes, I do have some problems regarding the
authenticity of the sources of Islam, such as the Hadith and Sirah. But I
refrained from going into details because I thought my position could be
deflected as attacking a straw man. Or that I would be misconstruing your
own position (since I do not know what Ghali or yourself believe with
respect to the sources of Islam).

Let me put it another way. Check out this page which speaks of scientific
miracles being in the Bible:

http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm

Before you even begin criticizing the evidence, surely, you are going to
object to some of the assumptions made (e.g. Biblical authenticity, etc)
because you see no proof for them. In the same manner, all I'm saying is
that for the 'scientific miracles' polemic to work, it needs to give some
sort of evidence for the assumptions it clearly makes. Now, it's no use
saying that because (supposing) I can't prove the sources of Islam false,
that therefore, they are automatically true. Remember, I am not pressing
for the argument to work, so the burden of proof is on the proponent to
give some sort of justification for the assumptions the argument makes.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

Leaving aside the question of Qur'anic authenticity, I think the more important
question is that pertaining to the sira and hadith. What evidence can you give
to show that they are authentic?

GHALI

> I think we have closed the dialogue here. You have not provided me
> with the Universal priniple that is coherent. Rememeber my position is
> that it valuable but not the WHOLE story. Anyway these appeals to
> emotion I think is that all is left here. It is possible that Allah
> could reveal to Joseph smith Golden plates but you are right he needs
> proof but once that is provided if he maked non-observational claims
> then their is no problem. That is all I have said. The above examples
> surely have no evidence whatsoever. So in this case we say it is false
> because the proof is self refering. It is true because the Jay smith
> said so. A Logical fact!

IMRAN
You are making it difficult to decipher your own rather cryptic position.
You grant the pragmatic nature of the verification principle, admitting that
it is useful, but you then go on to say that it is not the whole story. Sure
I agree with that. But you have not explicated on what exactly you take the
verification principle to be. My analogies are not appeals to emotion, but
rather, a test to see where exactly you stand with respect to verification.
Claims to the authenticity of Mormonism, you agree, "need proof", but then
previously, you try to refute the verification principle. What's going on?
What exactly does verificationism mean to you? It seems you are trying to
craft an ad hoc verification principle which can only apply to Islam. So if
you *do* accept verificationism (of some sort) please elaborate in the form
of:

X is true if ...

<...>

GHALI

> Religious experience is a PRIVATE object and if it is the SOLE proof
> that Muhammed is the prophet then we have a BIG problem of using the
> argument i.e just mentioned (Details in Appendix 1 of Sexual Desire by
> the Conservative British Philosopher Roger Scruton) Even Swinburrne
> objects to this as a source, See Coherence

IMRAN
I agree with this.

GHALI

> No not really, the smoking exampe just does refute this. Casual
> theories of action are a problem. From the Knowledge that p it does
> not follow that the person acts on P let alone believe in it. So which
> reference in a scientific journal have you used to verify the fact
> that the truth of Islam will lead to an erratic distribution?? A
> strange premise!

IMRAN
I never said that truth of Islam would lead to an erratic distribution,
but rather, if everyone analyzed religion rationally, we would not have
the enormous conformity in certain geographical regions which is quite
evidently the result of historical accidents of taqlid.

GHALI

> This synthesis of rationality is what I am looking for . So give me a
> synthetic proof that Muhammed is the prophet! As for the reasons for
> conversion they are multiple fold. Some DISTINGUSHED scientists have
> accepted Islam because of the scientific proof! But Islam does allow
> one to accept the religion as long as the premise is not "My Father
> said so" i.e. Taqlid in Aqueedah.

IMRAN
Indeed, it's something I am looking for as well. But I am still in the
process of researching, and have not come up with any solid answers as
of yet. How do we know Muhammad is a Prophet? The majority of Muslims
take that as an article of faith, what Richard Swinburne has called
"intrinsic plausibility". The "scientific proof" you speak of is not at
all a successful argument (see my latest response to Dr. Saifullah). I
also find it very unappealing because it remains mute on why the great
millions and billions of Muslims who lived and died before the great
Maurice Bucaille wrote his book, were Muslim. What was it about Islam
that appealed to them back then?

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Imran's other argument apart from "Appeal to Authority" was of the
> reliablity of the transmission of the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, Maghazi,
> Tafseer etc. Much of the skepticism is *only* from the Orientalists not
> Muslims. So, in turn, even if an analysis by a Muslim on this issue is
> presented it is highly likely that it will be rejected on the arguments
> based on "Appeal to Authority" even though the Muslim may be an authority.
> Honestly, I do not see a good outlook for continuation of the argument if
> the basics are not set properly.

IMRAN
I find it rather odd that you note the fact that the majority of criticisms
regarding the sources of Islam come from the orientalists, and not Muslims.
Of course this is going to be the case! Not just with Islam. But with nearly
any criticisms of other religions such as Judaism or Christianity. It is only
those who are outside the boundaries set by theology who will be able to
dispassionately evaluate the material in question. And so what if the main
channel of criticisms of the sources comes from orientalists such as Ignaz
Goldziher, Joseph Schacht, etc? Surely, you are not going to claim that the
source invalidates the arguments? The only serious criticisms proffered by a
Muslim writer, that I am so far aware of, is M.M. Azmi's work.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> There is obviously no "appeal to authority". Shaykh al-Zindaani invited
> non-Muslims who are well-known in their respective fields to get the
> clarification on the issue of embryology among other things in the Qur'an.
> Asking well-known people in their respective fields does not make the
> argument "appeal to authority". And remember it was non-Muslims not
> Muslims just in case somebody who is ridiculous enough to try an argument
> along familiar lines.

IMRAN
Actually, if you look back at my original posting, I made this remark just
to stress that those who claim that the argument has weight *solely* on the
basis of authority, would fall prey to this fallacy.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Shaykh al-Zindaani did invite handful of people who were well-known in
> their field. Does that make the argument less valid? Or does it make it
> invalid?

IMRAN
No, it does not make the argument invalid. Nor does it make it valid *solely*
on the basis that such-and-such scientists said so-and-so about the Qur'anic
statements concerning science. We need to evaluate their arguments, and see
if they are sound.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> So, Imran please tell us what is wrong with what Shaykh al-Zindaani has
> done with what you see in the above statements?

IMRAN
Look, I'm not saying that what the Shaykh did was wrong, but that it doesn't
show that argument is correct because a handful of scientists say it is. We
have to look at their arguments.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Now the whole argument here rests on what is meant by "adequate" as stated
> in [3]. Will Imran who was kind enough to provide the link will also be
> kind enough to state the sub-issues in the proposition [3]. I know for
> sure that there are 4 embryologist and anatomists who have agreed to the
> statements in the Qur'an. There may be more but I have to investigate. For
> those who have agreed, I have their publications with me. So, it is not
> about "apologetics".

IMRAN
Actually, the crippling defect of this type of argument is mentioned below.
This is not the main reason for rejecting the argument at all. Repeating my-
self for the umpteenth time, the lack of scientific consensus on this sort
of argument suffices to indicate that a simple appeal to authority is not
sufficient. We need to look at the arguments. So what is the argument which
proves scientific miracles by way of establishing embryology in the Qur'an
Dr. Saifullah? Would you, this time, be kind enough to elaborate on the
apologetic so that we can subject it to logical analysis. All we have been
doing so far is circling around the issue of authority. You know as well as
I do what valid and invalid appeals to authority are. So let's brush this
one under the carpet and move on. Please present your case for embryological
veracity in the Qur'an.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> I thought Needham one of your main arguments. What about the evidence from
> him? None so far because there is none in his book either. I wonder how
> people who do not produce evidence suddenly bear that mantle of yet
> another "qualified man". And people who read them are equally foolish
> enough to believe!

IMRAN
I mentioned Needham *simply to illustrate* the fact that we need to go beyond
the game of my-scholars-vs-your-scholars. I am not at all endorsing any of the
arguments Needham had (if at all). Now, since we're talking about evidence
here, let us hear what evidence proffered by Moore et al has been convincing
for you, for surely, we are not supposed to think you are bearing the mantle
of Moore et al's apologetics without any evidence.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Needham, Contra Moore did his work some 20-30 years ago. Science moves own
> and so does history. The authorities in the field have shifted and Needham
> is not alive to tell his ideas about the embryology in the Qur'an and
> Hadith. As a side issue Needham does not claim to be an authority on the
> embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith. One wonders what happened to Imran's
> proposition no. 2. Has he forgotton or has he started to apply it
> selectively?

IMRAN
See my comments above with respect to my quotation from Needham. And what,
is Keith Moore supposed to be? An authority on embryology in the Qur'an and
Hadith? What are his qualifications pertaining to the nature of Qur'anic
hermeneutics? He is a scientist, not a theologian or philologist.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> About the *arguments* Needham had none and by default Imran too has none
> except for a statement. Perhaps it is high time we draw our own
> conlclusions.

IMRAN
Of course, by this statement, Dr. Saifullah wants us to think that Moore
et al have a knock down argument for embryological truth in the Qur'an as
opposed to the intellectual bankruptcy of poor Needham. So please present
your own comments on the evidence *for* embryology being in the Qur'an, so
that we can scrutinize your arguments carefully, and then we can draw our
own conclusions. Just because something hasn't been proven false does not
mean that it is true. So even if all my criticisms against embryology being
in the Qur'an fail, it doesn't mean Dr. Saifullah's position automatically
gains victory.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Sorry, who are these "other" who do not see science in the Qur'an?
> Needham? We already said enough about Needham and so have you? No evidence
> and hence no argument: Case closed. Let us move ahead.

IMRAN
Although I do not find all of the criticisms made by them to be correct, it
is evident that the Answering Islam page has managed to score a few hits on
this particular polemic:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Campbell/s4c2b.html

DR. SAIFULLAH

> What is that suppose to mean? It surely does not say the Qur'an was copied
> from the Galenic or Aristotle's accounts. It only says how Muslims used
> Qur'anic terms to identify Galenic stages not the vice versa. So, they
> interpreted Galen with the Qur'an.

IMRAN
You're right, it most certainly does not mean that the Qur'an borrowed from
Galen or Aristotle. But this was not my argument, nor was it my implication.
Rather, what I wanted to demonstrate was that the verses are sufficiently
ambiguous to allow multiple exegeses. In other words, while Muslims in the
past successfully reconciled Galen with the Qur'an, so too do we find others
like Moore et al reconciling modern embryological statements with the Qur'an
in their writings. Don't you see what this suggests? It means that there are
multiple possibilities in interpretation. So what if Keith Moore et al can
squeeze scientific interpretations into the Qur'anic verses regarding the
creation of man? So what? What on earth does this prove? Simply just that it
is possible to play a game of interpretation. In the Qur'an we read,

"Do they not see the birds above them, spreading out there wings and folding
them in? Nothing upholds them except the Most Gracious (God)." (Q. 67:19)

If I claimed to you that this verse is *really* speaking about aerodynamics,
and since the knowledge of aerodynamics was not known at the time of the
Prophet, therefore, this is a scientific miracle (!), what would you say??
It's utterly farcical to engage in such exegetical gymnastics. And for that
very reason, I was surprised to come across this particular fatwa by Shaykh
Muhammad ibn Saalih ibn 'Uthaymeen:

"[T]he Qur'aan was revealed for the purpose of worship and morals, and for
people to ponder its meanings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

'(This is) a Book (the Qur'aan) which We have sent down to you, full of
blessings, that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding
may remember' [Saad 38:29]

It was not revealed concerning these matters which are subject to
experimentation and which people study as part of their scientific quest.
It may also be very dangerous to apply the aayahs of the Qur'aan to these
theories. For example, Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):

'O assembly of jinn and men! If you have power to pass beyond the zones of
the heavens and the earth, then pass beyond (them)! But you will never be
able to pass them, except with authority (from Allaah)!' [al-Rahmaan 55:33]

When man reached the moon, some people started to interpret this aayah and
apply it to this event of reaching the moon, and they said that what was
meant by authority was science and that by their science they had passed
beyond the zones of the earth and escaped the gravitational pull (of the
earth). This is wrong; it is not permissible to interpret the Qur'aan in
this way. What this implies is that you are testifying that this is what
Allaah meant. This is a serious testimony and you will be questioned
concerning that."
(http://65.193.50.117/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=22351&dgn=2)

Thus, the 'scientific miracles' apologists accept without question Moore's
hermeneutical method in Qur'anic interpretation. It goes without saying that
Moore is not a theologian, nor is he philologist. The same goes for Maurice
Bucaille. Their arbitrary enforcement of this particular hermeneutical
principle onto the Qur'an is seriously questionable. So it's hardly something
of astonishing display when the scientist translates some text using his own
scientific hermeneutical method, and then stands back gobsmacked at the
parallels discovered.

When I read the writings of Moore and Bucaille, I came across phrases which
are indicative of the problem of ambiguity. For example, they use phrases like
"could refer to", or "it is possible" and so on. This is perhaps the problem
which stops the polemic in academic arrest.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> As I had already mentioned, have patience.... and you will find yourself
> learning more about the history of embryology, insha'allah.

IMRAN
OK, I look forward to this.

<...>

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Naik being a plagiarizer, I am not sure. I have a great deal of Gary
> Miller material but none to substantiate your claim. Perhaps you will
> enlighten us here again as you have done with Needham. We surely do not
> want your earlier kind of a reply.

IMRAN
I do not have the videos on me at the moment. But I clearly recall seeing
a very old Gary Miller video (which had Ahmed Deedat in it as well) where
Miller was giving various arguments about the Prophethood of the Prophet,
and he was ruling out a number of possibilities. For example, that the
Prophet Muhammad could not have been suffering from mythomania, insanity,
etc. In another video, Zakir Naik was repeating word for word the same
argument used by Miller. Of course, you are at no obligation to believe
what I say, but I stand by my claim.

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

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.
Not only is he using the Kuffar's philosophy, but their epistemology as well.

That is the fallacy in Imran's crusade against the so-called "appeal to
authority." Using the "appeal to authority" principle is not an absolute
fallacy because this principle was created by men who wanted to control how
arguments were made and became valid or invalid. It is not something absolute
as insisting something refutable cannot be the truth because we all know,
reality confirms facts and points out the lack of truth in falsehood.

If those who use this "appeal to authority" want to prove a point, so what? If
they use it and it doesn't prove their argument, then the argument is
fallacious; not the use of "appeal to authority" causing it to be fallacious.

I rather not do a point-by-point refutation of Imran's argument but refer him
as well as others to the article "Way of Thinking" that has a complete
refutation of the use logic and philosophy in Islam as well as discuss the
correct way to think and deduct evidence:

http://www.khalifornia.org/article.tpl$search?
eqskudata=26&db=article.db&cart=3092437530817

http://www.khalifornia.org/article.tpl$search?
eqskudata=27&db=article.db&cart=3092437530817

Mahdi Muhammad

[ghali]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> Leaving aside the question of Qur'anic authenticity, I think the more important
> question is that pertaining to the sira and hadith. What evidence can you give
> to show that they are authentic?

So I assume you think now the Quranic authenticity is, well, given. A
good starting point. So let us go onto the hadith. We have right now
>from what I know( I have not gone into all the manuscripts and
remember, the full details of the manuscripts in Yemen which contain
many other religious documents from the early centuries has not been
fully assessed)collections which date from the time of the students of
the companions upwards. We start with Hammam ibn Munabih, an early
collection, then go onto Imam Malik who died around 150-160 a.h. which
can surely be dated to his time. See Yassin Dutton's work for a full
refutation of Calder. There is an article on the internet which is
also not hard to find. We have the Mussnaaf around Malik's time i.e.
of Abd-Razzaq, The works of Ibn abi shayba, the works of shafi
,shaybani which are a bit later now into the 170's ie. manuscripts
dating to that period or which can be confidentially be said to be
noted accurately by their direct students. The papyrus in Heildberg
also have collections such as that of the Eygptian jurist Ibn Lahiya?
(mid second century) see Georges khouri article on the collections in
Heildberg (Benhims Bibliography, The collections of Abdullah bin Wahb
dated around malik's time in Dar al Kutb (slightly later). Also Nabia
abbott's work of around 12-15? papyri in the first 200 years. Though I
need to clarify what I mean by random first. I can safely assume that
the early writers did not intentionally hide their manuscripts in
certain places so that we can, lo and behold, discover them to give us
a warped version of history so until proven otherwise ( you have not
refuted the premise conspiracy until proven otherwise) things are as
they appear. Now the crucial question is, can we trace these hadith
back to the companions? WE CAN! Why? Because of the Isnad system
provided in these collecions. We can cross reference them and see if
the collectors are accurate iin what they have noted. For example, we
can take a hadith of Malik's with a seperate isnad and compare this
hadith in the mussnaff. We find the wordings to be similar( Remember
this can be done with other collections), so we say that Malik
honestly noted it down from ANOTHER source. Repeating this with
numerous hadith and we establish the veracity of Malik. Simply it is
like taking two witnesses into different rooms to see if they are
faithfully transmitting the source. We now go back one in the chain
and see whether this person who malik narrates from has any common
links with other collections and so on... . Now Professor Scholler in
his work on the Hadith of Ifk? has done this, Nabia Abbots has done
this, Fuad Sezgin, Motzki and others. They have all come to similar
conclusions that we can faithfully do this with the isnad system. This
shows that the SYSTEM itself is MUTTAWATIR. So it is NOT just AZAMI, a
very poor selective reading if I say so myself! The premise should
really be after verifying the veracities of narrators TRUE until
proven otherwise! Any comments?

> IMRAN
> You are making it difficult to decipher your own rather cryptic position.
> You grant the pragmatic nature of the verification principle, admitting that
> it is useful, but you then go on to say that it is not the whole story. Sure
> I agree with that. But you have not explicated on what exactly you take the
> verification principle to be. My analogies are not appeals to emotion, but
> rather, a test to see where exactly you stand with respect to verification.
> Claims to the authenticity of Mormonism, you agree, "need proof", but then
> previously, you try to refute the verification principle. What's going on?
> What exactly does verificationism mean to you? It seems you are trying to
> craft an ad hoc verification principle which can only apply to Islam. So if
> you *do* accept verificationism (of some sort) please elaborate in the form
> of:

Alright then, Sense experience CAN provide a proof for a Factual
or/and meaningfull statement (I have not combed this in detail for a
rigiourous proof but off hand I can say at least it does not lead to a
contradiction) but it is not the SOLE source. i.e. it is not
universal.

I am repeating myself with the Mormon question. THEY DO NEED PROOF!
But my point is that a proof can also be provided by other sources eg
Logic and Mathematics ( As far as I know it is still difficult to
reduce Numbers to empirical or logical entities). A claim without any
proof is not valid not because it does not have a basis only in
observation but because it ends up with the daft proposition, P is
true because P is true!. If I can prove a statement to be true by
repeating it then I can also prove its opposite by repeating it
leading to a contradiction. A LOGICAL FALLACY which we all must
accept. From this I can say that Joseph Smith is not uttering a
Factual statement i.e. he is inspired by God. But also I think this
needs to be emphasised we can not ONLY rely on non-observational
proofs in EVERY circumstance because this to leads to logical problems
which I can discuss later on. So if the options of Only observation,
Only Other, lead to contradictions then I have a right to say the
third option is valid i.e combo that is if the options have been
exhausted.

> IMRAN
> I never said that truth of Islam would lead to an erratic distribution,
> but rather, if everyone analyzed religion rationally, we would not have
> the enormous conformity in certain geographical regions which is quite
> evidently the result of historical accidents of taqlid.

If you did read the previous correspondance you did roughly say that
if that is how Islam is to be proved then we would expect a different
distribution(it is not an a or b here). Now this would be a personal
tit for tat so let just say that the above is a clarification. I do
agree that one is more likely to be a Muslim if the environment around
him is "Islamic" , this is orthodoxy as the issue of hijra, etc..
point to. I do not agree that all the Muslims in the those areas
accept Islam because of Taqlid, (can we accept this defn Taqlid is
the belief in Islam because my family does) but some do. And
personally I do not know of any study that has gone into it with
regards to why Muslims are muslim. It may seem obvious to you but it
still needs proof! But this is a side issue for even if most Muslims
did accept it on taqlid it does not prove that we cannot prove the
religion.

> IMRAN
> Indeed, it's something I am looking for as well. But I am still in the
> process of researching, and have not come up with any solid answers as
> of yet. How do we know Muhammad is a Prophet? The majority of Muslims
> take that as an article of faith, what Richard Swinburne has called
> "intrinsic plausibility". The "scientific proof" you speak of is not at
> all a successful argument (see my latest response to Dr. Saifullah). I
> also find it very unappealing because it remains mute on why the great
> millions and billions of Muslims who lived and died before the great
> Maurice Bucaille wrote his book, were Muslim. What was it about Islam
> that appealed to them back then?

The "intrinsic plausiblity" of Swinburne is a bit misquoted. He relies
on a scientific notion of proof as you can verify in his Existence of
God, I don't think you are even close to it! Also I don't think your
refutations were anything to worry about and I have pointed out the
problems in them , why no comment? Historically you can go to the
works of the early scholars of Islam to see what they provided as
proof. That would be good to go into. Ijaz al quran by Baqilani, the
works by Khateeb, and many others so on.... But again it is a side
issue it does not refute the premise that we CAN provide a proof ,
which is going on in the thread by this process of "dialectic". Until
then if as you said that faith cannot be based on just a PRIVATE
OBJECT and you are looking for the rational synthesis ., why are you a
Muslim?

Wassallam Alekuum

Ghali

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 30 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> As I had pointed out before, yes, I do have some problems regarding the

> authenticity of the sources of Islam, such as the Hadith and Sirah. But I
> refrained from going into details because I thought my position could be
> deflected as attacking a straw man. Or that I would be misconstruing your
> own position (since I do not know what Ghali or yourself believe with
> respect to the sources of Islam).

What exactly is meant by "authenticity" of sources? Does that mean they
were "authentic" but not any more? Or does that mean that even though the
sources are old they were made up? The issue here is complicated.

Wassalam
Saifullah

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 30 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> dispassionately evaluate the material in question. And so what if the main

> channel of criticisms of the sources comes from orientalists such as Ignaz
> Goldziher, Joseph Schacht, etc? Surely, you are not going to claim that the
> source invalidates the arguments? The only serious criticisms proffered by a
> Muslim writer, that I am so far aware of, is M.M. Azmi's work.

Apart from Azami, Nabia Abbott (her work on Hadith Papyri alluded by
Ghali is his recent posting), Harald Motzki, Fuat Segzin and others have
questioned Goldziher and Schacht. As more and more early hadith books come
to light, we will see Goldziher and Schacht's position brought down brick
by brick, insha'allah. Patience is a good virtue.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 30 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> > Shaykh al-Zindaani did invite handful of people who were well-known in

> > their field. Does that make the argument less valid? Or does it make it
> > invalid?
>
> IMRAN
> No, it does not make the argument invalid. Nor does it make it valid *solely*
> on the basis that such-and-such scientists said so-and-so about the Qur'anic
> statements concerning science. We need to evaluate their arguments, and see
> if they are sound.

Now the issue here is that whether their arguments are valid or not. Their
meaning the arguments forwarded by Moore, Persaud, Marshall Johnson,
al-Zindaani and independently by al-Baar. My impression was that Imran
will be evaluating their arguments and then project his arguments against
them for discussion on this newsgroup.

> > So, Imran please tell us what is wrong with what Shaykh al-Zindaani has
> > done with what you see in the above statements?
>
> IMRAN
> Look, I'm not saying that what the Shaykh did was wrong, but that it doesn't
> show that argument is correct because a handful of scientists say it is. We
> have to look at their arguments.

He invited handful of scientist who were best in their field and worked
with them. If I remember correctly Moore mentions this in one of the tapes
and that each one of them were asked about the statements in the Qur'an
independently. They reached to similar conclusions. It is not that these
guys were huddled together and asked about the embryological issues.

Just think about it. It is nearly impossible to get everybody to Saudi or
wherever the conferences were held to decide on the issues.

> Actually, the crippling defect of this type of argument is mentioned below.
> This is not the main reason for rejecting the argument at all. Repeating my-
> self for the umpteenth time, the lack of scientific consensus on this sort
> of argument suffices to indicate that a simple appeal to authority is not
> sufficient. We need to look at the arguments. So what is the argument which
> proves scientific miracles by way of establishing embryology in the Qur'an
> Dr. Saifullah? Would you, this time, be kind enough to elaborate on the
> apologetic so that we can subject it to logical analysis. All we have been
> doing so far is circling around the issue of authority. You know as well as
> I do what valid and invalid appeals to authority are. So let's brush this
> one under the carpet and move on. Please present your case for embryological
> veracity in the Qur'an.

The issue was started by you not by us. Since you have a grievance, let us
hear it. You quoted Needham for the lack of scientific consensus on the
issue of embryology in the Qur'an. But we have already pointed out that
Needham did not do any in-depth study of embryology in Qur'an and Hadith
and hence his qualification as an "authority" is itself meaningless. I
have explicitly stated the Needham has *NO* evidence to show that the
Qur'anic materials echoes of Aristotle or Ayurveda or whatever. Now if you
still believe that Needham is an authority on this issue you have to bring
evidence; and so far you have not. We can safely assume that you have none
as we know that the "authority" that you have quoted had none. So, the
issue of "Appeal to Authority" has been used against you to show that your
argument stands nowhere.

As I have already mentioned earlier, the issue was started by you. We have
no problems with the issue of embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith because
we ourselves have been doing research on the issue of embryology nearly
independently for over three to four years and we have verified the
material by al-Zindaani et al. and have some interesting results which
will appear on the web in the due course of time, insha'allah. So, our
reaction to this issue is that of research not of a knee-jerk type of a
reaction.

> I mentioned Needham *simply to illustrate* the fact that we need to go beyond
> the game of my-scholars-vs-your-scholars. I am not at all endorsing any of the
> arguments Needham had (if at all). Now, since we're talking about evidence
> here, let us hear what evidence proffered by Moore et al has been convincing
> for you, for surely, we are not supposed to think you are bearing the mantle
> of Moore et al's apologetics without any evidence.

I never considered quoting Needham as being my-scholars-vs-your-scholars.
What I said is that Needham does not provide evidence to back up his
statements and hence he stands disqualified. Hence it was a rather poor
apologetics from your part. As far as Moore is concerned you can read the
book on embryology co-authored by Moore and Zindaani with Islamic
Additions published by Saunders and Dar al-Qibla. I think it is the good
starting point and deals with most of the research that they have done on
the issue of embryology. Remember, it was you who started the argument not
me, so the burden of proof is it on you.

> See my comments above with respect to my quotation from Needham. And what,
> is Keith Moore supposed to be? An authority on embryology in the Qur'an and
> Hadith? What are his qualifications pertaining to the nature of Qur'anic
> hermeneutics? He is a scientist, not a theologian or philologist.

Dr. Moore was a former President of the Canadian Association of
Anatomists, and of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. He was
honoured by the Canadian Association of Anatomists with the prestigious
J.C.B. Grant Award and in 1994 he received the Honoured Member Award of
the American Association of Clinical Anatomists "for outstanding
contributions to the field of clinical anatomy." He is a Professor
Emeritus now. Any questions?

Now let us go the other issue whether Moore is an authority on embryology
in the Qur'an and Hadith. Moore himself has said that he had worked on
this issue for more than a decade not just a month or a year. He never
claimed that he had qualifications pertaining to the nature of Qur'anic
hermeneutics. Rather he said he was helped by others who were
well-qualified on these issues as well as on the issues on linguistics,
hadith sciences etc. Obviously Imran does not know all this because he
himself had asked the question. One really wonders why would he get into
the issue of embryology without establishing the fundamental facts!

Other than what is said by Moore (there are numerous tapes of his lectures
which are now pretty hard to obtain unless somebody is really looking for
them), there are numerous publications in the form of conference
proceedings some of which I have and some I do not. These conference
proceedings also have the papers of Persaud, Marshall Johnson etc. on the
issue of embryology.

> Of course, by this statement, Dr. Saifullah wants us to think that Moore
> et al have a knock down argument for embryological truth in the Qur'an as
> opposed to the intellectual bankruptcy of poor Needham. So please present
> your own comments on the evidence *for* embryology being in the Qur'an, so
> that we can scrutinize your arguments carefully, and then we can draw our
> own conclusions. Just because something hasn't been proven false does not
> mean that it is true. So even if all my criticisms against embryology being
> in the Qur'an fail, it doesn't mean Dr. Saifullah's position automatically
> gains victory.

Imran, let us be honest and straightforward. The issue was started by you
and kicked off using "Appeal to Authority" and poor Needham (to use your
own words). If you can't stand on your ground by providing evidences then
you have lost your case. So, do not blame us for your short-comings. We
are not really obliged to present our case (not that we will not in the
future, insha'allah) and we have no issues with it. It does not mean that
our position, by default, is correct or victorious. Neither do we make any
claim on such grounds.

> Although I do not find all of the criticisms made by them to be correct, it
> is evident that the Answering Islam page has managed to score a few hits on
> this particular polemic:

My question to you now is that have you read through whatever material
they have quoted there. If some material lies on the internet for a few
years, it does not mean it is correct. As I said have patience...

> You're right, it most certainly does not mean that the Qur'an borrowed from
> Galen or Aristotle. But this was not my argument, nor was it my implication.
> Rather, what I wanted to demonstrate was that the verses are sufficiently
> ambiguous to allow multiple exegeses. In other words, while Muslims in the
> past successfully reconciled Galen with the Qur'an, so too do we find others
> like Moore et al reconciling modern embryological statements with the Qur'an
> in their writings. Don't you see what this suggests? It means that there are
> multiple possibilities in interpretation. So what if Keith Moore et al can
> squeeze scientific interpretations into the Qur'anic verses regarding the
> creation of man? So what? What on earth does this prove? Simply just that it
> is possible to play a game of interpretation. In the Qur'an we read,

Now that we have sorted out the basic issues raised by Imran, let us now
deal with the issue of exegesis. The Muslims have used the Qur'anic terms
to describe Galenic stages but not all of them. In fact some of the
analyzed the work of Galen and Qur'an and Hadith and rejected Galenic
hypothesis of emrbyology. Some even made corrections to it. Perhaps you
should consult some books in this issue. Musallam's paper is definitely
very handy in understanding some basic issues. Now if Keith Moore comes
along and says that the embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith accords well
with the modern day embryological studies then why should we be surprised
at this interpretation? Muslims, a few centuries ago, have already put
Galenic work under contention! Imran, I am sorry, you should read.

> > Naik being a plagiarizer, I am not sure. I have a great deal of Gary
> > Miller material but none to substantiate your claim. Perhaps you will
> > enlighten us here again as you have done with Needham. We surely do not
> > want your earlier kind of a reply.
>
> IMRAN
> I do not have the videos on me at the moment. But I clearly recall seeing
> a very old Gary Miller video (which had Ahmed Deedat in it as well) where
> Miller was giving various arguments about the Prophethood of the Prophet,
> and he was ruling out a number of possibilities. For example, that the
> Prophet Muhammad could not have been suffering from mythomania, insanity,
> etc. In another video, Zakir Naik was repeating word for word the same
> argument used by Miller. Of course, you are at no obligation to believe
> what I say, but I stand by my claim.

I went to see a brother yesterday and asked him about your claim of
plagiarization of Miller by Naik. There is no word to word correspondence.
That brother has a huge collection of video and audio of Deedat, Gary
Miller, Badawi etc.

I have watched that above mentioned video of Miller and Deedat which I
recall correctly was presented in South Africa. Yes, Naik may have used
his ideas but that does not mean he is not allowed to do so. Gary Miller,
as far as I know (and some brother has confirmed it by speaking to him) is
not concerned about copyright issues. Plagiarism: What are you talking
about?

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[gksh...@ucdavis.edu]

imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> Surely, you are not going to claim that the source invalidates the
> arguments?

This is the essence of the "argument from authority" question, I
think. If you want to continue to use standard logic, but to
incorporate argument from authority, then one way to do it is to
prepend an implicit conditional to all propositions whose truth values
are dependent on such arguments. For example, suppose we have an
argument between a Muslim and a Christian. Some assertions made
by each of them, for example, things of the type "all men are
mortal", can be made without appeals to authority and will be handled
normally, but to interpret other assertions logically, it will be
necessary to include presupposed conditionals, such as "If the
Koran is the accurately transcribed word of God, then ..." or "If
Jesus is the corporal manifestation of the triune God, then ...".

Since assertions of Muslim and Christian authorities almost always
must be transformed in this way, by the mental insertion of implicit
authority-dependent presuppositions, then, in fact, a proposition
that would be accepted as true, even obviously true, by the
authorities in one tradition, will be seen as false or incomprehensible
by the authorities in the other.

Of course, this is nothing more than a special case of how differing
implicit presuppositions can lead to misunderstanding, and I believe
that the best way to move past it is to make the presuppositions
explicit. However, this is difficult to do, at best, because the
reason they tend to be implicit in the first place is that they
often rest at the bottom of a great pile of consequents, that is,
of propositions and chains of reasoning and personal and social
action that entail them. It is rather difficult for people to
unravel this heap of dependency and come to the realization that
much of their belief system is valid only if a certain set of
fundamental propositions are true.

The situation becomes even more difficult when we begin to examine
these core beliefs, because what we often find is that some of them
are empirical. If they were all non-empirical, there would still
be a problem of communication among groups with different assumptions,
but none of them would be falsifiable. But since some religious
core beliefs are empirical, it may be possible to falsify some of
them using standard empirical methods.

What happens when a religious core belief is empirically falsified?
There are basically two responses I have seen: the first is to
reject empiricism, at least as it applies to religion--this would
be the response of fundamentalists or literalists; the second is
to reject or alter the core belief set to be in accord with the
empirical observations--this would result in revisionism, in viewing
the empirically false proposition as a metaphor outside of literal
truth or falsity, or in the case of religion and ideology, abandoning
the entire set of core propositions, in other words, apostasy.

For example, consider the historical responses of Muslims and
Christians, whose scriptures both contain the legend, to empirical
falsification of portions of Noah's flood story.

It is my belief, based on sources I cited in an earlier thread
here, that both Islamic and Christian sources at one time accepted
that the flood referred to in their scriptures was a universal one,
that is, it covered the entire earth and destroyed all life not
carried in the ark with Noah.

However, in the rather sketchy account of the legend contained in
the Koran, there is nothing that actually requires belief in a
universal flood, whereas in the more detailed Torah account,
its universality is spelled out explicitly. That is, the Koranic
account allows belief in either a universal or a local flood (it
doesn't say it was local, and it doesn't say it was universal),
while the Bible tells explicitly of a universal flood.

For Christians, the underlying conditional was probably something
like "If the Bible, read literally, is inerrant, then there was a
universal flood". However, for Muslims it might be expressed more
like "If the Koran, read literally, is inerrant, then there was a
very big flood".

Once a sufficiently complete perspective on the world had been
attained by Christians and Muslims to understand that a universal
flood almost certainly did *not* occur, to the extent that the vast
majority of those who weighed the question considered the idea to
have been falsified empirically, it became necessary to alter the
set of core beliefs to accomodate this fact. However, the effect
of this has been quite different in the two religious traditions,
in spite of the fact that the two scriptural accounts are largely
compatible and that at one time the two traditions shared a belief
in a universal flood.

For Muslims, not much was required beyond a shrug of the shoulders
and simple acceptance that Noah's flood was local, just a very big
one. None of the other content of the Koran's version of the story
has been empirically falsified, and so basically no adjustment of
core beliefs was required.

For Christians, however, the rejection of the universal flood on
empirical grounds--along with other empirical problems in the
Bible--has caused major upheavals in the faith, along the lines I
mentioned above. It has led to the great majority of Christians
accepting that much of the Bible must be interpreted metaphorically
rather than literally, it has caused many to abandon or to greatly
modify Christianity (toward transcendentalism, for example), and,
sadly, it has caused many others to reject empiricism as having
any application to the literal truth of scripture. This last group
is exists primarily in the USA, and contains those who believe in
"Creation Science" and so on. In effect, they have been unwilling
to alter one of their core beliefs (biblical inerrancy) to accomodate
empirical observations, and so they are able to maintain most of the
dependencies that have been attached to it, at the cost of refusing
to accept certain other core beliefs of the larger society and of
the scientific community.

Well, it is easy to see how appeals to authority regarding such a
major issue will differ depending on the presuppositions connected
with the authority. But what is important to understand is that
when these presuppositions differ substantively, then it will be
impossible to resolve inconsistencies between appeals to authority
unless the presuppositions are made explicit. Furthermore, once
the different sets of presuppositions are elucidated, it will only
be possible to resolve differences among them if they are empirical
(that is, they can be falsified empirically). If they remain
implicit or are not empirical (i.e., simple matters of faith), then
they simply cannot be resolved. The danger of exposing core beliefs
for explicit examination is that they might prove to be internally
inconsistent or to be empirically false, and it is believers'
responses to this kind of discovery that has given rise to so much
discord over the centuries. The danger of failing to expose one's
core beliefs for explicit examination is, of course, that they
*might* be internally inconsistent or empirically false (and
therefore, many of your beliefs and actions may be invalid), and
you will die without ever knowing it. Which is preferable, blind
acceptance or constant testing? Me, I choose the latter.

Greg Shenaut

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

MR. MAHDI

> 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....

IMRAN
What kind of nonsense is this? I'm not surprised because I've this kind of
rhetoric from members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir before. Setting aside the fact that
this is simply an argument *ad hominem*, perhaps Mr. Mahdi can explain to
us why he is using the kufr influenced language of English? Or a kufr
influenced medium of computers and the internet? Also, I would greatly
appreciate it if you could kindly point out which particular kind of logic
you have in mind to analyze matters of debate.

<snipped rest>

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

No offense, but I think the kind of simplicity you ascribe to establishing
the veracity of hadith is too naive. It's no use simply pointing to various
manuscripts and papyri. For as G.H.A Juynboll notes,

"Something which has always struck me in the work of Sezgin, Azmi and that
of Abbott ... is that they do not seem to realize that, even if a manuscript
or papyrus is unearthed with an allegedly ancient text, this text could have
very easily been forged by an authority who lived at a time later than the
supposedly oldest authority given in the isnad. Isnad fabrications occurred,
as everybody is bound to agree, on just as vast a scale as matn fabrication."
(G.H.A Juynboll, "Muslim Tradition", Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 4)

The same applies to the isnad which you seem to place trust in. Furthermore,
your "true until proven otherwise" is once again, simply fallacious. It's a
fallacy of *ad ignorantiam* that simply because something hasn't been proven
false, therefore, it is true. Bad, bad logic.

Now let us take a look at the hadith. Please understand that I am not alone
in giving you a critical appraisal of hadith. It is not my own whimsical
conclusion that I submit to you, but rather, I am analyzing the topic
objectively. Nor is it a new historical trend, for it goes back, as I shall
soon explain, right to the early scholastic debates of Islam. The rationalists
of early Islam criticized the hadith literature heavily. A good understanding
comes from Ibn Qutayba's "ta'wil mukhtalif al-hadith", a treatise that was
written in a response to a letter directed to Ibn Qutayba according to which
the mutakallimun accused the people of tradition (ahl al-hadith) of lying and
expressing contradictory statements on certain matters, and fragmenting the
Muslim community. All the respective sects, the Kharijites, Murji'ites,
Qadarites, Jabrites, Rafidites, and all other 'ites' utilized hadith to support
their respective claims! So-called 'hadith bombers' as Jeremiah McAuliffe has
called them in our times. Also mentioned was the fact that some hadith are so
absurd and nonsensical that they cause others to laugh at our faith, stop
those who wish to embrace Islam, increase doubts of the skeptics and spawn
other serious problems. For example, some of the absurdities are claims such
as that reading certain surahs will give a person 70,000 palaces in Heaven,
each with 70,000 rooms and so on, that the raven is a sinner, that the lizard
is a disobedient Jew, that the earth stands on the back of a fish, etc.

The major problem was that the corpus of hadith is largely self-contradictory.
Ibn Qutayba lists several contradictions that were presented by the
rationalists at that time - this is not my own invention. From his list, I will
mention a few now. According to one tradition, the leader of the community
must be the best person. Another tradition however says that people can pray
behind any person, if he is righteous or a wicked ruler. One tradition says
that grave sins do not coincide with belief, while another says even a grave
sinner will come to Paradise, meaning he is a believer. One traditions speaks
of how the Prophet had said no prophet will come after him, and the permitted
things (halal) and forbidden things (haram) are fixed which God stated through
him. Another equally famous tradition relates how Jesus will descend towards
the end of time, kill the pig, break the cross and increase the number of
permitted things. And the examples continue. Yet another tradition states that
the ajal of a man will increase if he does good for his relatives, while the
Qur'an explicitly states it is fixed and nothing can change it (Q. 7:34).
Take what you may of these, but note that skepticism was present at an early
time among a group of scholastic theologians as to the veracity of the hadith
material. Unfortunately, Ibn Qutayba's response seems to be primarily ad hoc
for he shifts the burden of proof on the rationalists, claiming that they
cannot DISprove the possibility that some Qur'anic verses may have been
abrogated.

That huge numbers of fabricated hadith were in existence is another matter
which was recognized by both the rationalists and the traditionalists. Another
interesting criticism was that the hadith portrayed the ancient scholars
(al-salaf) in a bad light. Take the Mu'tazilite theologian al-Nazzam. Once
example will suffice to get straight to the point. According to a tradition,
'Ali said: 'Whenever one transmitted to me a tradition of the Prophet
(hadaththani bi-hadith), I made him swear by God that he had heard it from
God's messenger. If he swore, I believed him.' Al-Nazzam's razor-sharp mind
picked up a grave defect in this report. He pointed out that the transmitter
must be, in 'Ali's views either a trustworthy person (thiqa) or an
untrustworthy person (muttaham). Now, if he is trustworthy, making him
swear had no meaning, and if he is untrustworthy, how will the saying of the
untrustworthy person prove true through his oath? If it is possible for him to
transmit false tradition, it is possible for him to swear falsely. Thus, Al-
Nazzam draws two fatal conclusions here, (a) Ali's reputation as a wise
scholar (according to this particular report) is impaired, for he established
an unreasonable procedure for accepting traditions; and (b) all the traditions
in which 'Ali is a transmitter may be suspected as unreliable. This is
simply the tip of the iceberg of the problems with spurious hadith. For more
information, and relevant references, please consult "Islamic Theology:
Traditionalism and Rationalism" by Binyamin Abrahamov (Edinburgh University
Press, 1998), in particular pp. 41-48.

Please note that this was the early Muslim reaction to the hadith. This is not
modern, orientalist scholarship. Ibn al-Rawandi in his "Zumurrud", raises a
few other rational considerations. Traditions concerning miracles are
inevitably problematic. At the time of the performance of the supposed
miracle only a small number of people could be close enough to the Prophet
to observe his deeds. Reports given by such a small number of people cannot be
trusted (a la David Hume, cf. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section
X. On Miracles). Muslim tradition therefore, argues al-Rawandi, falls into the
category of flimsy traditions, which are based on a single authority (habar
al-ahad) rather than multiple authorities (habar mutawatir). The coup de grace
al-Rawandi presents is devastating. He points out that the Prophet's own
stipulations and systems show that religious traditions are not trustworthy.
The Jews and Christians for example say that Jesus really died, but the Qur'an
contradicts them. If statements made by so many people cannot be trusted, then
it follows *a fortiori*, that the testimony of a handful of follows of the
Prophet must be even more suspect. (see Sarah Stroumsa, "Freethinkers of
Medieval Islam", (Leiden, 1999) pp. 82-83). All this purports to show that a
healthy dosage of skepticism is necessary to investigate the hadith critically
and honestly, not fearing the conclusions of this study and not having the
cart before the horse.

Quite often, I've been referred over to M.M. Azmi's works on the hadith,
attempting to refute some of the orientalists' criticisms. Muhammad Mustafa
Azmi had two major works, "Studies in Early Hadith Literature" and "On
Schacht's Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence." The gist of Azmi's argument
is that, contra Schacht, there was literary activity and compilation of
hadith during the time of the Prophet, and in the years to come after him,
up to 150 years later since the inception of Islam. The main defence is the
authenticity of the isnad, viz., that the science of isnad began early, that
it was a valid science and not arbitrary, and gradually improved by a 'trial
and error' methodology. Azmi wisely contends that *fabricated isnads do
exist* but for some strange reason claims that it has no serious implication
on the text, or matn. He concludes that there is no reason to reject the isnad
system. Perhaps so, but that is not the main point of interest. It is the
veracity of the matn itself. He concludes remarkably, stating "So even if
mistakes in isnads and ahadith exist, Schacht has produced no evidence that
would cause us to impugn the good faith of the majority of the transmitters or
abandon the hadith literature." Azmi is quite correct in his dismissal of the
inaccurate examples Schacht uses, nevertheless, it does not weaken the overall
pattern suggested by Schacht. Moreover, it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam
or an argument from ignorance, i.e. arguing that something is true simply
because it hasn't been proven false, on Azmi's part. But I don't see this as a
major problem. The big difficulty with Azmi's proposal is that his argument
rests on complete faith in the historicity of the source material. Azmi
relies on biographical materials that were produced symbiotically with the
isnads they seek to defend. These sources are not independent. And so his
arguments seems no less contrived, circular, and contrary to reason as those
of the skeptics seem to their opponents. As a result, we are left with two
seemingly diametrically opposed theories for the origin and development of
hadiths! I appreciate the spirit with which Azmi was opposed to Orientalism,
but I do not think he emerged unscathed from criticism himself.

I strongly suggest you read Fazlur Rahman's opinion on the hadith. Rahman
accepts the general conclusions reach by Goldziher and Schacht, viz., that
the hadith are by and large not historical, but they cannot be dismissed in
toto as being fabricated. In his own words, "Prophetic Sunna, outside the
fundamental matters touching the religious and the social and moral life of
the Community, could not have been very large, let alone being of such titanic
inclusiveness of all the details of daily life as medieval law and Hadith
literature make out to be the case." Still, the hadith are prophetic and do
contain historical truth, as he states.

Mohammed Arkoun, with brilliant insight, points out that:

"The writing of the hadith took much more time than did the compilation of the
Qur'an. The great collection of hadith deemed to be authentic were assembled
only at the end of the ninth century, or long after the death of the
Prophet. The selection and editing of these collections gave rise to ongoing
controversies among the three great Muslim communities. Sunnis, for example,
finally recognized the compilations of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim (d. 875),
which they called the two authentic ones (al-sahihayn). The Twelver Shi'a
staked their claim on the compilation entitled "Suitable for the Science of
Religion", started by Kulayni (d. 939) and supplemented by the collections of
Ibn Babuyi (d. 991) and Tusi (d. 1067). The Khariji use the Ibn Habib
collection (dating from the end of the eighth century) called "The True One
Spring" (al-sahih al-rabi). These manifest differences among the three
traditional streams within Islam can be explained by the cultural origins of
groups competing for control of the tradition ... [c]onscious of this
situation, Muslim scholars known as the hadith folk, the muhaddithun,
elaborated a critical science of hadith, an attempt at historical verification
of the chains of authority (isnad) and content (matn). But there has never
been a general review of all the compilations - traditional and polemical
positions aside - what would enable scholars to confront the essentially
historical problem of exhaustively reconstructing the Islamic tradition. An
attempt of this sort would presuppose a systematic comparison of all the isnad
and all the texts carried forward in the three streams of the tradition so that
the question of authenticity could be re-examined with modern means of
investigation - including computers for the handling of texts - and of
historical criticism. Muslims have violently rejected suggestions of this sort
already formulated by the Orientalist science of philology. The hadith, like
the Qur'an, the shari'a, and pre-Islamic poetry, are a sensitive point in
the Muslim consciousness. For that consciousness, the principles of criticism
established even before the times of Bukhari, Muslim, Kulayni, and Tusi remain
sufficient and definitive; the compilations put together on the basis of these
principles constitute "official" and "closed" corpora, similar to the Qur'anic
corpus. The theological problem constituted by the simultaneous presence of
three different closed official corpora, all regarded as official and complete,
is either passed over in silence or overlooked according to the principle of
orthodoxy defended by each tendency. Only a rigorous historical reassessment of
the documentation, setting aside all preliminary conditions imposed by
theology, can free up a state of affairs sanctified by more than ten centuries
of scholastic repetition and community devotion." (Mohammed Arkoun,
"Re-thinking Islam (Westview Press, 1994) pp. 45-46.)

Any thoughts?

GHALI

> Alright then, Sense experience CAN provide a proof for a Factual
> or/and meaningfull statement (I have not combed this in detail for a
> rigiourous proof but off hand I can say at least it does not lead to a
> contradiction) but it is not the SOLE source. i.e. it is not
> universal.

IMRAN
OK, let's grant this.

GHALI

> I am repeating myself with the Mormon question. THEY DO NEED PROOF!
> But my point is that a proof can also be provided by other sources eg
> Logic and Mathematics ( As far as I know it is still difficult to
> reduce Numbers to empirical or logical entities). A claim without any
> proof is not valid not because it does not have a basis only in
> observation but because it ends up with the daft proposition, P is
> true because P is true!. If I can prove a statement to be true by
> repeating it then I can also prove its opposite by repeating it
> leading to a contradiction. A LOGICAL FALLACY which we all must
> accept. From this I can say that Joseph Smith is not uttering a
> Factual statement i.e. he is inspired by God. But also I think this
> needs to be emphasised we can not ONLY rely on non-observational
> proofs in EVERY circumstance because this to leads to logical problems
> which I can discuss later on. So if the options of Only observation,
> Only Other, lead to contradictions then I have a right to say the
> third option is valid i.e combo that is if the options have been
> exhausted.

IMRAN
No, you are incorrect in claiming that a claim without proof is not valid.
Moreover you forget that we *all* accept certain claims without proof, other
wise you would be claiming that a finite being like ourselves is capable of
an infinite epistemic regress of inferences! Or that we ultimately have no
justified beliefs!

BTW, a proof in the way of "P is true because P" is VALID in formal logic.
Of course, informal logic dismisses it as begging the question. But I would
be interested in seeing how you think Joseph Smith is guilty of this.

I'm still not sure why you think Joseph Smith could not have been uttering
a factual statement? Where's the contradiction in this? Why was he not uttering
something factual? Was the Prophet Muhammad asserting something factual when he
claimed to ride into heaven on a winged beast? What's the difference?

GHALI

> If you did read the previous correspondance you did roughly say that
> if that is how Islam is to be proved then we would expect a different
> distribution(it is not an a or b here). Now this would be a personal
> tit for tat so let just say that the above is a clarification. I do
> agree that one is more likely to be a Muslim if the environment around
> him is "Islamic" , this is orthodoxy as the issue of hijra, etc..
> point to. I do not agree that all the Muslims in the those areas
> accept Islam because of Taqlid, (can we accept this defn Taqlid is
> the belief in Islam because my family does) but some do. And
> personally I do not know of any study that has gone into it with
> regards to why Muslims are muslim. It may seem obvious to you but it
> still needs proof! But this is a side issue for even if most Muslims
> did accept it on taqlid it does not prove that we cannot prove the
> religion.

IMRAN
Sure, if most Muslims take Islam on taqlid, it does not rule out the main
possibility of a rational justification for Islam. I agree with this. But,
you need to explicate on what this would be, since I confess that I know
of no current "proof" at the moment that is successful.

GHALI

> The "intrinsic plausiblity" of Swinburne is a bit misquoted. He relies
> on a scientific notion of proof as you can verify in his Existence of
> God, I don't think you are even close to it! Also I don't think your

IMRAN
Actually, he makes a distinction between scientific and personal explanation.
He then goes on to say that certain facts, such as the existence of the cosmos
can only be given a personal explanation (e.g. God) not a scientific one.

GHALI

> refutations were anything to worry about and I have pointed out the
> problems in them , why no comment? Historically you can go to the

IMRAN
No, you haven't refuted anything for me to refute! You're still dodging the
question of ruling out Joseph Smith's prophethood or whatever he claims to
have been, by making weak assertions of self-contradictory statements he is
allegedly said to have made.

GHALI

> works of the early scholars of Islam to see what they provided as
> proof. That would be good to go into. Ijaz al quran by Baqilani, the
> works by Khateeb, and many others so on.... But again it is a side
> issue it does not refute the premise that we CAN provide a proof ,
> which is going on in the thread by this process of "dialectic". Until
> then if as you said that faith cannot be based on just a PRIVATE
> OBJECT and you are looking for the rational synthesis ., why are you a
> Muslim?

IMRAN
Ah yes, good ol' ijaz. That's definitely going to be a topic for another
day, otherwise, this thread will get too cumbersome to deal with. As I've
told you before, my main reasons for being Muslim are that Islam provides
a good metaphysical picture of God (probably the best). I also find that
Islam gives me good moral fibre to implement into my life. If I can ask
you now, as to why *you* are a Muslim, what comments do you have?

P.S - I never said I would grant the premise of Qur'anic authenticity, I
said I would leave it aside for the moment. The reason for this is simple,
as Fazlur Rahman observed. If the premise of hadith is faulty, then the
premise of Qur'anic authenticity is faulty (since you know about the issue
of Qur'anic compilation, etc from the hadith). So let's see you answer all
of the criticisms I have raised regarding the hadith, and then we can move
on. Also, I have changed the subject heading since the main part of my
message was spent on criticizing hadith.

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>What kind of nonsense is this?

You call it nonsense, I call it Islam.

>perhaps Mr. Mahdi can explain to
>us why he is using the kufr influenced language of English?

Language is not based on a belief, kufr is. If Imran cannot distinguish belief
with modes of communication, that's his fault, not mine.

Allah never made speaking in a language other than English Haraam or a matter
of imaan versus kufr.

>Or a kufr
>influenced medium of computers and the internet?

Inventions like computers, cars, etc., are not based on kufr or Imaan.
Inventions are products of civilization that come from science or industry; it
was the effort of humanity to produce such products even if the inventors were
ALL Kuffar -- it is still a human achievement as opposed to a "kaafir
achievement."

Culture on the other hand comes from a specific viewpoint on man, life and
universe. For example, a statue of a nude human is a product of a civilization
that is reflective of Western culture. It will not be something you see in
Islamic culture because Islam doesn't allow statues of animate objects like
humans, let alone a nude one. A computer or car is not based on culture but
like I said is a product of civilization.

So nothing is wrong with adopting science and industry from Western
civilization but adopting from Western culture is wrong because it reflects the
Western viewpoint of man, life and universe.

>Also, I would greatly
>appreciate it if you could kindly point out which particular kind of logic
>you have in mind to analyze matters of debate.

You obviously did not read the article because it explains how to debate with
what kind of "logic" to use. I can make a long story short, but I am going to
make it even shorter: read the articles I referred you to and then come back to
me.

Getting back to your distaste for the use of "appeal to authority," if the
person who "appeals to authority" backs it up with evidence, then so what???
Evidence is what matters, not this rule invented by the kaafir philosophers as
to why you "cannot" appeal to authority.

Evidence always has precedence over no evidence.

Mahdi Muhammad

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 31 Dec 2001 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> No offense, but I think the kind of simplicity you ascribe to establishing

> the veracity of hadith is too naive. It's no use simply pointing to various
> manuscripts and papyri. For as G.H.A Juynboll notes,
>
> "Something which has always struck me in the work of Sezgin, Azmi and that
> of Abbott ... is that they do not seem to realize that, even if a manuscript
> or papyrus is unearthed with an allegedly ancient text, this text could have
> very easily been forged by an authority who lived at a time later than the
> supposedly oldest authority given in the isnad. Isnad fabrications occurred,
> as everybody is bound to agree, on just as vast a scale as matn fabrication."
> (G.H.A Juynboll, "Muslim Tradition", Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 4)

Well, the first argument which the Western scholars came up was that the
collections that we have are late, i.e., that of Bukhari, Muslim et al.
And it was supposed that it is highly likely that the isnads and matn may
have been inserted in the past and hence they can't be considered as
"truthful". When Nabia Abbott and others came up with earlier Hadith
papyri obviously the argument of the Western scholars took some beating.
Now we had papyri which dated before the collection of Bukhari, Muslim et
al.

Along with these studies came the Sahifa of Hammam Ibn Munabbih (published
Hamidullah in 1979), the Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq (Harald Motzki, 1991),
coupled with the work of Azami dealing with Schacht's point by point
refutation (in 1985) had been able to remove a great deal of doubts about
the Prophetic hadiths. Further, it should added that the work of David
Powers on various legal issues has shown some interesting points missed by
the skeptics. We should also add that much of work that is cited above
post-dates Juynboll's.

Wael Hallaq says:

"Goldziher, Schacht and Juynboll, among others, argued that we have good
reasons to believe that Prophetic reports were fabricated at a later stage
in Islamic history and that they were gradually projected back to the
Prophet. Schacht placed the beginnings of Sunna, and the verbal reports
that came to express it, towards the end of first century AH and the
beginning of the second (ca. 720 AD), whereas Juynboll conceded that they
may have surfaced a quarter of the century earlier. However, mounting
recent research, concerned with the historical origins of individual
Prophetic reports, suggest that Goldziher, Schacht and Juynboll have been
excessively skeptical and taht a number of reports can be dated earlier
than previosuly thought, even as early as the Prophet. These findings,
coupled with other important studies critical to Schacht's thesis, go to
show that while a great bulk of Prophetic reports originated many decades
after the Hijra, there exists a body of material that can be dated to the
Prophet's time."

W. Hallaq, "A History Of Islamic Legal Theories", 1997, Cambridge
University Press, p. 2-3.

To this one should also add the recent study by Speight in Der Islam (Vol.
77, 2000) which does a comparative study between Sahifa of Hammam Ibn
Munabbih and later collections such as Bukhari, Muslim and Ahmed. He
vouches for the veracity of the transmission of the reports.

Now we turn to Juynboll's argument that unearthing of early papyri does
not mean that there was no forgery earlier than that. Well, that is a mere
speculation on his part. Perhaps we will again ask Imran to produce the
evidence which Juynboll had to show what he claims. One should add that
using Juynboll's methodology, there is nothing in the history that can be
trusted because everything is liable to fabrication even OBL video!

> The same applies to the isnad which you seem to place trust in. Furthermore,
> your "true until proven otherwise" is once again, simply fallacious. It's a
> fallacy of *ad ignorantiam* that simply because something hasn't been proven
> false, therefore, it is true. Bad, bad logic.

Well, we have already asked you to produce the evidence which Junyboll has
for his statement "even if a manuscript or papyrus is unearthed with an

allegedly ancient text, this text could have very easily been forged by
an authority who lived at a time later than the supposedly oldest

authority given in the isnad." Making wild claims and drawing attention to
fallcies is easier said but when it comes to concrete evidence, we will
see whose logic stands where.

I stop here because I prefer to take on arguments one by one rather than
everything at one go; for which I have no time to spare! So, let us see
how the above argument fares and then we will give a push to the next one,
insha'allah. Ghali, hopefully would sort a few other issues, insha'allah.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[Greg Kavalec]

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a0p0b1$eeh$1...@samba.rahul.net...

Assalamu-alaykum

If I may interject. My personal view is that the Word of Allah(swt) is
perfect. Then it is passed to a human being, either directly or through the
angels. At this point it is in a state that depends largely on the spiritual
state of that human being. A question we are not the ones qualified to
judge.

But then... it is passed to other human beings. Either by word of mouth or
by being written. Here is where the trouble begins. It is expressed in our
language. And human language is NOT a spirit. It is a creation of Man. As
such it cannot contain the Word of Allah(swt) with perfection. Nothing of
man's creations is perfect.

In what we have of the Injeel Isa(pbuh) is reported to have said "For now we
see through a glass, darkly;" this is an excellent description of this
problem.

So here we are in the twenty-first century. We must accept that our
understanding of scripture is partially hidden behind these *human*
imperfections. This dark glass.
To me it is clear that the *least* hidden is the Quran. But from there on we
must use greater and greater levels of caution. Each layer of distance from
the text of the Quran itself is another layer of imperfect glass.

If this is what Imran means by "authenticity" I cannot agree more.

Salaam
And wishes for a good New Year to all here
G. Waleed Kavalec

[surayya]

Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> writes

>So nothing is wrong with adopting science and industry from Western
>civilization but adopting from Western culture is wrong because it reflects the
>Western viewpoint of man, life and universe.

So does western civilisation reflect the western viewpoint etc.
Civilisation includes culture. Thus western civilisation includes
western culture, and hence science and industry is not isolated from
those principles and can be founded on them. So no, it is not
*automatically* okay to inherit it, including inventions.

It is neither 'lets get the science booty' or 'lets imitate their
politics'.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

After a number of exchanges on the preliminaries, the crux of the argument
has been exposed, and I would like to leave aside the tangential issues for
the time being, and concentrate on this. Dr. Saifullah writes:

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Now that we have sorted out the basic issues raised by Imran, let us now
> deal with the issue of exegesis. The Muslims have used the Qur'anic terms
> to describe Galenic stages but not all of them. In fact some of the
> analyzed the work of Galen and Qur'an and Hadith and rejected Galenic
> hypothesis of emrbyology. Some even made corrections to it. Perhaps you
> should consult some books in this issue. Musallam's paper is definitely
> very handy in understanding some basic issues. Now if Keith Moore comes
> along and says that the embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith accords well
> with the modern day embryological studies then why should we be surprised
> at this interpretation? Muslims, a few centuries ago, have already put
> Galenic work under contention! Imran, I am sorry, you should read.

IMRAN
The heart of the argument against this kind of apologetic is what has been
criticized by people under the title of "The Miracle of Re-interpretation",
for example, see:

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/miracle_of_reinterpretation.htm

As I have said before, the verses of the Qur'an in question are flexible and
ambiguous enough to be able to extract scientific statements if one wishes to
do so. This most certainly does not mean that the scientific exegesis is the
*correct* one. I have charged proponents of this type of argument before with
the *arbitrary enforcement* of the scientific hermeneutical method. It's just
as arbitrary as the mathematical hermeneutical method concocted by the late
Dr. Rashad Khalifa, and is espoused today by his disciples:

http://www.submission.org/miracle/

Now is a good time to introduce a rule of evidence I will be appealing to.
It is known as Occam's Razor, popularized by William of Occam, a 13th century
philosopher and logician. Simply put, it says that "Entities should not be
multiplied beyond necessity." In other words, when some fact or phenomenon is
in need of explanation, the simplest explanations is *probably* the correct
one. My contention is that the 'scientific/mathematical miracles' apologists
have flung down this rule and danced upon it, in complete disregard for the
simpler exegeses (this applies to the current discussion on embryology as
well as the general enterprise of attempting to establish modern science or
mathematical formulae in the Qur'an).

Let me re-introduce an example to illustrate this point I mentioned in my
previous message on which Dr. Saifullah remained mute. In Surah Al-Mulk, we
read:

"Do they not see the birds above them, spreading out their wings and folding
them in? None upholds them except the Most Gracious." (Q. 67:19)

Now consider the following two exegeses:

SIMPLER READING: This verse is talking about the majestic nature of God's
creation, and God's power in every subtle aspect of nature, etc, etc.

SCIENTIFIC READING: This verse is REALLY talking about the aerodynamics of
bird flight. It really wants to tell the reader about the two main sources
of drag on flying birds: (a) profile drag - air dragged along by moving body
- increases with speed and (b) induced drag - resistance to laminar flow
around wing - decreases with increased speed. Obviously the Prophet Muhammad
could not have known such scientific knowledge at his time, therefore, this
verse is undeniable scientific proof that the Qur'an is a miracle.

What's so amazing about interpreting the Qur'an scientifically and then just
standing back stunned at the apparently miraculous reconciliation of science
and the Qur'an? It reminds me of a 'Mr. Bean' episode where he writes Christmas
cards out to himself, walks out of his apartment door, posts them through his
own apartment door via the mail-slot and walks in a few seconds later. And to
his wonderful surprise as interpreted by his mentality, he's received Christmas
cards! Amazing! The whole enterprise does have a hidden circularity embedded
into it.

Although probably for reasons connected with orthodoxy, Shaykh Muhammad ibn
Saalih ibn 'Uthaymeen too seems to think that such pursuits are not worth it:

"[T]he Qur'aan was revealed for the purpose of worship and morals, and for
people to ponder its meanings. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

'(This is) a Book (the Qur'aan) which We have sent down to you, full of
blessings, that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding
may remember' [Saad 38:29]

It was not revealed concerning these matters which are subject to
experimentation and which people study as part of their scientific quest.
It may also be very dangerous to apply the aayahs of the Qur'aan to these
theories. For example, Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning):

'O assembly of jinn and men! If you have power to pass beyond the zones of
the heavens and the earth, then pass beyond (them)! But you will never be
able to pass them, except with authority (from Allaah)!' [al-Rahmaan 55:33]

When man reached the moon, some people started to interpret this aayah and
apply it to this event of reaching the moon, and they said that what was
meant by authority was science and that by their science they had passed
beyond the zones of the earth and escaped the gravitational pull (of the
earth). This is wrong; it is not permissible to interpret the Qur'aan in
this way. What this implies is that you are testifying that this is what
Allaah meant. This is a serious testimony and you will be questioned
concerning that."
(http://65.193.50.117/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=22351&dgn=2)

Once again, Dr. Saifullah failed to comment on this quotation. Perhaps he
will share his thoughts when he replies to this posting.

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). In the meantime, he can, if he wishes to do so,
respond to the criticisms I have raised in this posting.

[ghali]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> No offense, but I think the kind of simplicity you ascribe to establishing
> the veracity of hadith is too naive. It's no use simply pointing to various

> manuscripts and papyri. For as G.H.A Juynboll notes,....

None taken! Anyway there is nothing to worry about here, just the
ramblings of Juynobl and your blind faith in his view, and oh yeah my
naivity!? Do you actually know what his position is? He is well known
for his COMMON link theory and not the SPREADING ISNAD theory of
Schact and others( ie fabrication on every level which has been
refuted acutually not just by azami but in another PHD by Iftikhar
Zaman? see Benhims bibliography). It is simple. He DOES trust the
isnad system but just that the fabrication lies in the first century
with the common link! So again another misquote. But with regards to
the papyri quoted, you have missed the whole point! What you need for
such a daft conspiracy theory is the common meeting of all these
collectors of hadith beforehand knowing full well that they will have
their papyri discovered later on so that they can fabricate the common
texts with common narrators within a similar period in order that we
can just have this deluded confidence in the system! Can you belive
such proposterous concepts? I think you do which is really sad! Cheer
up the world is not that bad. Simply put the papyri show a MUTTAWATIR
proof for the system. Fabrication on such a large scale as a principle
until proven otherwise in history will lead you into very murky waters
as shown below.

> The same applies to the isnad which you seem to place trust in. Furthermore,
> your "true until proven otherwise" is once again, simply fallacious. It's a
> fallacy of *ad ignorantiam* that simply because something hasn't been proven
> false, therefore, it is true. Bad, bad logic.

As you do not believe in the basis of Muttawatir as a criteria for
truth, then how do you avoid the problem I adumburated to before?
LANGUAGE! I DID give you the LOGICAL proof for this in the reference
ie. Putnam's proof ( I forgot the name) on the ESSENTIALLY HUMAN
aspect to language. It is not bad bad logic, but you just being sloppy
(sorry). I will give a summary. Since the work of Frege meaning
roughly has been divided into SENSE and REFERENCE. The division is
still valid. So it is not enough to point to a dog to understand the
term dog but also to accept the CONTINGENT fact that the word dog is
used. We can call a dog a chair or a table or any infinite
combination. The only way we can trust in the SENSE of the words used
in our language is at LEAST by the system of Muttawatir, for that is
the STRONGEST "human" proof possible. If we are skeptical of this then
I have a question to you. Why are you contributing to this newsgroup
when you don't know what you are talking about? literally!. That is
why we have to take a muttwatir proof as valid until proven otherwise!
We just then would not be able to understand language or trust a large
part of our history.

> Now let us take a look at the hadith. Please understand that I am not alone
> in giving you a critical appraisal of hadith. It is not my own whimsical
> conclusion that I submit to you, but rather, I am analyzing the topic
> objectively.

Well I am glad to know you put such great effort into your replies.
Another emotional appeal eh!

> a treatise that was
> written in a response to a letter directed to Ibn Qutayba according to which
> the mutakallimun accused the people of tradition (ahl al-hadith) of lying and
> expressing contradictory statements on certain matters, and fragmenting the
> Muslim community. All the respective sects, the Kharijites, Murji'ites,
> Qadarites, Jabrites, Rafidites, and all other 'ites' utilized hadith to support
> their respective claims!

Please, please be accurate when you quote. Give me one, and I mean one
Muttakalim that denied hadith in totality!. Not even the Mutazzila
hold your view. They accepted the muttawatir traditions. The Ashari
mutakkalimin well see latter...

So-called 'hadith bombers' as Jeremiah McAuliffe has
> called them in our times. Also mentioned was the fact that some hadith are so
> absurd and nonsensical that they cause others to laugh at our faith, stop
> those who wish to embrace Islam, increase doubts of the skeptics and spawn
> other serious problems. For example, some of the absurdities are claims such
> as that reading certain surahs will give a person 70,000 palaces in Heaven,
> each with 70,000 rooms and so on, that the raven is a sinner, that the lizard
> is a disobedient Jew, that the earth stands on the back of a fish, etc.

Jeremiah is not good company trust me! Just check out his refutations
at the thread out with taliban, out with hamas etc. All this leads to
the conclusion that there are some fabricated hadith. So what! We have
criteria to differentiate.

> The major problem was that the corpus of hadith is largely self-contradictory.

Corpus! What?! So were is your proof for this? Have you actually sat
down and seen most of the hadith and come to the conclusion that they
mostly lead to contradictions that cannot, let us just say POSSIBLY
be explained away?

REFERENCES PLEASE!

> According to one tradition, the leader of the community
> must be the best person. Another tradition however says that people can pray
> behind any person, if he is righteous or a wicked ruler. One tradition says
> that grave sins do not coincide with belief, while another says even a grave
> sinner will come to Paradise, meaning he is a believer. One traditions speaks
> of how the Prophet had said no prophet will come after him, and the permitted
> things (halal) and forbidden things (haram) are fixed which God stated through
> him. Another equally famous tradition relates how Jesus will descend towards
> the end of time, kill the pig, break the cross and increase the number of
> permitted things. And the examples continue. Yet another tradition states that
> the ajal of a man will increase if he does good for his relatives, while the
> Qur'an explicitly states it is fixed and nothing can change it (Q. 7:34).
> Take what you may of these, but note that skepticism was present at an early
> time among a group of scholastic theologians as to the veracity of the hadith
> material. Unfortunately, Ibn Qutayba's response seems to be primarily ad hoc
> for he shifts the burden of proof on the rationalists, claiming that they
> cannot DISprove the possibility that some Qur'anic verses may have been
> abrogated.

This is boring and tedious. We allhamidullah have a science to
actually explain away many of the apparent contradictions. I will give
you a reference for this with regards to the more accurate examples
ie. rightous persons perferablly leading the prayer and the tyrants
leading the prayer see Nayl Al Awtawr by Shokani. Most if not all of
your examples have answers. As with regards to the more extreme points
ie the earth on turtles or fishes? No Comment! (I need an Isnad )

> Please note that this was the early Muslim reaction to the hadith. This is not
> modern, orientalist scholarship. Ibn al-Rawandi in his "Zumurrud", raises a
> few other rational considerations. Traditions concerning miracles are
> inevitably problematic. At the time of the performance of the supposed
> miracle only a small number of people could be close enough to the Prophet
> to observe his deeds. Reports given by such a small number of people cannot be
> trusted (a la David Hume, cf. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section
> X. On Miracles).

David hume? Are you Muslim? He considered ALL miracles to be
impossible! And not because of the issue of numbers. I have the book
at home if you wish to go into details!. Some of the miracles of the
prophet were viewed by large numbers in fact . It just needs time for
me to get the references for this. For the meanwhile let leave this
particular problem aside and discuss the principle of miracles. That
is if you want.

Muslim tradition therefore, argues al-Rawandi, falls into the
> category of flimsy traditions, which are based on a single authority (habar
> al-ahad) rather than multiple authorities (habar mutawatir). The coup de grace
> al-Rawandi presents is devastating. He points out that the Prophet's own
> stipulations and systems show that religious traditions are not trustworthy.
> The Jews and Christians for example say that Jesus really died, but the Qur'an
> contradicts them. If statements made by so many people cannot be trusted, then
> it follows *a fortiori*, that the testimony of a handful of follows of the
> Prophet must be even more suspect. (see Sarah Stroumsa, "Freethinkers of
> Medieval Islam", (Leiden, 1999) pp. 82-83). All this purports to show that a
> healthy dosage of skepticism is necessary to investigate the hadith critically
> and honestly, not fearing the conclusions of this study and not having the
> cart before the horse.

LOL this example of the christians to refute muttawatir is quite funny
on the verge of ridiculous. So you have an Isnad system that can be
cross referenced back to the companions of Jesus! I think not! But
with regards to ahad and muttwatir the muttakallim considered ahad to
benefit probable knowledge ,action so on and muttwatir to benifit
neccessary knowledge. See Juwayani's book Al-Irshad ila qwati Usul al
Itiqaad. I also have a PHD thesis by one of the professors in Medina
on the position of Ibn Taymiaah and the Asharia which goes into alot
of detail with regards to this. Other works include Khatib al
Baghdadi's works, Nawawi's Sharh Saheeh Muslim... Anyway in Conclusion
the Muttakalamin did NOT consider AHAD to be flimsy because of the
issue of a single to few narrators but PROBABLE if trustworthy.
Muttwatir.. So please again do not misquote!

> I strongly suggest you read Fazlur Rahman's opinion on the hadith. Rahman
> accepts the general conclusions reach by Goldziher and Schacht, viz., that
> the hadith are by and large not historical, but they cannot be dismissed in
> toto as being fabricated. In his own words, "Prophetic Sunna, outside the
> fundamental matters touching the religious and the social and moral life of
> the Community, could not have been very large, let alone being of such titanic
> inclusiveness of all the details of daily life as medieval law and Hadith
> literature make out to be the case." Still, the hadith are prophetic and do
> contain historical truth, as he states.

But he has nothing new! I can go to other non-muslim authors for his
arguments.

> Mohammed Arkoun, with brilliant insight, points out that:
>
> "The writing of the hadith took much more time than did the compilation of the
> Qur'an. The great collection of hadith deemed to be authentic were assembled
> only at the end of the ninth century, or long after the death of the
> Prophet. The selection and editing of these collections gave rise to ongoing
> controversies among the three great Muslim communities.

Come on I give pre third century collections in my previous thread and
you place the quote without bothering to take this into account!

> Any thoughts?

Plenty!

> IMRAN
> No, you are incorrect in claiming that a claim without proof is not valid.
> Moreover you forget that we *all* accept certain claims without proof, other
> wise you would be claiming that a finite being like ourselves is capable of
> an infinite epistemic regress of inferences! Or that we ultimately have no
> justified beliefs!

No you are incorrect! Isn't this just fun! If the basis of a proof IN
PRINCIPLE is the same statement then I can without any problems claim
the opposite using this very principle. This leads to a contradiction
which is a logical problem! But people can trust and have irrational
beliefs.

> BTW, a proof in the way of "P is true because P" is VALID in formal logic.
> Of course, informal logic dismisses it as begging the question. But I would
> be interested in seeing how you think Joseph Smith is guilty of this.

No you are confusing a tautology with the fact that one can prove in
terms OF CONTENT and FORMALITY a premise P using the same Premise. P
is P I know that is also an issue of identity but the fact that I can
prove the premise P to be Factual by SELF-REFERING leads to the well
known Curries paradox! A Logical problem!

> I'm still not sure why you think Joseph Smith could not have been uttering
> a factual statement? Where's the contradiction in this? Why was he not uttering
> something factual?

Because in the end Joseph Smith's argument is a SELF-REFERING argument

> IMRAN
> Sure, if most Muslims take Islam on taqlid, it does not rule out the main
> possibility of a rational justification for Islam. I agree with this. But,
> you need to explicate on what this would be, since I confess that I know
> of no current "proof" at the moment that is successful.

Well that is what we are talking about!

> IMRAN
> Actually, he makes a distinction between scientific and personal explanation.
> He then goes on to say that certain facts, such as the existence of the cosmos
> can only be given a personal explanation (e.g. God) not a scientific one.

I have the book Existence of God with me now! Shall we go into the
details of his argument. You still I claim are misquoting him!

> IMRAN
> No, you haven't refuted anything for me to refute! You're still dodging the
> question of ruling out Joseph Smith's prophethood or whatever he claims to
> have been, by making weak assertions of self-contradictory statements he is
> allegedly said to have made.

I am talking about the embryology so if it is so easy, comment!

> IMRAN
> Ah yes, good ol' ijaz. That's definitely going to be a topic for another
> day, otherwise, this thread will get too cumbersome to deal with. As I've
> told you before, my main reasons for being Muslim are that Islam provides
> a good metaphysical picture of God (probably the best). I also find that
> Islam gives me good moral fibre to implement into my life. If I can ask
> you now, as to why *you* are a Muslim, what comments do you have?

Is it not obvious why now I am a Muslim, What have we been talking
about all along? Good moral fibre ...LOL That is going to be a fun one
to Deconstruct another time if you mean by it a sole proof.

> P.S - I never said I would grant the premise of Qur'anic authenticity, I
> said I would leave it aside for the moment. The reason for this is simple,
> as Fazlur Rahman observed. If the premise of hadith is faulty, then the
> premise of Qur'anic authenticity is faulty (since you know about the issue
> of Qur'anic compilation, etc from the hadith). So let's see you answer all
> of the criticisms I have raised regarding the hadith, and then we can move
> on. Also, I have changed the subject heading since the main part of my
> message was spent on criticizing hadith.

I think it boils down to this notion of Multiple narrators in
different geographic areas. (Muttawatir). So how do you answer all the
proof we have given you with numerous manuscripts found in different
areas of the world traced back to the times of the companions?

Any comments?

Ghali

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

IMRAN
Well, Mr. Mahdi, after an e-mail like that, I really don't have much to say.
However, my good friend Swami Sanipada has just popped in through the door and
I thought perhaps he may have a comment or two to make regarding your messages
on the subject <passing keyboard over to Swami>

<...>

SWAMI SANIPADA
I'm sorry Mr. Mahdi, but your argument is completely fraudulent. You may
call my opinion nonsense, I call it Hinduism. Muslim logic cannot penetrate
the many truths of Hinduism. Now, nothing is wrong with adopting science and
industry from Muslim civilization but adopting from Muslim culture is wrong
because it reflects the Muslim viewpoint of man, life and universe. Evidence
is what matters, not rules invented by the Muslim theologians. For you to
understand the correct way of thinking, I strongly suggest you consult the
Bhagavad Gita. Also recommended is the Rigveda, the Brahmanas, the Sutras,
and the Aranyakas. Once you have read all of these, you will see the fatal
flaw in Muslim logic. Never will you understand the premise of Hinduism
until you abandon your fractured way of Muslim thinking. Don't you know that
you are trapped in Samsara? When is the last time you checked up on your
Karma? When did you last partake in Puja?

Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti!

<...>

IMRAN
<back at the keyboard> Ah yes, thank you Swami. Appreciate your comments.
We'll leave it to Mr. Mahdi to make any further comments if he wishes to do
so.

[asimm...@yahoo.com]

>
> P.S - I never said I would grant the premise of Qur'anic authenticity, I
> said I would leave it aside for the moment. The reason for this is simple,
> as Fazlur Rahman observed. If the premise of hadith is faulty, then the
> premise of Qur'anic authenticity is faulty (since you know about the issue
> of Qur'anic compilation, etc from the hadith).

Wa salaam

This is actually untrue, for it denies the rapid Islamic expanse of
the Muslim empire and the consistency found throughout the land in the
Quranic recitation. With such a rapid explosion in the size of the
Muslim empire including both land and population, the dispersion of
the Companions of the Prophet throughout the lands, even during the
time of the Prophet himself, there is impeccable consistency in its
recitation that cannot be merely judged in the manner of ahadeeth.

Quranic compilation is actually alluded to by the Quran itself. Many
of the alleged ahadeeth which refer to Quranic compilation are in fact
outright forgeries. Khui from a brief look at his book has blown
these narrations out of the water. Others have also brought out the
same points.

Wa salaam

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum (?),

(snipped Imran's use of Hinduism to "refute" Islam)

>Ah yes, thank you Swami. Appreciate your comments.
>We'll leave it to Mr. Mahdi to make any further comments if he wishes to do
>so.

>From using anti-Muslim Orientalist and missionary propaganda to now using a
Hindu to attack Islam, all I have to say is that you made up your mind.

Dr. Zakir Naik in his debate with Dr. William Campbell pointed the fact that
when a person refuses to believe in something (in Imran's case, that Allah
explains the stages of the embryo and fetus in the Quran) he will take the
"conflict approach." For example, if a person wants to prove that the Quran
does not mention embryology in a way that is not in contradiction to
established fact, he will quote from anyone to anything that he thinks and
debunk the statements in the Quran or from Muslim du`aat. Imran accepts the
anti-Muslim polemics from the Orientalists and missionaries but rejects the
arguments from Muslims. He obviously refuses to take not only the "concordance
approach" (that tries to prove something to be true), but the intellectual
approach when it comes to discerning fact from fiction.

What I basically do not understand is what is Imran's problem with Muslims
using evidence to point out the fact that the Quran does not go against
established scientific fact. He is not making da`wah, but a sort of reverse
da`wah.

So out of all of this, what does Imran want to come out as a result? I am
curious to hear his response to this and other questions.

Mahdi Muhammad

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>So does western civilisation reflect the western viewpoint etc.
>Civilisation includes culture.

Civilization *could* include culture as in a statue of a nude person in Italy,
but civilization as a result from science and industry has nothing to do with
imaan or kufr. A statue is a nude human does deal with kufr, because since
Islam doesn't allow it, kufr does.

>Thus western civilisation includes
>western culture, and hence science and industry is not isolated from
>those principles and can be founded on them.

What does car, computers, etc., have to do with kufr? Absolutely nothing, so
these things cannot be attributed to culture but to civilization.

Now do you understand the difference?

>It is neither 'lets get the science booty' or 'lets imitate their
>politics'.

"Science booty" has nothing to do with imaan or kufr but "politics" does
because Islam has its own politics.

Mahdi Muhammad

[Altway]

Re: The Embryology argument.
--------------------------------

I think this controversy proves (or is evidence for) my assertion:-

That purely logical arguments are futile and, therefore, endless and without
conclsions.

This is because :-
(1) The contestants have certain positions based on their experiences and
capacities which they are concerned with defending while attacking the
opposite.

(2) Thinking is controlled by pre-suppositions (assumptions), motives and
actions (which elicit reactions)

(3) The purpose of arguments is not truth but to win. This is why argument
and debate is discouraged.

(4) Each person can select any terms he likes, give it any meaning, combine
them into premises as he likes, and combine premises to draw any conclusion
he likes. And this leads to differences of opinion quite apart from mistakes
in conformity to the rules and axioms of logic which can also be rejected.

(5) In fact each side must base their argument on some empirical data, some
insight (or inspiration, revelation) and some analogical reasoning (which
compares an idea with one of the other sources of data). Each has partial
knowledge and different people have different parts. It is also like seeing
different things in an inkblot, picture or random mixture of coloured dots,
according
to attitude, temperament, conditioning, predisposition or desire. All sides
may be partially correct to various degrees, some more than others. And
their statements may be useful to various degrees for different purposes and
under different circumstances and to different people - e.g. to communicate
an experience or insight to a
receptive person who understands the language in the same way, having been
trained or educated similarly.
The intelligent thing to do is to listen and try to understand, perhaps
through empathy, process and assimilate the data received and try to convey
one's own understanding
in the language the other might understand.and in as many different ways one
can.
Failing this "To you your way and to us our way." 109:6

(6) These three are the only doors of reaching truth if that is defined as
something existing apart from man. Though people may come to a religion for
all kinds of reason, faith is created only when some idea falls into a
unified self-consistent system within the psyche -
i.e. the data form multiple connections with outer and inner data in a
harmonious way resolving inner contradiction and conflicts. This sometimes
happens as a flash of understanding (This school children also experience as
they learn). This may well be triggered by an argument, circumstance,
events, experience or a descipline, but not necessarily.
As the Quran says:-
"The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye
believe not, but rather say: We submit, for the faith hath not yet entered
into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not
withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful." 49:14

(7) There is also a difference of opinion as to what Truth means. Some
regard it as that which exists apart from man - that with which Allah
created all things. Some think it refers to experiences; others think it
refers to images in the mind or to the products of thought or to verbal
descriptions or interpretations. In fact man cannot go beyond experiences
and these depend on his capacity for experience and his interaction with the
real world as made by Allah. Correct thinking and communication are a
matter for psychology and not logic. As the Quran tells us ultimately it is
Allah who will settle the differences in opinions. The implication is that
those who are best adjusted to Reality (i.e. in surrender to Allah) by dint
of an appropriate way of life will reach the Truth (6:165, 22:69). It is
also true that the only thing that ultimately survives is that which is best
adjusted, or in harmony with the rest of existence.

How is it that Muslims have not understood these things?

So, though I do not take the extreme view of Mr. Madhi I have some sympathy
with his view.
Logic has some uses in certain contexts and in a certain use of language. It
is a technology.

If, for instance, you want to reach a certain known goal or solve a known
problem then you can search for the terms and premises which will lead you
there. Or if you have some given premises then you can draw the conclusions
already inherent in them. But you have to accept the instructions contained
in the axioms, e.g. "A is A", Not both A and not-A" "Either A or not-A"
tells us that we must not use words in more than one meaning, though the
object they refer to may be, for instance both black and white to various
degrees in between. Logic refers to verbal descriptions and not to
experiences or to the objects ( sometimes to the relationship between
description and experience). Religion refers to experience and to the
relationship between experience and reality (ultimately Allah).

--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com

.

[surayya]

Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> writes

>Civilization *could* include culture as in a statue of a nude person in Italy,

Civilisation has to include culture, look it up in a dictionary. You are
using definitions that have nothing to do with the English speaking
world. Sort your dawah out.

>What does car, computers, etc., have to do with kufr? Absolutely nothing, so
>these things cannot be attributed to culture but to civilization.
>Now do you understand the difference?

Do you? Birth control is an invention of science, and not all of it is
halal. Science has everything to do with culture, imaan and kufr, and we
do not inherit it automatically. It is subject to the same 'quality
control' as everything else.

>"Science booty" has nothing to do with imaan or kufr but "politics" does
>because Islam has its own politics.

I can't believe I'm reading this. I'd expect to hear this type of
confusion from a convert, not a bornie.

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 1 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> The heart of the argument against this kind of apologetic is what has been

> criticized by people under the title of "The Miracle of Re-interpretation",
> for example, see:

It is quite interesting to see how people slowly end up disgracing
themselves after elevating themselves as rational beings. The issue
started off by looking at embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith with
"objectiveness". We all thought, "hmmm.. that looks interesting" and then
we had to go through the issue of "appeal to authority" and "poor"
Needham. Nothing objective there except that Imran did not read his basic
stuff very well.

And now it is the time to clutch the straws for him. Falling back on
self-confessed Mr. Dajjal (meaning a liar and a cheat) is not a good idea
for the argument. Dajjal has absolutely no argument to make except to
satirize the whole issue. We have already seen some of his abilities on
this newsgroup and he has not yet said why we should believe him while he
himself addresses as a liar and a cheat! Why should you believe him for
that matter? A self-confessed dajjal says" believe me" do you believe him
or do you not? Interesting paradox, may be you know a way out!

> As I have said before, the verses of the Qur'an in question are flexible and
> ambiguous enough to be able to extract scientific statements if one wishes to
> do so. This most certainly does not mean that the scientific exegesis is the
> *correct* one. I have charged proponents of this type of argument before with
> the *arbitrary enforcement* of the scientific hermeneutical method. It's just
> as arbitrary as the mathematical hermeneutical method concocted by the late
> Dr. Rashad Khalifa, and is espoused today by his disciples:

Mr. Dajjal has disappeared out of the scene and the again it is time to
clutch the staws; by using the service of Mr. Submitters aka "Qur'an
onlys". Well, we all know that they are not the qualified people to do the
"interpretation" of Qur'an and Hadith and embryology. Some appeal to
authority, eh? Forgotton your own lofty principles?

Now this mathematical hermeneutical method has been beaten to death on
this newsgroup, perhaps you should check the archives. Bilaal Philips also
has published a small booklet (rare to get but give it a try!) to refute
this "mathematical hermeneutical method" of Khalifa.

Imran, people who are objective and rational do not get this desparate.

<big snip on irrelevent material>

> Once again, Dr. Saifullah failed to comment on this quotation. Perhaps he
> will share his thoughts when he replies to this posting.

Red herring. We are talking about embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith and
its objective analysis. We are not talking about moon-splitting or birds
flying. Please get back to the original argument and show some
objectivity.

> 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). In the meantime, he can, if he wishes to do so,
> respond to the criticisms I have raised in this posting.

Well, Imran your criticisms are no criticisms. I wonder why you should
resort to something less objective and less scholarly to pursue the
debate apart from red herrings being sprinkled here and there.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> It is quite interesting to see how people slowly end up disgracing
> themselves after elevating themselves as rational beings. The issue
> started off by looking at embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith with
> "objectiveness". We all thought, "hmmm.. that looks interesting" and then
> we had to go through the issue of "appeal to authority" and "poor"
> Needham. Nothing objective there except that Imran did not read his basic
> stuff very well.

IMRAN
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.

<snipped rest>

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>Civilisation has to include culture, look it up in a dictionary.

Let's look at the definition of culture (from Merriam-Webster):

5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that
depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to
succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material
traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes,
values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation

In a nutshell, culture has to do with a particular viewpoint on life.
Civilization does not *need* a particular culture, although from a particular
culture a product of civilization came about. The TV is not Western culture,
because the TV is not something is is strictly associated with a particular
viewpoint on life. It is just a tool used to view pictures.

>Birth control is an invention of science, and not all of it is
>halal.

YOU believe birth control is Haraam, and there is no evidence to support your
assertion. A married woman who uses birth control is not committing Haraam.
Seriously, do you know what birth control is because if you did, I don't know
how you can say it is not Halaal?

It is like saying a weapon is Haraam because it can be used to kill Muslims. A
weapon can be used to do Halaal or Haraam things but the object itself is not
Haraam. The same applies for other inventions of science and industry.

Birth control cannot be Haraam unless it is used in a Haraam way, like for
example, by an unmarried woman who commits fornication.

>Science has everything to do with culture, imaan and kufr, and we
>do not inherit it automatically.

I am not talking about the dialectical materialism aspect of what is called
"science." Science when it comes to inventions and products that help
facilitate people in their lives are the things I am talking about. Try not to
jump to conclusions before knowing what I am saying.

>I can't believe I'm reading this. I'd expect to hear this type of
>confusion from a convert, not a bornie.

Then believe it. "Science booty," as in inventions of products, is allowed to
take from while "politics" is not. Islam has its own politics and method of
implementing the political system.

If you want to believe that Islam does not have a political system, then you
need to learn from a "convert" or "bornie" (like how put it) about what the
system of Islam is all about.

Mahdi Muhammad

[Denis Giron]

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a0u370$fch$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>...

Much of this is with regards to:
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/miracle_of_reinterpretation.htm

> > The heart of the argument against this kind of apologetic is what has been
> > criticized by people under the title of "The Miracle of Re-interpretation",
> > for example, see:
>
> It is quite interesting to see how people slowly end up disgracing
> themselves after elevating themselves as rational beings.

I think it is unfortunate that Dr. Saifullah would actually respond to
Imran Aijaz' comments above with an opener that is obviously designed
to set the tone for a whole string of ad-hominems and attempts to
poison the well. These sorts of abusive arguments are a regular sight
on the internet, but is rather unbecoming when they are being put
forth by a professor of science at a highly respected university.

I'd like to enter this discussion here with my thoughts. Hopefully no
one will claim my post is a sign of the Dajjaal aligning with Mr.
Aijaz, and use such sentiments to further malign Imran's character.

> And now it is the time to clutch the straws for him. Falling back on
> self-confessed Mr. Dajjal (meaning a liar and a cheat) is not a good idea
> for the argument.

This is Dr. Saifullah's usual approach: harp on and on about the
titles I have lovingly cloaked myself with, as if such things are
relevant. When responding to me, it actually seems appropriate in
light of my own loose attitude in this group. However, when responding
to some one more serious in approach, like Imran, such points are
irrelevant. Yes, Imran Aijaz has linked to an article written by a man
who calls himself "kaafir," "Sadiqi az-Zindiki," et cetera. What is
the good Doctor's point in bringing this up? Is it to point and yell
"look everybody, Imran has aligned himself with the antichrist!"?
Let's try and stay focused.

> Dajjal has absolutely no argument to make except to
> satirize the whole issue.

Indeed, the article does use satire as a major ingredient in this
proverbial kufr cake, but that is because the issue itself is quite
comical. These hermeneutic miracles are somewhat ridiculous, hence the
non-believers ridicule them. That being said, the argument is quite
clear: anyone can do this with any ambiguos scripture. Well over two
years ago, Behnam Sadeghi summed up such sentiments rather nicely in a
post to SRI:

[============ BEGIN QUOTE ===============]

The literature often makes claims about "scientific facts" in the
Qur'an. These are basically the same kinds of claims that some Hindus
(on the freaky side) make about the Hindu scriptures. Such claims
could be made about any ancient religious text, since religious
scripture by its nature has to use metaphors and parables, which must
be somewhat ambiguous and therefore susceptible to being twisted by
weak and insecure minds into this or that theory: evolution, the big
bang, quantum mechanics, etc.

It is quite telling that in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE these scientific
theories were read into the Qur'an only AFTER they were proposed in
modern times! Now, if the pseudo-scientific claims about the Qur'an
are valid, does it not follow that the Qur'an is in these passages so
vague that for centuries not even a single person could guess what it
was really saying? And if these passages do have this character of
vagueness and ambiguity, how on earth can you claim that they talk
about scientific concepts, which require precise and unambiguous
language? A passage can be called scientific only if it is clearly
understood at the very outset to entail certain experiential
predictions. None of the alleged "scientific" verses in the Qur'an
meet this criterion.

{from Behnam Sadeghi's "Problems with Dawa Methods," posted to
soc.religion.islam on November 22, 1999. Full text archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SOL.4.10.9911210450080.5985-100000%40qbert.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
}

[============ END QUOTE ===============]

And indeed, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists (et cetera) have been playing the
same game. Has Dr. Saifullah considered "Vedic Physics" by Raja Ram
Mohan et. al., "The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, or "Mysteries of
the Creation" by Rabbi Dovid Brown? I personally don't believe any of
these texts to prove Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism contains scientific
miracles, but for the belivers, the miracle of reinterpretation is
quite easy. This game can be played by anyone with any vague text. For
example, consider the following from the writings of the first century
Mahayana philosopher Ashvaghosha:

"When we divide some gross (or composite) matter, we can reduce it to
atoms. But as THE ATOM WILL ALSO BE SUBJECT TO FUTHER DIVISION, all
forms of material existence, whether gross or fine, are nothing but
the shadow of particularisation and we cannot ascribe any degree of
(absolute or independent) reality to them."
[Ashvaghosha, "The Awakening of Faith," translated by D.T. Suzuki,
(Chicagom 1900) p. 104, emphasis mine]

Now, can we from here say the following: "GOSH! Gee whiz! How did
Ashvaghosha know about the splitting of the atom all the way back in
the first century of the common era? Golly! Maybe Buddhism is true...
maybe we should believe any claims made by or about Ashvagosha
regarding divinity or divine connection or enlightenment (or whatever)
after reading this!"

> We have already seen some of his abilities on
> this newsgroup and he has not yet said why we should believe him while he
> himself addresses as a liar and a cheat!

The arguments are there to be considered. Imran Aijaz was raising the
point that such behavior is basically the miracle of reinterpretation;
Dr. Saifullah's only response is to attempt to poison the well. A
while back I mentioned how I was sympathetic towards Jochen Katz'
complaints about Muslims aligning themselves with Atheists (such as
Adnaan or Farrell Till). Dr. Saifullah changed my mind with some
strong arguments. However, now it is Dr. Saifullah who is being
duplicitous, as he is using the same sort of argument that Katz was
using ("so and so is bad because he made mention of an argument
originally put forth by a man who is disrespectful of our religions,
an avowed atheist, infidel, et cetera").

> Mr. Dajjal has disappeared out of the scene and the again it is time to
> clutch the staws; by using the service of Mr. Submitters aka "Qur'an
> onlys". Well, we all know that they are not the qualified people to do the
> "interpretation" of Qur'an and Hadith and embryology. Some appeal to
> authority, eh? Forgotton your own lofty principles?

Simply amazing. I have said in the past that Dr. Saifullah does not
read the posts he responds to carefully enough. It seems Dr. Saifullah
is running purely on venom, as above he attacks Imran Aijaz on the
grounds that he has associated himself with other wretched
non-believers... aside from the "Dajjaal," Imran has aligned himself
with the Submitters. The point is to discredit Imran Aijaz on the
basis of who he has aligned himself with, and that is fallacious.

However, what exactly was it that Imran Aijaz said about the
Submitters? Here is Imran Aijaz' exact quote:

[=========== BEGIN QUOTE ============]

As I have said before, the verses of the Qur'an in question are
flexible and ambiguous enough to be able to extract scientific
statements if one wishes to do so. This most certainly does not mean
that the scientific exegesis is the *correct* one. I have charged
proponents of this type of argument before with the *arbitrary
enforcement* of the scientific hermeneutical method. It's just as
arbitrary as the mathematical hermeneutical method concocted by the
late Dr. Rashad Khalifa, and is espoused today by his disciples:

http://www.submission.org/miracle/

Now is a good time to introduce a rule of evidence I will be appealing
to. It is known as Occam's Razor, popularized by William of Occam, a
13th century philosopher and logician. Simply put, it says that
"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In other words,
when some fact or phenomenon is in need of explanation, the simplest
explanations is *probably* the correct one. My contention is that the
'scientific/mathematical miracles' apologists have flung down this
rule and danced upon it, in complete disregard for the simpler
exegeses (this applies to the current discussion on embryology as well
as the general enterprise of attempting to establish modern science or
mathematical formulae in the Qur'an).

{from Imran Aijaz' "Embryology In The Qur'an? A General Response,"
posted to soc.religion.islam on December 31st, 2001. Full text
archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a0res6%24sok%241%40samba.rahul.net
}

[=========== END QUOTE ============]

So, Imran Aijaz was *NOT* aligning himself with the Submitters in any
sense; rather he was attacking a method which he considers quite
crude. Imran Aijaz was basically categorizing this under what he has
called "pseudo-apologia," but Dr. Saifullaah has failed to notice
this.

> <big snip on irrelevent material>

The "big snip" that Dr. Saifullah has performed did not remove
"irrelevent material;" rather it excised points about Occam's Razor
and the dichotomy between a simple reading of a vague text and an
outright attempt to wrench whatever you can from the text. Such things
are, as far as I am able to see, crucial to Imran Aijaz' main
argument; they cannot be just cast aside with no comment.

> > Once again, Dr. Saifullah failed to comment on this quotation. Perhaps he
> > will share his thoughts when he replies to this posting.
>
> Red herring. We are talking about embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith and
> its objective analysis. We are not talking about moon-splitting or birds
> flying. Please get back to the original argument and show some
> objectivity.

Actually, the point that Imran Aijaz keeps bringing up, and Dr.
Saifullah keeps avoiding, is wholly relevant to the conversation. The
quote was not a red herring; rather the quote was meant to set an
analogy... an analogy that is crucial to Imran Aijaz' main argument!

-Dionisio (Denis) Giron

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

MAHDI

> (snipped Imran's use of Hinduism to "refute" Islam)

IMRAN
If Mahdi doesn't understand the problem with his logic by now, there really
is no point in further elaboration.

MAHDI

> From using anti-Muslim Orientalist and missionary propaganda to now using a
> Hindu to attack Islam, all I have to say is that you made up your mind.

IMRAN
Of course, of course. And you are approaching the matter with crystal clear
objectivity and rationality no doubt.

MAHDI

> Dr. Zakir Naik in his debate with Dr. William Campbell pointed the fact that
> when a person refuses to believe in something (in Imran's case, that Allah
> explains the stages of the embryo and fetus in the Quran) he will take the
> "conflict approach." For example, if a person wants to prove that the Quran

IMRAN
Not necessarily. I think the entire enterprise of establishing modern science
in the Qur'an commits a category error, much like the mathematical enterprise
of Rashad Khalifa and his followers. The use of scientific exegeses is simply
an arbitrary move (read my response to Dr. Saifullah for details). I'm not a
proponent of arguing for or against science in the Qur'an at all, as Bucaille
and Moore see it. I deny the scientific hermeneutical principle altogether
because the Qur'an is a book which speaks on matters concerning theology and
metaphysics primarily.

MAHDI

> does not mention embryology in a way that is not in contradiction to
> established fact, he will quote from anyone to anything that he thinks and
> debunk the statements in the Quran or from Muslim du`aat. Imran accepts the

IMRAN
No, I am not going to attack straw men, so if Mahdi thinks that we can, as a
matter of fact, demonstrate embryology in the Qur'an, then the burden of proof
is on him to show us some evidence.

MAHDI

> anti-Muslim polemics from the Orientalists and missionaries but rejects the
> arguments from Muslims. He obviously refuses to take not only the "concordance
> approach" (that tries to prove something to be true), but the intellectual
> approach when it comes to discerning fact from fiction.

IMRAN
Please spare us the pious rhetoric. Attacking the source does not invalidate
the argument. I reject the argument because I see no good reasons to accept it,
unless of course Mahdi would be kind enough to present us with his case for the
truth of embryology in the Qur'an. Go ahead and interpret modern science in the
Qur'an if you want. But you'll need to do more than that to prove that what the
Qur'an says does in fact, *really* refer to matters on embryology.

MAHDI

> What I basically do not understand is what is Imran's problem with Muslims
> using evidence to point out the fact that the Quran does not go against
> established scientific fact. He is not making da`wah, but a sort of reverse
> da`wah.

IMRAN
There is nothing wrong with Muslims or anyone else for that matter using
evidence to show that a particular proposition is true. But this needs to be
the case! Does the argument based upon the evidence actually work? Mahdi is
invited once again to present to us his argument and evidence.

MAHDI

> So out of all of this, what does Imran want to come out as a result? I am
> curious to hear his response to this and other questions.

IMRAN
What do I want out of this? Nothing except to criticize the 'scientific
miracles' apologetic for what it's worth. I think it's a poor quality polemic
which people often trumpet as being a knock down argument for Islam. It isn't.
Not until a strong case is presented for it that overcomes the objections I
have listed.

So what about it Mahdi? Are you willing to take up the offer and show us the
evidence for your claims?

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum (?),

>Unless Dr. Saifullah gives positive arguments for his own position, the claim
>of embryology being in the Qur'an remains contestable.
>

Let's see, in your attempt to disprove the "embrology in the Quran" issue, you
have cited from anti-Muslim Christian missionaries and Orientalists, your Hindu
friend and even the well-known and self-admitted "Dajjal" while categorically
rejecting anything a Muslim has to say in order to prove the miraculous nature
of the Quran when it comes to the embryology.

As I mentioned before, you have taken the "conflict approach" when it comes to
the arguments of the Muslims and the "concordance approach" when it comes to
the arguments of those trying to refute Islam. You have made up your mind.

Now as for evidence, you provide none. Don't try to ease your way out of this
with this "philosophical rhetoric"; present evidence and prove your case.
Evidence has precedence over no evidence and who cares if someone were to use
"appeal to authority" or even "ad hominem." Allah called one of the leaders of
Quraysh a "zaneem" (bastard) in the Quran. Surely, calling someone a "zaneem"
would be considered an "ad hominem," but when evidence backs up the "ad
hominem," then case is closed.

We Muslims need not be infatuated with the superficial and overrated
"sophistication" of the West and their view point on life. Some Muslims become
seduced with the "fancy words" and the methodologies used by these philosophers
and academics when it comes to philosophy and other fields in academia. They
think their Western way of life made them intellectually superior and
enlightened. A person like me who can see the inherent fallacy and
inadequentness of kufr philosophy and way of life will reject it outright and
spend time refuting it and exposing its weaknesses.

Instead of complaining about the alleged transgression against philosophical
rules the Muslims are committing, be concerned about presenting evidence.
Then we can make a long story short.

Mahdi Muhammad

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 3 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> 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.

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.

As for your arguments, I do not think we should worry about. I would also
strongly suggest that you consider your "Swamiji" for finding the "echoes"
of Ayurveda in the Qur'an. I did check some of the stuff out. I would assure
you that Needham would not like it!

> 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.

Well, let us recount the story so far. It was you who started the claim
about emrbyology in the Qur'an and presented what we would presume to be
the best evidence in your arsenal. Fortunately, we do understand the issue
of "appeal to authority" and "echoes" of Needham, for we have read both of
them. I only pointed out that you two main points were invalid and hence
you do not have the case. If you can't contest your points then how are
you going to prove us wrong. Using Dajjal? Or Christian polemical
material? Before you get into any of these argument please read the works
of Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates carefully. Anybody who has read them
knows very well what their position is vis-a-vis Qur'an.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[ghali]

Assallaam Alekuum,

Imran said

> > The same applies to the isnad which you seem to place trust in. Furthermore,
> > your "true until proven otherwise" is once again, simply fallacious. It's a
> > fallacy of *ad ignorantiam* that simply because something hasn't been proven
> > false, therefore, it is true. Bad, bad logic.
>

If I may intrude and add some footnotes. The point put forward by
imran that it is the claimaint of the positive evidence that has to
provide proof is I think misconstrued. He may have had a point if NO
evidence was available during the first two centuries regarding the
early collections of hadeeth. From that it would follow that we just
do not know. But the argument is not constructed like this. Rather
what we really should present it as is a plethora of evidence which
has been fabricated. In other words a more complicated proposition.
Compare the following

1- Numerous manuscripts from this period which can be cross-checked
i.e. things are as they appear

2- The above AND detailed plans to place this forward as a forgery,
which would be obviously a regional major episode taking into account
the details that would be required to put into this.

An example to give taken from Nabiaa Abbots work i.e VOl 11

The works of Zuhri taken from a papyrus fragment that has been dated
180-210 A.H, previous to the standard collections. Remember the daft
blind taqlid of quoting from one of his references which say that the
major collections of hadeeth are only from the period of the ninth
century ONLY!

tradition 10

Hadathna Laith Hadnatha Aqil an Ibn Shihab (Zuhri) , he said akhbarani
arwah ibn zubair that Aisha said " That their is isn't a prophet that
dies except that he sees his place in heaven......"

Now this tradition is also found in Bukhari IV through another
narrator i.e Yahya ibn Abd Allah ibn Bukair , Muslim XV 209 thru
Shuaib ibn Laith ibn Said, Ibn Sa'd , Ibn Hanbal, in the sirah
collections of Ibn Ishaq and in Ibn Maja. Note the extension of the
Isnad i.e Muslim thru the son of Laith. The Bibiliogrpahies also give
details which happen to mention the narrators their rough ages their
students and teacher which would all put this into place. Note also
that the Muwatta also a collection around 150 A.H (DEFINITELY datable
to this period. See Dutton's PHD ) has this narration as well. From
this we can trace it at LEAST to the successors and comparing their
narrations in other hadith( i.e. do matn correspond?) we can also
uphold their veracity if they quote similar narrations and so on back
to the prophet. So this is what is to happen with his supposed SIMPLE
assertion.

Muslim, Bukhari Ibn Maja(maybe thru their students?), Ibn sa'd and Ibn
Hanbal would somehow get together to plan the fabrication of this
isnad and matn, which happened to coincide with Zuhri's Laith's and
Malik plans which included a few more fabricated narrators. The
Bibliographers, who had nothing else to do but write about fictional
characters of mythical status just about got it right with all these
narrators and their students (maybe they where in the original plan
to)so as to make the story more plausible. The Muslims were shocked by
such consistency and thought naively heh this must be true!

So which is more complicated ?! Which needs the chop from Occam's
Guillotine?

Ghali

[ghali]

> No you are confusing a tautology with the fact that one can prove in
> terms OF CONTENT and FORMALITY a premise P using the same Premise. P
> is P I know that is also an issue of identity but the fact that I can
> prove the premise P to be Factual by SELF-REFERING leads to the well

> known Curry's paradox! A Logical problem!

An amendment to the above. In the formal sense I guess one way to
express it would if modal logic is taken into account. It would be of
the form

It is possible that P therefore P (Possible being part of the logical
vocabulary) which obviously does not follow through unless you are
talking about God which is one of the versions Plantinga puts forward
in his Ontological argument

Curry's paradox relies on self-reference to lead to triviality

i.e If this proposition is true then Snow is Black

Let us assume that the above is true then snow would be black. But
that is exactly what the proposition says. It follows that the above
proposition is true and from that it follows that Snow is black.
Graham Priest has tried to refute this but with difficulty. It is safe
to say that even he will only accept a paradox if no other solution is
available which leaves my premise unaltered i.e that we cannot accpet
sel-referring statements.

Ghali

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

GHALI

> None taken! Anyway there is nothing to worry about here, just the
> ramblings of Juynobl and your blind faith in his view, and oh yeah my

IMRAN
Oh dear, here we go again with the ad hominem attacks! Poisoning the well
now, are we?

GHALI

> naivity!? Do you actually know what his position is? He is well known
> for his COMMON link theory and not the SPREADING ISNAD theory of
> Schact and others( ie fabrication on every level which has been
> refuted acutually not just by azami but in another PHD by Iftikhar
> Zaman? see Benhims bibliography). It is simple. He DOES trust the

IMRAN
Yes, I do know what his position is. And pardon me, but do you really think
that you can submit a 'refutation' of a theory simply by saying that so-and-so
refuted such-and-such a hypothesis? Rather than expecting all of us to run off
to the library and finding all the references, perhaps you can present us with
the arguments of those purporting to nullify the Orientalist criticisms? And
even before we get into that, remember that we still haven't received any
argumentation from you to establish the authenticity of the hadith material.
So please present some evidence.

Even a fairly sympathetic Muslim scholar like John L. Esposito remarks that:

"By the ninth century, the number of traditions had mushroomed into the
hundreds of thousands. They included pious fabrications by those who believed
that their practices were in conformity with Islam and forgeries by factions
involved in political and theological disputes." (John L. Esposito, "Islam -
The Straight Path" (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 81).

Thus, we have, prima facie, reason to doubt whether the historical image of
the Prophet (to be distinguished from the mythological encrustations) can be
ever established.

So before you try and blast Esposito away now, would you mind presenting us
with some solid evidence, primarily to prove that we do indeed have an honest
picture of the 'Historical Muhammad' in the hadith? (and sira) Remember, I'm
talking about the Muhammad of history here, not the Rasul Allah of faith.

GHALI

> isnad system but just that the fabrication lies in the first century
> with the common link! So again another misquote. But with regards to

IMRAN
Really? I have his book right here sitting on my desk. In criticizing the
isnad's he writes:

"I am skeptical as to whether we will ever be able to prove beyond a shadow
of a doubt that what we have in the way of 'sound prophetic traditions' is
indeed just what it purports to be." (p. 71)

Perhaps you can fill us in on where he deems the isnad system credible?

GHALI

> the papyri quoted, you have missed the whole point! What you need for
> such a daft conspiracy theory is the common meeting of all these

IMRAN
This is nothing but your argument from incredulity: "Gee, I can't see how
something like the compilation of the hadith could have happened otherwise
from the traditional account." Not only that but you are setting the tone
for bifurcation, i.e: Either the transmission of hadith was authentic OR
it's all a "daft conspiracy theory." Nah, I don't buy it. For example, the
position of Juynboll falls *in between* the excessive skepticism of those
like Goldziher and Schacht and the excessive trust of the traditionalists.

Even Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal had this to say:

"[A]fter Muhammad's death the Muslims differed, and they fabricated
THOUSANDS of Hadiths and reports to support their various causes. From the
day Abu Lu'lu'ah, the servant of al Mughirab, killed 'Umar ibn al Khattab
and 'Uthman ibn 'Affan assumed the caliphate, the old pre-Islamic enmity of
Bani Hashim and Banu Umayyah reappeared. When, upon the murder of 'Uthman,
civil war broke out between the Muslims, 'A'ishah fought against 'Ali and
'Ali's supporters consolidated themselves into a party, the fabrication of
hadiths spread to the point where 'Ali ibn Abu Talib himself had to reject the
practice and warn against it. He reportedly said: "We have no book and no
writing to read to you except the Qur'an and this sheet that I have received
from the Prophet of God in which he specified the duties prescribed by
charity." Apparently, this exhortation did not stop the Hadith narrators from
fabricating their stories either in support of a cause they advocated, or of
a virtue or practice to which they exhorted the Muslims and which they
thought would have more appeal if vested with prophetic au負hority."
(http://www.isnacanada.com/prophets/pref2.htm#p219)

Daft conspiracy theory huh? Not at all. Dr. Suhaib Hasan, in his book titled
"An Introduction to the Science of Hadith" published by totally traditionalist
publishers like Darussalam (Riyadh: 1996) should suffice as an unquestionable
authority lest anyone think I'm quoting from Orientalist baddies. On the
section relevant to hadith fabrications he writes:

"Some of these ahadith were known to be spurious by the confession of their
inventors. For example, Muhammad bin Sa'id al-Maslub used to say, "IT IS NOT
WRONG TO FABRICATE AN ISNAD FOR A SOUND STATEMENT." Another notorious
inventor, 'Abd al-Karim Abu 'I-Auja, who was killed and crucified by
Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin 'Ali, governor of Basrah, admitted that he had
fabricated FOUR THOUSAND ahadith declaring lawful the prohibited and vice-
versa." (p. 49)

Dr. Hasan unfortuantely does not have in mind your conspiracy theory when he
lists down EIGHT main causes of fabrication:

1. Political differences.
2. Factions based on issues of creed.
3. Factions by zanadiqah.
4. Fabrications by story-tellers.
5. Fabrications by ignorant ascetics.
6. Prejudice in favour of town, race or a particular imam.
7. Inventions for personal motives.
8. Proverbs turned into ahadith. (See p. 50)

GHALI

> collectors of hadith beforehand knowing full well that they will have
> their papyri discovered later on so that they can fabricate the common
> texts with common narrators within a similar period in order that we
> can just have this deluded confidence in the system! Can you belive
> such proposterous concepts? I think you do which is really sad! Cheer
> up the world is not that bad. Simply put the papyri show a MUTTAWATIR
> proof for the system. Fabrication on such a large scale as a principle
> until proven otherwise in history will lead you into very murky waters
> as shown below.

IMRAN
Once again, appeals to emotion and an argument from incredulity do not give
valid reasoning. Not only that but you misconstrue my own position and start
attacking a straw man. Let us not forget that I asked you for some good
evidence for the reliability of the hadith, and so far we have seen none, and
second, my skepticism is confined, not to the Islamic corpora *in toto*, but,
to the *historical* image of the Prophet. What good reasons do we have to be
able to believe that the image of the Prophet is accurate and historical as
presented in the hadith? Also, just out of interest, have you read the latest
book by Ibn Warraq entitled "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad"
(Prometheus: 2000)?

It's no use pretending that fabrication of hadith did not occur, or that it
was on a very low level. Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars acknowledge the
fact that huge numbers of hadith were fabricated. What I find puzzling is
the apparent contradiction between your claim that the isnad system is some-
thing which can be relied upon, and the fact that such huge fabrications had
occurred. IF the isnad system did do it's job, then why the huge number of
fabrications? Conversely, if there is a huge number of fabrications (which,
there evidently is) then what's the story with the isnad system? Perhaps
you can elaborate a bit more on this.

GHALI

> As you do not believe in the basis of Muttawatir as a criteria for
> truth, then how do you avoid the problem I adumburated to before?
> LANGUAGE! I DID give you the LOGICAL proof for this in the reference
> ie. Putnam's proof ( I forgot the name) on the ESSENTIALLY HUMAN
> aspect to language. It is not bad bad logic, but you just being sloppy
> (sorry). I will give a summary. Since the work of Frege meaning
> roughly has been divided into SENSE and REFERENCE. The division is
> still valid. So it is not enough to point to a dog to understand the
> term dog but also to accept the CONTINGENT fact that the word dog is
> used. We can call a dog a chair or a table or any infinite
> combination. The only way we can trust in the SENSE of the words used
> in our language is at LEAST by the system of Muttawatir, for that is
> the STRONGEST "human" proof possible. If we are skeptical of this then
> I have a question to you. Why are you contributing to this newsgroup
> when you don't know what you are talking about? literally!. That is
> why we have to take a muttwatir proof as valid until proven otherwise!
> We just then would not be able to understand language or trust a large
> part of our history.

IMRAN
Au contraire, the above argument is very sloppy. First, I am not denying
that the *conceptual application* of mutawatir hadith. The *idea* of tawatur
is fine, but you need to prove that this actually is the case with respect
to the hadith that apparently fall into this category. And of course, you'll
only be able to do this after you prove that isnads do provide an authentic
criteria for the classification of the hadith. Please don't fall into the
trap of thinking that simply because we can provide an isnad which goes
right back to the Prophet, that therefore, the isnad is true! You need to
give some kind of corroborating evidence to back this up.

The assertions about human language and tawatur are all well and good, but
are unfortunately red herrings because they have no bearing on the truth of
corpora of hadith which are *claimed* to be mutawatir tradition.

GHALI

> Please, please be accurate when you quote. Give me one, and I mean one
> Muttakalim that denied hadith in totality!. Not even the Mutazzila
> hold your view. They accepted the muttawatir traditions. The Ashari
> mutakkalimin well see latter...

IMRAN
Off you go again with misconstruing my position! Who said I denied the hadith
completey? Or that I ever claimed that the Mu'tazila ever did so? They regarded
the hadith *on the whole* as being rather problematic like myself.

GHALI

> Jeremiah is not good company trust me! Just check out his refutations

IMRAN
Another argumentum ad hominem eh?

GHALI

> at the thread out with taliban, out with hamas etc. All this leads to
> the conclusion that there are some fabricated hadith. So what! We have
> criteria to differentiate.

IMRAN
And what criteria is this? The isnad system? Why not give some evidence to
show this then!

GHALI

> Corpus! What?! So were is your proof for this? Have you actually sat
> down and seen most of the hadith and come to the conclusion that they
> mostly lead to contradictions that cannot, let us just say POSSIBLY
> be explained away?

IMRAN
No, I admit I have not sifted through the entire hadith collection trying
to find contradictions, but I have read the writings of *Muslim* scholars,
not just Orientalists, who admit that there are contradictions in the
hadith literature. I can get the references if you want!

GHALI

> This is boring and tedious. We allhamidullah have a science to
> actually explain away many of the apparent contradictions. I will give

IMRAN
Of course, also known as 'confabulationology'.

GHALI

> you a reference for this with regards to the more accurate examples
> ie. rightous persons perferablly leading the prayer and the tyrants
> leading the prayer see Nayl Al Awtawr by Shokani. Most if not all of
> your examples have answers. As with regards to the more extreme points
> ie the earth on turtles or fishes? No Comment! (I need an Isnad )

IMRAN
Would you mind elaborating on what Shokani had to say? As for the hadith
on earth situated on turtles and fish, etc, I need to find the reference
in Abrahamov's book, so I'll get back to you on that one.

GHALI

> David hume? Are you Muslim? He considered ALL miracles to be
> impossible! And not because of the issue of numbers. I have the book

IMRAN
Now, now, let's not get all excited. First of all, allow me to correct you
on your erroneous assertion. David Hume did NOT consider miracles to be
IMPOSSIBLE. This was the position of Benedict de Spinoza. David Hume on the
other hand gave arguments against the IDENTIFICATION of a miracle. See the
following article for more details:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html

GHALI

> at home if you wish to go into details!. Some of the miracles of the

IMRAN
Relax, there's no need for you to run off and get your book. It's all on
the internet at:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/david_hume/human_understanding.html

GHALI

> prophet were viewed by large numbers in fact . It just needs time for
> me to get the references for this. For the meanwhile let leave this
> particular problem aside and discuss the principle of miracles. That
> is if you want.

IMRAN
Oh no, I have no qualms about miracles. But I think David Hume presents a
strong argument the identification of a miracle. Thus, if we take the hadith
which speaks of the Prophet splitting the moon, or of the hadith which tells
us of copious amounts of water flowing from his fingers, etc, we would have
prima facie, good reasons to doubt their authenticity. Of course, absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence, but until proven otherwise, we should
hold the contention that there is no good proof to establish the authencity
of such hadith. But even if, let us suppose, we grant for the sake of
argument that the hadith pertaining to miracles were copied down with 100%
accuracy. This still would not mean that what was reported is necessarily
true in any way, since to argue otherwise would be a non sequitur.

In the "Wars of the Jews", the Jewish historian Josephus reported that during
the Roman siege of Jerusalem, people saw chariots and armoured soliders in the
clouds surrounding the city. Do you believe that? Would you believe it if one
established the authenticity of the works of Josephus? The Roman historian
Suetonius in his work, "The Twelve Caesars" reported that when Roman officials
were disputing where they would cremate the body of Julius Caesar, two divine
forms came down with torches and set fire to the pyre, and thus Caesar was
cremated there. Do you believe this? Would you believe this if Suetonius's
work was proven authentic today? If not why not? I mean, these are HISTORIANS
man, they wouldn't be daft enough to lie! ;) Please give an answer with does
not special plead for the hadith.

GHALI

> LOL this example of the christians to refute muttawatir is quite funny
> on the verge of ridiculous. So you have an Isnad system that can be
> cross referenced back to the companions of Jesus! I think not! But

IMRAN
Yes, yes of course. And we are to give credence to the farcical suggestion
that your (unproven) claim of the isnad system as being sufficiently reliable
to sift through spurious hadith and extract authentic ones is valid? Come on,
let's see some evidence! We may not have an isnad system, but the majority
of New Testament scholars agree that there is ample evidence to suggest that
Jesus was indeed crucified. And applying Occam's Razor, the standard Christian
belief in crucifixion is clearly favourable over the Muslim belief, based on
the available *historical* evidence. No daft conspiracy theory here!

GHALI

> with regards to ahad and muttwatir the muttakallim considered ahad to
> benefit probable knowledge ,action so on and muttwatir to benifit
> neccessary knowledge. See Juwayani's book Al-Irshad ila qwati Usul al
> Itiqaad. I also have a PHD thesis by one of the professors in Medina
> on the position of Ibn Taymiaah and the Asharia which goes into alot
> of detail with regards to this. Other works include Khatib al
> Baghdadi's works, Nawawi's Sharh Saheeh Muslim... Anyway in Conclusion
> the Muttakalamin did NOT consider AHAD to be flimsy because of the
> issue of a single to few narrators but PROBABLE if trustworthy.
> Muttwatir.. So please again do not misquote!

IMRAN
No one is claiming the mutakallimun dismissed the hadith *in toto*, but as
I pointed out, there was a good degree of caution and skepticism, even about
the allegedly authentic compilations.

<...>

GHALI

> No you are incorrect! Isn't this just fun! If the basis of a proof IN
> PRINCIPLE is the same statement then I can without any problems claim
> the opposite using this very principle. This leads to a contradiction
> which is a logical problem! But people can trust and have irrational
> beliefs.

IMRAN
You are forgetting a subtle point which is crucial to understanding the
problem. Suppose I claim to be justified in believing that Fred will die
shortly and offer as my evidence that Fred has an untreatable and serious
form of cancer. Concerned, you ask me how I discovered that Fred has the
cancer and I respond that it is just a hunch on my part. As soon as you
discover that I have no reason at all to suppose that Fred has the cancer,
you will immediately conclude that my whimsical belief about Fred's
condition gives me no justification for believing that Fred will soon die.
You are suggesting the following principle (I assume):

"To be justified in believing P on the basis of E (some evidence)."

OK sure. But then arises the question of why believe in E? You may suggest
another basis E'. But then why E'? Thus begins an epistemic regress. Now, I
an assuming you will grant this, we may come to some proposition that isn't
'justified', say, E''''''''''''! Call this the fundamental presupposition.
Suppose then, that we have two people who begin their forms of reasoning
based on the affirmative and negative of this fundamental principle. What
then? You can try and push the regress back further, but the problem is
still lurking. So it seems the two horns of the dilemma for you are these:
(a) we have an infinite regress of justified beliefs or (b) none of our
beliefs are justified (since the regress if finite will terminate at some
fundamental non-inferential presupposition). Which is it?

GHALI

> No you are confusing a tautology with the fact that one can prove in
> terms OF CONTENT and FORMALITY a premise P using the same Premise. P
> is P I know that is also an issue of identity but the fact that I can
> prove the premise P to be Factual by SELF-REFERING leads to the well
> known Curries paradox! A Logical problem!

IMRAN
See my comments above.

GHALI

> Because in the end Joseph Smith's argument is a SELF-REFERING argument

IMRAN
Well, not really. And what makes you think the Prophet did not use a self-
refering argument (since he was the only witness to his revelation in the
cave when the Angel Gabriel visited him with the first Sura?) I've not seen
ANY Mormon apologist who uses the stupid self-refering argument you charge
Joseph Smith with. If you think there is one, then kindly point out the
references! If you visit the following link:

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents

You will come across the testimony of EYE-WITNESSES who saw the golden
plates handed to Joseph Smith. Do you believe this account? The Book of
Mormon is only about 150 years old, compare this to the testimonies of
the hadith written well over 1000 years ago. So the testimonies of the
Mormons is much more recent and authentic than the hadith. Do you believe
it? Of course you don't. You think it's nonsense. I think you'll need to
do some major surgery now on your evidentialist principle!

GHALI

> I have the book Existence of God with me now! Shall we go into the
> details of his argument. You still I claim are misquoting him!

IMRAN
No, I spoke of the distinction between scientific and personal explanations.
Go ahead and check it out, it's in the first few chapters of his book.

GHALI

> I am talking about the embryology so if it is so easy, comment!

IMRAN
OK, why don't you present to us your arguments then? Dr. Saifullah has not
presented any so far in our discussions.

GHALI

> Is it not obvious why now I am a Muslim, What have we been talking

IMRAN
Come now, surely, you are not going to claim it's because of the scientific
miracles? I would find it very difficult to believe that people could base
their faith on a recently concocted apologetic of poor quality which fails
to succeed in the first place. But if that's what you really meant, then so
be it. Personally, I don't think that's all there is to it, you're ignoring
the fundamental aspect of human nature and experience which plays a HUGE
role in why people believe in God and so on (e.g. the "fitrah", etc). Even
Kant, who hammered nearly all the so-called proofs for believing in God had
this to say in his "Critique of Practical Reason":

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe,
the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens
above and the moral law within. I have not to search for them and conjecture
them as though they were veiled in darkness or were in the transcendent
region beyond my horizon; I see them before me and connect them directly with
the consciousness of my existence ... the moral law reveals to me a life
independent of animality and even of the whole sensible world, at least so
far as may be inferred from the destination assigned to my existence by this
law, a destination not restricted to conditions and limits of this life, but
reaching into the infinite."

GHALI

> about all along? Good moral fibre ...LOL That is going to be a fun one
> to Deconstruct another time if you mean by it a sole proof.

No, not the sole proof, but a strong component.

GHALI

> I think it boils down to this notion of Multiple narrators in
> different geographic areas. (Muttawatir). So how do you answer all the
> proof we have given you with numerous manuscripts found in different
> areas of the world traced back to the times of the companions?

IMRAN
What proof?

GHALI
> Any comments?

IMRAN
Oh just a few trivial observations here and there.

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 3 Jan 2002, Mr Mahdi wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Now as for evidence, you provide none. Don't try to ease your way out of this

> with this "philosophical rhetoric"; present evidence and prove your case.
> Evidence has precedence over no evidence and who cares if someone were to use
> "appeal to authority" or even "ad hominem." Allah called one of the leaders of

As far as I am concerned, I think this thread is pretty much finished from
the point of view of Imran. He has nothing to show as an "evidence". No
amount of philosophical or Ghazalian "approach" would do anything to this.
People who are more qualified in the field of linguistics, hadith,
anatomy, Qur'an and history of science have already given the verdict.
Imran should read their literature first before arguing.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> 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.

IMRAN
OK sure, I look forward to reading your paper.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> As for your arguments, I do not think we should worry about. I would also
> strongly suggest that you consider your "Swamiji" for finding the "echoes"
> of Ayurveda in the Qur'an. I did check some of the stuff out. I would assure
> you that Needham would not like it!

IMRAN
See my comments below.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> Well, let us recount the story so far. It was you who started the claim
> about emrbyology in the Qur'an and presented what we would presume to be
> the best evidence in your arsenal. Fortunately, we do understand the issue
> of "appeal to authority" and "echoes" of Needham, for we have read both of
> them. I only pointed out that you two main points were invalid and hence
> you do not have the case. If you can't contest your points then how are
> you going to prove us wrong. Using Dajjal? Or Christian polemical
> material? Before you get into any of these argument please read the works
> of Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates carefully. Anybody who has read them
> knows very well what their position is vis-a-vis Qur'an.

IMRAN
Actually, it was Ghali I believe who brought up the issue of embryology in
the Qur'an as verification of its authenticity and claims to divine origins.
I initiated my criticisms pointing out that this is an inadequate argument,
for it ultimately does not succeed.

I began by clarifying the issue of appeals to authority, since a good number
of Muslims still believe that because a handful of scientists apparently give
credence to 'scientific miracles' in the Qur'an, this somehow validates the
argument. My citation of Needham was simply to show how another embryologist
who read the Qur'an dismissed it as a 7th century echo of the Ayur Veda. So
it's not *enough* to appeal to authority when we have shaky or no consensus
within the authorities in question. We need to look at the *arguments* they
present, and so far, Dr. Saifullah has not elaborated or defended the claims
of Moore et al. He wants us to wait, which is fine. But seriously, how many
other embryologists agree with Moore et al? Have people reviewed Moore's work
in peer-reviewed journals?

Let me drive home the point with the issue of appeals to authority with this
example. Consider the following people: Antony Flew, Kai Nielsen, Michael
Martin and John Mackie. These people are/were all highly qualified and
distinguished professors in their field, - primarily the philosophy of
religion. All of them have written several works and believe(d) that God does
NOT exist. Does Dr. Saifullah believe their conclusions? I can assure you that
he most certainly does not. Of course he doesn't. Does it matter who they are
and what their qualifications are? No. Dr. Saifullah, like myself, reject their
conclusion that there is no God, *irrespective* of their academic status.

Moving on, Dr. Saifullah writes once more "how are you going to prove us wrong"
which is of course, a tacit implication that his position is right. No it isn't
right unless Dr. Saifullah submits some positive arguments for his endorsement
of Moore et al's work. We'll have to wait and see what he has to say. If Dr.
Saifullah looks back at the last one or two postings I made, I argued on the
basis of two propositions that the 'scientific miracles' enterprise in simply
unwarranted:

1. The arbitrary enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical method.
2. Violation of Occam's Razor.

As Denis Giron has noted, this has been simply ignored.

Dr. Saifullah once again makes a gesture suggestive of his disapproval
regarding non-Muslim sources, e.g. the Dajjal or Christian polemic material.
Here we go again, attacking the source does not validate or invalidate some
argument! If the Dajjal said 1 + 1 = 2, should I disbelieve him? If Christian
polemical material said 1 + 1 = 2, should I disbelieve in it? Conversely, if a
Muslim said the earth is flat, should I believe him?

Finally, Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates will be discussed in due time once
Dr. Saifullah's paper is up on embryology in the Qur'an.

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

MAHDI

> Let's see, in your attempt to disprove the "embrology in the Quran" issue, you
> have cited from anti-Muslim Christian missionaries and Orientalists, your Hindu

IMRAN
Apart from giving some references, I have repeatedly given a number of
arguments as to why the modern embryology cannot be yanked out of Qur'anic
verses and submitted as being miraculous. Some of the criticisms of the
polemic made by non-Muslims are correct. So what if the source is not from
Muslim literature? Does the source invalidate the argument? What kind of
logic is this?

MAHDI

> friend and even the well-known and self-admitted "Dajjal" while categorically

IMRAN
If the Dajjal said 2 + 2 = 4, would I reject his answer because of who he
is? If Adolf Hitler said the earth has only one moon, would I reject his
answer because of who he is? I cannot believe you are giving serious credence
to such asinine argumentation.

MAHDI

> rejecting anything a Muslim has to say in order to prove the miraculous nature
> of the Quran when it comes to the embryology.

IMRAN
Sorry to break it to you, but the reason I have rejected what the Muslims say
(those who endorse the scientific enterprise for the Qur'an, that is) is quite
simply because the arguments I see being presented are not convincing. If a
Muslim told you that the earth is flat, would you believe it? The source, my
dear friend, does not validate or invalidate an argument. If you don't like it
then well, tough luck.

MAHDI

> As I mentioned before, you have taken the "conflict approach" when it comes to
> the arguments of the Muslims and the "concordance approach" when it comes to
> the arguments of those trying to refute Islam. You have made up your mind.

IMRAN
Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed to take the conflict approach at
all. Haven't you even bothered reading my arguments? I claimed that I reject the
application of the scientific hermeneutical principle on Qur'anic verses. I am
not endorsing the conflict or concordance approach. I am rejecting the
enterprise altogether. So where's the argument for embryology in the Qur'an
Mahdi? Care to give us some evidence? Or have you made up your mind?

MAHDI

> Now as for evidence, you provide none. Don't try to ease your way out of this
> with this "philosophical rhetoric"; present evidence and prove your case.

IMRAN
Gimme a break, shifting the burden of proof now are we? You are forgetting
that I am the skeptic with respect to this polemic and you are the asserter.
He who asserts must prove. It's not my job to DISprove embryology being in
the Qur'an. You're the one who thinks this whole business is so wonderful,
so how about giving us some evidence? Or dare I say that you have none? My
general criticisms about the arbitrary enforcement of the scientific
hermeneutical method still stand.

MAHDI

> Evidence has precedence over no evidence and who cares if someone were to use
> "appeal to authority" or even "ad hominem." Allah called one of the leaders of
> Quraysh a "zaneem" (bastard) in the Quran. Surely, calling someone a "zaneem"
> would be considered an "ad hominem," but when evidence backs up the "ad
> hominem," then case is closed.

IMRAN
The reason you have this tunnel vision, this dogmatic confinement, is because
your departure point is the truth of Islam. You have taken Islam to be true on
a priori grounds. In effect, immunizing yourself from any sort of criticisms,
because they conflict with your fundamental presuppositions. I recommend you
read the recent posting by Greg Shenaut on this topic. But then what's the
point, since you've made up YOUR mind anyway? You're not really engaging in
any dialogue thinking that you may stumble across any argument which would
count as a potential falsifier of your belief. It's a win-win situation. You
have the cart before the horse.

Furthermore, even the Qur'an does not utilize such fractured logic of polemics
based on blasting the source out of the water with ad hominem attacks. See the
following link which proves that the Qur'an actually is perfectly consistent
with some of the logical principles on which one can accept or reject
arguments:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Mirlogical.html

MAHDI

> We Muslims need not be infatuated with the superficial and overrated
> "sophistication" of the West and their view point on life. Some Muslims become
> seduced with the "fancy words" and the methodologies used by these philosophers
> and academics when it comes to philosophy and other fields in academia. They
> think their Western way of life made them intellectually superior and
> enlightened. A person like me who can see the inherent fallacy and
> inadequentness of kufr philosophy and way of life will reject it outright and
> spend time refuting it and exposing its weaknesses.

IMRAN
And just out of interest, why do you use such blatantly holistic terms? The
pedantic 'we' for example? It is simply wrong to use such holistic terms and
sweeping generalizations such as THE WEST or THE MUSLIMS. It is individuals
that make up a society. Society is not something 'over and above' people
making them simply functional puppets of the society in which they live. The
problem with most Muslims is that they are guilty of the same accusations
they throw at people in Western countries, namely 'demonizing the other'.
Yes, yes we all know how Muslims are victims of a global conspiracy and all
that jazz. But from my experience, most Muslims do the same thing with most
Westerners. You will find Hizb-ut-Tahrir is very, very good at this with
their rhetoric of rage and demonization of the West.

To say "A person like me who can see the inherent fallacy and inadequentness

of kufr philosophy and way of life will reject it outright and spend time

refuting it and exposing its weaknesses" smacks of downright supercilliousness
and arrogance. Just what is kufr philosophy? What is the kufr way of life? Are
you talking about conformity to a paradigm *en masse*? No, such a holistic
look at society is wrong. It denies the autonomy of the invidual. People are
different, vastly different sometimes, from others, EVEN IN THE SAME SOCIETY.
Show a little understanding, compassion and tolerance.

MAHDI

> Instead of complaining about the alleged transgression against philosophical
> rules the Muslims are committing, be concerned about presenting evidence.
> Then we can make a long story short.

IMRAN
Well said. And why don't you do just that?

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum (?),

> I think the entire enterprise of establishing modern science
>in the Qur'an commits a category error, much like the mathematical enterprise
>of Rashad Khalifa and his followers.

My use of the term "strawman" would be considered by some a bit hypocritical,
but the point is that the "Rashad Khalifa" argument cannot be used as an
analogy to the "embryology in the Quran" issue for the simple fact that the
former lacks evidence while the latter has evidence.

The Rashah Khalifa issue has been refuted time and time again in this forum but
there is absolutely no refutation of the embryology in the Quran. It is funny
that you want to "debunk" this issue but for some reason want to shift the
burden of proof on the Muslims. It is strange because you came here on your
own accord to try to "debunk" our beliefs but refuse to try to prove your
argument with evidence. This is a weird form of debating to say the least!

>I deny the scientific hermeneutical principle altogether
>because the Qur'an is a book which speaks on matters concerning theology and
>metaphysics primarily.

You are confusing Sufism with Islam. The Quran deals with life; it is a book
of Guidance as opposed to some book that is concerned with the metaphysical and
the issues that have little effect in our worldly life. Islam has a system of
life that looks after and organizes the affairs of man. Also the Quran is an
"ayah" or sign from Allah. It can be intellectually-proven to be from Allah
and the Quran produces an intellectual challenge to those who doubt in it.

If you want Muslims to imitate people like Christians et al who believe that
faith must be blind and not intellectual, then you picked the wrong group of
people. I met many Christians and even some Muslims (believe it or not) who
are against trying to "intellectually" prove the existence of God because they
contend that there is a difference between "spiritual truth" and "regular"
truth and the "truth" of God and religion can only be confirmed by the heart.
This cop-out came as a result of centuries of the intellectual onslaught
against Christianity and the Bible, where these two were constantly refuted
with intellectual evidence and consequently, Christians had to create another
apologetic argument to make their wrong look right. It is sad that some (I
mean many) Muslims have adopted this mentality.

Islam condemns blind faith based on just whims, desires and emotions. In
Islam, we based our emotions on beliefs and not beliefs on emotions. The Quran
tells us to reflect on creation and link this reality to the existence of the
Creator. As I mentioned before, the Quran even has an intellectual challenge
for those who doubt it, so once again, Islam is an intellectual deen and it
does not condone blind faith.

>No, I am not going to attack straw men, so if Mahdi thinks that we can, as a
>matter of fact, demonstrate embryology in the Qur'an, then the burden of
>proof
>is on him to show us some evidence.

Again, a strange way of debating is to come here and try to refute and debunk a
belief but refusing to provide evidence to support your case, in the meantime
trying to shift the burden of proof to people whose beliefs you are trying to
refute!

If you think the Quran does not contain scientific facts but just vague
references, prove it. Give us the evidence instead of attacking our beliefs
and saying they are this and that, and when asked for evidence, try to shift
the burden of proof to someone else.

>I reject the argument because I see no good reasons to accept it,
>unless of course Mahdi would be kind enough to present us with his case for
>the
>truth of embryology in the Qur'an.

You see no good reason to accept it because you do not want to accept it. Just
look at the sources you quote to defend your beliefs. Enough said. Like I
keep repeating, you take the concordance approach when it comes to arguments
trying to refute Islam while complaining about the alleged transgressions
against philosophical principles Muslims are committing in the name of Islam.

It is like a when Christianity missionary coming to this newsgroup and
insisting that there is no proof that the Quran is from God. Even when Muslims
show him proof, he refuses to believe in them because he made up his mind.

The Quran says produce proof if you are truthful. You came here trying to
debunk but decided that you didn't need evidence to do so. Then you wanted to
shift the burden of proof on those who beliefs you are attacking. Need I keep
repeating myself that this is a strange way of debating???

Mahdi Muhammad

[surayya]

Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> writes

>>Civilisation has to include culture, look it up in a dictionary.
>
>Let's look at the definition of culture (from Merriam-Webster):

Why didn't you look up civilisation?
Culture is a subset of civilisation, so what's the point in looking up
culture?

>In a nutshell, culture has to do with a particular viewpoint on life.
>Civilization does not *need* a particular culture, although from a particular
>culture a product of civilization came about.

That makes no sense, civilisation includes and needs culture, period.
Look it up in a dictionary.

>The TV is not Western culture,
>because the TV is not something is is strictly associated with a particular
>viewpoint on life. It is just a tool used to view pictures.

It is the product of Western civilisation, the emphasis and pursuit of
communication and entertainment.

>>Birth control is an invention of science, and not all of it is
>>halal.
>
>YOU believe birth control is Haraam, and there is no evidence to support your
>assertion.

>Seriously, do you know what birth control is because if you did, I don't know
>how you can say it is not Halaal?

I said NOT ALL OF IT is halal.

>It is like saying a weapon is Haraam because it can be used to kill Muslims.

Weapon - different types of weapons.
Birth control - different types of birth control.

Its not necessarily the use of it or application, in this case its the
invention and how it works.

>Birth control cannot be Haraam unless it is used in a Haraam way, like for
>example, by an unmarried woman who commits fornication.

Wrong. Ask a scholar.
Even your example is nonsensical, if ALL birth control is completely
halal, then it doesn't matter about the status of the woman, because its
the fornication thats wrong not the birth control. A single woman can
take birth control as long as she does not fornicate, its not the act of
taking the birth control thats wrong in your example.

>Science when it comes to inventions and products that help
>facilitate people in their lives are the things I am talking about.

They are not automatically halal, and can be haram.

>Then believe it. "Science booty," as in inventions of products, is allowed to
>take from while "politics" is not. Islam has its own politics and method of
>implementing the political system.

No its not. Provide the daleel, Quranic, hadith or fiqh, and no articles
- thats parroting without understanding.

[Jeremiah McAuliffe]

As-Salaam Alaikum,

On 3 Jan 2002 19:02:00 GMT, imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

>Not necessarily. I think the entire enterprise of establishing modern science
>in the Qur'an commits a category error, much like the mathematical enterprise
>of Rashad Khalifa and his followers. The use of scientific exegeses is simply
>an arbitrary move (read my response to Dr. Saifullah for details). I'm not a
>proponent of arguing for or against science in the Qur'an at all, as Bucaille
>and Moore see it. I deny the scientific hermeneutical principle altogether
>because the Qur'an is a book which speaks on matters concerning theology and
>metaphysics primarily.

Completely agree. And indeed, am confident enough to say this is
correct.

I'd phrase the end part a little bit differently though.... not even
so much theology and metaphysics, but solely *The Transcendent*. The
entire book is about The Transcendent and our relation to, response to
The Transcendent (one such response might be encouraging science), and
nothing else.

This type of hermeneutic error is dangerous in that it may well
backfire. Centuries from now, the "scientific" understandings may
change so radically that today's science would look like mere
superstition and ignorance such that a "scientific" hermeneutic of the
Qur'an at some future time would be laughable... i.e. not universal...
just like the science of even 1-2 hundred years ago seems ignorant and
laughable to us today. History is filled with "scientific" statements
and descriptions later proved dismally wrong i.e. we'll never fly,
trains can't go over 35mph because people would suffocate, etc. Issac
Asimov's famous phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguisable from magic" points to the danger of projecting
contemporary science onto a Scripture that is actually about The
Transcendent and our proper response to The Transcendent.

Such a hermeneutic approach is also contra-faith and particularly
contra-Qur'anic faith which is "post-miraculous". That is, the
Qur'anic traditions tend to teach that there was no more need for
"walking on water", "raising from the dead", etc. Humanity had matured
enough where it could grasp revelation from The Transcendent without
showy Las Vegas style miracles to back up the validity of the Message.
Do we want to encourage such a backwards slipping such that the only
way we can communicate the Message is by means of some extra-ordinary
"miracle" of phraseology that reflects our contemporary scientific
perceptions? That seems to me a real coarsening and cheapening of the
sublimity and maturity of the Qur'anic message.

Imho, it is completely misplaced and misdirected to even seriously
approach the text in this manner, or to defend such interpretations of
the text as being truly significant and spiritually meaningful.

Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Page O' Heavy Issues
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Emergency!
http://www.ampcast.com/emergency

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaam `alaikum (?),

I decided to snip the repititive arguments from Imran ( to avoid another
tit-for-tat debate) and focus on a point he made:

>Furthermore, even the Qur'an does not utilize such fractured logic of
>polemics
>based on blasting the source out of the water with ad hominem attacks. See
>the
>following link which proves that the Qur'an actually is perfectly consistent
>with some of the logical principles on which one can accept or reject
>arguments:
>
>http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Mirlogical.html

I have read the article and Brother Mustansir Mir tries to explain the Quran
from the point of view of philosophical principles used in logic. Although I
agreed with many aspects of the paper, I disagree with its purpose.

The paper does make strong points about how the Quran appeals to the intellect
rather than invalid things like emotions and feelings. Of course I agree with
this. On the other hand, I find Allah in the Quran attacking certain leaders
of Quraysh and the wicked evil-doers in the previous generations like Pharaoh.

We must not forget that we can find many verses bashing the leadership of
Quraysh with names befitting their character. Allah even had a chapter about
Abu Lahab where He he attacks Abu Lahab and his wife.

Would you call this an ad hominem attack? If Allah exposes the true nature of
the enemies of Islam and uses words like "zaneem" (again, titles befitting
their character), is this a "logical fallacy" in the Quran? I don't think any
Muslim is going to say that Allah commits "logical fallacies" (astaghfirullah!)
because he violated some philosophical principle invented by some kaafir
logician!

As I mentioned before, so what if someone were to use "appeal to authority" or
"ad hominem"; as long as the person backs them up with evidence, then the case
is closed.

Mahdi Muhammad

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>That makes no sense, civilisation includes and needs culture, period.
>Look it up in a dictionary.

You look up in a dictionary and find where it says that civilization needs a
SPECIFIC culture. No need to get pedantic on your part, just accurate within
the confines of reality. Let's take the TV as a product of civilization. Did
it need to be in a Western culture in order it to be invented? Would of been
impossible for something like a TV to be invented in a Islamic culture?

That's my point, that a civilization does not need a *specific* culture. Do
you get it this time?

>Wrong. Ask a scholar.
>Even your example is nonsensical, if ALL birth control is completely
>halal, then it doesn't matter about the status of the woman, because its
>the fornication thats wrong not the birth control.

Ok, ask what scholar? And if I do and the scholar is ignorant, so what? I
know many scholars who cannot tell the difference between photos and paintings
of animate objects. They think that because a photo of a person contains an
image of a person, than the Hukm of the prohibition of drawing animate objects
also applies to photos of animate objects. They seem to have little clue as to
what a photo is because it is not trying to imimate Allah such as the attempt
to draw a human to the likeness of a human but rather a captured reflection of
something on a medium like paper. A Hadith states that the person who draws a
picture will be asked if he can put a soul in the animate object he drew. Now
since the camera is doing the capturing of the image, will be the camera be
asked to put a soul in the picture? Of course not, but this is an example of
how some of the scholars have no clue to the issue and the reality at hand.

So if this scholar who says birth control is Haraam is like the one who says
that photographs of animate objects are Haraam, then he can keep his fatwa to
himself and you can choose to follow if you please.

>No its not. Provide the daleel, Quranic, hadith or fiqh, and no articles
>- thats parroting without understanding.

Provide the daleel for what? You need to be specific.

Mahdi Muhammad

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

MAHDI

> My use of the term "strawman" would be considered by some a bit hypocritical,

IMRAN
Yes it would be actually, so let me pick you up on this one, and point it out
to people. It seems you are utilizing western logical principles to refute it!

MAHDI

> but the point is that the "Rashad Khalifa" argument cannot be used as an
> analogy to the "embryology in the Quran" issue for the simple fact that the
> former lacks evidence while the latter has evidence.

IMRAN
Actually, it can do just that. Rashad Khalifa claimed to have found a code
based on the number 19 and various mathematical connections stemming from it
which somehow "proved" the truth of the Qur'an. Now others have claimed to
have found science in the Qur'an and various scientific miracles in the
Qur'an which somehow "prove" the truth of the Qur'an. Why should we believe
that the scientific hermeneutical method is any better than the mathematical
hermeneutical method? Of course, you claim that the scientific enterprise
has evidence. So why not present it? Don't try and tip-toe around this one,
put your cards on the table!

MAHDI

> The Rashah Khalifa issue has been refuted time and time again in this forum but
> there is absolutely no refutation of the embryology in the Quran. It is funny
> that you want to "debunk" this issue but for some reason want to shift the
> burden of proof on the Muslims. It is strange because you came here on your
> own accord to try to "debunk" our beliefs but refuse to try to prove your
> argument with evidence. This is a weird form of debating to say the least!

IMRAN
Au contraire, I find your convoluted reasoning extremely perplexing. Instead
of making crass statements like "there is absolutely no refutation of the
embryology in the Qur'an" - repeating this a million times will not make it
true, give us some evidence!

First, you seem to be arguing that because the embryology issue being in the
Qur'an has not been proven FALSE, therefore, it's TRUE. Of course, this is an
argument from ignorance (ad ignorantiam). Second, the fallacy of ad nauseam
applies here as well, that somehow the more an argument is given and repeated,
this somehow validates it. Such horrible logic! But it gets even worse, you say
that *I* want to shift the burden of proof on Muslims? <LOL> Since YOU are
asserting, YOU have to prove your assertions. It's no use pleading that your
position is automatically true unless proven otherwise! If you are going to
utilize logic (which you evidently are *trying* to do, please pick up an
elementary text book on the subject) then use it properly. The onus of proof
is always on the person who makes a *positive* assertion, not the person who
doubts it. By your logic, one could prove the existence of ghosts, UFOs, pink
unicorns, and my favourite of all, purple spotted gorillas, by arguing:

"Because you can't DISPROVE their existence, therefore, they must exist."

MAHDI

> You are confusing Sufism with Islam. The Quran deals with life; it is a book

IMRAN
No I am not confusing Sufism with Islam.

MAHDI

> of Guidance as opposed to some book that is concerned with the metaphysical and
> the issues that have little effect in our worldly life. Islam has a system of
> life that looks after and organizes the affairs of man. Also the Quran is an

IMRAN
You've got to be kidding right? What do you think God is? 'God' is a
metaphysical postulation. The Qur'an speaks of God, Angels, Jinn, Paradise,
Hell, Prophetic Revelation, Miracles, etc. These are all OUTSIDE the boundary
of 'scientific investigations'. These entities fall into the category of
metaphysics and theology.

MAHDI

> "ayah" or sign from Allah. It can be intellectually-proven to be from Allah
> and the Quran produces an intellectual challenge to those who doubt in it.

IMRAN
Talk is cheap. Prove it if you can. The Mormons say exactly the same thing. I
came across many of them challenging me to produce something like the Book of
Mormon if I was doubting its authenticity. Unfortunately, Mark Twain's
statement of this poor scripture being "chloroform in print" struck me as I
tried to read the first few pages.

MAHDI

> If you want Muslims to imitate people like Christians et al who believe that
> faith must be blind and not intellectual, then you picked the wrong group of
> people. I met many Christians and even some Muslims (believe it or not) who
> are against trying to "intellectually" prove the existence of God because they
> contend that there is a difference between "spiritual truth" and "regular"
> truth and the "truth" of God and religion can only be confirmed by the heart.
> This cop-out came as a result of centuries of the intellectual onslaught
> against Christianity and the Bible, where these two were constantly refuted
> with intellectual evidence and consequently, Christians had to create another
> apologetic argument to make their wrong look right. It is sad that some (I
> mean many) Muslims have adopted this mentality.

IMRAN
Oh please, stop repeating the same old boring claim that Christians take their
beliefs on blind faith. Welcome to the new millenium. William Lane Craig's
floor mopping with Jamal Badawi was sufficient to demonstrate exactly as to who
stands where with respect to academia (I'm not a Christian but Craig won that
debate hands down):

http://www.thegreatforum.com/archives/badawi_craig/

For your information, the vast majority of philosophers and theologians who
write articles and books on topics such as the existence of God are Christians.
Why not check out how William Lane Craig promotes blind faith in Christianity
at:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html

Do let me know what you think! A current brand of theology is based on the
principles of reformed epistemology, the claim that it is rational to believe
in the existence of God without any argumentation, e.g. the works of people
like Alvin Plantinga, etc, who argue that the proposition "God exists" is a
properly basic belief. I'm not going to argue for or defend this, but I'm
just letting you know.

MAHDI

> Islam condemns blind faith based on just whims, desires and emotions. In
> Islam, we based our emotions on beliefs and not beliefs on emotions. The Quran
> tells us to reflect on creation and link this reality to the existence of the
> Creator. As I mentioned before, the Quran even has an intellectual challenge
> for those who doubt it, so once again, Islam is an intellectual deen and it
> does not condone blind faith.

IMRAN
Yes, yes, of course it does! Being a humble and true disciple of Hizb-ut-Tahrir
which I'm sure you are, you've simply swallowed their agenda of what really
makes up a believer. I've seen their booklets on steps to take regarding GLOBAL
ENGINEERING (!) and they insist that EVERY believer bases their faith on some
intellectually defensible premises (see below).

In his book "Reliance of the Traveller" (Amana: 1997) which is very popular
among traditionalists, and one which received authentication from Al-Azhar as
being true to orthodox Islam, here is what Nuh Ha Mim Keller, a famous Muslim
authority, has to say regarding theological polemicists:

"Among them are those who busy themselves with theological polemics against
heretical beliefs, and refuting the unorthodox. Scholars engaged in this are of
two types, those in the wrong and those in the right, the former advocating
something other than the sunna, the latter advocating the sunna. BOTH ARE
DELUDED. The misguidedness of those in the wrong is obvious (A: since they have
left the Koran and sunna which are divinely protected). As for those in the
right, their delusion is in believing that arguing is the most important
activity and greatest spiritual work in the religion of Allah Most High. THEY
MAINTAIN THAT ONE'S RELIGION IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL ONE HAS MADE LENGTHY
INVESTIGATIONS INTO ONE'S BELIEFS, AND THAT SOMEONE WHO SIMPLY BELIEVES IN
ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER WITHOUT PREPARING A CASE FOR IT IS DEFICIENT IN FAITH
(The position of Hizb-ut-Tahrir). BECAUSE OF THIS MISTAKEN PRESUMPTION, THEY
SPEND THEIR LIVES LEARNING HOW TO DISPUTE, CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH STUDIES OF
STATEMENTS OF THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES, UNTIL THEIR SPIRITUAL INSIGHT
EVENTUALLY GOES BLIND. They does not pause to consider that the early Muslims,
whom the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) testified were the very
best of mankind, and who lived to see many a reprehensible innovation (bid'a)
and deviant belief, did not expose themselves and their religion to quarrels
and disputation, or busy themselves therein at the expense of their heart and
works." (pp. 782-783)

So what do you say to that Mahdi? Obviously, since you see me as being quite
liberal, and yourself as being conservative, they don't come any more
conservative than this! Perhaps you can try and reconcile this with the agenda
your pious political party has set out:

"[T]he 'aqeedah which serves as the INTELLECTUAL basis upon which every
thought generated about behaviour in life and about its systems is built ...
Islam made the INTELLECTUAL acceptance of this solution a CONDITION for
embracing it."
(http://www.geocities.com/al-khilafah/SYSTEM.HTM)

The reality is the majority of Muslims take Islam on taqlid, but of course,
no one has tenacity to say they have no arguments for their belief, so they
simply parrot Maurice Bucaille or whatever polemical mish-mash they can get
their hands on. The vast majority of apologists themselves simply re-hash
arguments which have been shown to be wrong, their own individual research
being evidently no deeper than coffee spilled over from its cup into the
saucer.

I've seen this happen many times. During the Islamic Awareness week here on
campus, the apologetic neophytes use exactly the same kind of phrases you're
using like: "Islam is INTELLECTUAL", "Islam is based on LOGIC", "The Qur'an
has SCIENTIFIC PROOF of its authority", etc, etc. Every now and then, some-
one from the skeptics or atheist club comes along and raises some objections
which the poor apologist has not heard of before, so he keeps silent with a
stupid look and a sheepish grin on his face.

We've all heard the cliches before Mahdi, I defy you to defend a rational
argument for Islam, since you claim you can provide one.

MAHDI

> Again, a strange way of debating is to come here and try to refute and debunk a
> belief but refusing to provide evidence to support your case, in the meantime
> trying to shift the burden of proof to people whose beliefs you are trying to
> refute!

IMRAN
For the umpteenth time, it is YOU with is adamant that there is embryology to
be found in the Qur'an, so all you have to do, to quote Jerry McGuire, is SHOW
ME THE EVIDENCE!

MAHDI

> If you think the Quran does not contain scientific facts but just vague
> references, prove it. Give us the evidence instead of attacking our beliefs
> and saying they are this and that, and when asked for evidence, try to shift
> the burden of proof to someone else.

IMRAN
Brilliant rhetorical flourish by shifting the onus of proof. What would you say
if I claimed that the Qur'an contains a GEOMETRICAL MIRACLE based on the
letters in the Qur'an and their shapes and sizes, and because you have no
proof that it doesn't, that therefore, it does? Such convoluted logic! Please,
read up on basic logical concepts regarding the burden of proof before flinging
yourself into logical debates.

MAHDI

> You see no good reason to accept it because you do not want to accept it. Just

IMRAN
Conversely actually ... I do not want to accept it because I see no good
reason to accept it.

MAHDI

> look at the sources you quote to defend your beliefs. Enough said. Like I

IMRAN
Argumentum ad hominem.

MAHDI

> keep repeating, you take the concordance approach when it comes to arguments
> trying to refute Islam while complaining about the alleged transgressions
> against philosophical principles Muslims are committing in the name of Islam.

IMRAN
<LOL> Sure I do. Who said I'm refuting Islam? Another straw man! Do you even
read what I write? I am denying the proposal that there is embryology in the
Qur'an. Something which you haven't presented a shred of evidence before apart
from whining that I can't DISprove it. Sheesh!

MAHDI

> It is like a when Christianity missionary coming to this newsgroup and
> insisting that there is no proof that the Quran is from God. Even when Muslims
> show him proof, he refuses to believe in them because he made up his mind.

IMRAN
Sure, sure.

MAHDI

> The Quran says produce proof if you are truthful. You came here trying to
> debunk but decided that you didn't need evidence to do so. Then you wanted to
> shift the burden of proof on those who beliefs you are attacking. Need I keep
> repeating myself that this is a strange way of debating???

IMRAN
Precisely, the Qur'an says show your proof! So where is it Mahdi? I have solid
reasons for rejecting the scientific miracles enterprises. All you've done is
to ramble on with pious platitudes about how evil and dirty 'kuffar logic' is.
Not only that, but you've presented no reasons whatsoever for us to believe in
what you have to say! No, please, please do NOT repeat yourself until you
understand what's going on.

[Jeremiah McAuliffe]

As-Salaam Alaikum,

On 3 Jan 2002 19:02:11 GMT, imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

>GHALI
>> Jeremiah is not good company trust me! Just check out his refutations

Oooo! Ouch! I must have missed a post or something.

Regardless, the hadith are problematic. Isnad is no longer an
automatic "proof" that a report is necessarily "what really happened".

Imran, in his argumentation, seems correct and the issues are valid.

"Conspiracy" is indeed a red herring.

Greater archeological efforts, and research into dusty corners of old
libraries in the countries of Islam's birth could provide many
insights into the hadith and to what degree they tell us "what really
happened" and to what degree they tell us what our predecessors
*believed* about what really happened...... imagine finding an Islamic
set of Dead Sea Scrolls!

[Dr. Christoph Heger]

Greetings to all,

I am not going to discuss the merits of Goldziher, Schacht, Motzki,
Sezgin or Azami in Hadith criticism. I simply give a little example how
hadiths were forged.

When the Umayyad `Abd al-Malik fought with Ibn az-Zubayr for power, he
realized how bad it was for him that his followers made the pilgrimage
to Mecca when his enemy was in domination of this city. He therefore
caused Ibn Shihaab as-Zuhriy (+ 741), an otherwise pious and righteous
man, to render a saying by Muhammad that you could make the pilgrimage
equally well to Jerusalem or to Medina (according to Ibn WaadhiH
al-Ya`quwbiy, whose history was published by M. Th. Houtsma under the
title "Historiae", Leiden 1883, vol. 2, page 311).

I think there is no doubt that Muhammad never had thought or said so.

Kind regards,
Christoph Heger

[Dr. Christoph Heger]

Greetings to all,

There hardly can be any doubt that this idea of the Koran containing
modern embryological knowledge is anything other than spurious. The
embryological ideas in the Koran - as in the subsequent embryological
treatises in medieval Islam (YuwHannaa ibn Maasawayh, Hunayn ibn IsHaaq,
Thaabit ibn Qurra etc.) - simply are the ideas of antique Greek
medicine, only a bit coarsened. For the details I may again point to the
article "Embryology in the Qur'an" by Lactantius at:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Science/embryo.html

Those of you who are able to read German may be adviced to read URSULA
WEISSER: Zeugung, Vererbung und praenatale Entwicklung in der Medizin
des arabisch-islamischen Mittelalters. (something like "Generation,
Hereditary Transmission and Prenatal Development in the Medicine of the
Arabic-Islamic Middle Ages") - Erlangen 1983, XII + 572 p. (ISBN
3-922317-12-X), 68.00 DM. It has the estimation as of a standard work on
this matter.

The author, Dr. Ursula Weisser, is Phas a chair of History of Medicine
and is managing director of the Institute for the History of Medicine at
Hamburg University (University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf). She is a
physician and an arabicist. Dr. Weisser I guess is by far more competent
to judge about Quranic embryology than Dr. Keith Moore, who if I recall
correctly cannot read Arabic and is dependent on what more or less
trustworthy translators are telling him.

I translate two little titbits of her book.

On page 8 f. she writes:

"2.2 On the selection of texts

We meet ideas about generation, hereditary transmission and prenatal
development of man in the islamic world in two different scopes: On one
side there are the religious assertions of the Koran and the Hadith -
meaning the extra-koranic authoritative utterings of the prophet
MUHAMMAD - besides their explications in the theological and juridical
literature, on the other side the secular ideas and cognizances of
medical and scientific type, which continue the tradition of the antique
science. The specifically Muslim i.e. religious embryology is primarily
based on pre-islamic popular ideas, which were influenced by among
others Jewish popular belief. It [the embryology. Ch.H.] on the whole
was
of a lower level than the contemporary scientific theory of
reproduction, though - at least in later times - Muslim theologians and
jurists like FAKHR AD-DEEN AR-RAAZEE (543/1149-606/1209) or IBN QAIYIM
AL-JAWZIYYA (691/1292-751/1350) (4) drew the progressive cognizances of
secular sciences into the enrichment and interpretation of inspired
utterings of the Prophet, in as far that was possible without giving up
dogmatic positions. Near to these representations factually are standing
the embryological chapters of numerous works, popular till now, about
the 'medicine of the Prophet' (Tibb an-nabiyy or aT-Tibb an-nabawiy),
which combine assertions of the Koran or of the Prophet, taken from the
Tradition, referring to medical-hygienic questions, with the more
popular teachings of scientific medicine."

On page 356 she writes:

"Eventually let us have a look at the religious tradition of Islam
referring to the questions of the periods of articulation. The Koran
(surah 23:12-16) speaks, without giving any figures, of five phases:
drop of semen, clot of blood, clot of meat, bones, covering the bones
with meat. The first three stages are identical with the analogous
stages of development within Pythagorean teaching; an indirect influence
cannot be excluded, though presumably not demonstrable in a concrete
manner. According to a Hadith, tradited in various versions, the
development proceeds in three tessaracontades [in the German original:
"Tessarakontaden": a Greek word meaning periods of forty days; Ch.H.].
After the first one the stage of the clot of blood is arrived at, after
2 times 40 days the fruit becomes a clot of meat, after 3 times 40 days
the angel, sent by Allah, breathes the breath of life into it; since
that moment the fetus is considered as with a soul. If the animation is
to be parallelized with the complete articulation according to the
medical texts, 120 days or three month are a relatively long time for
this first main section of the development, as compared with the Greek
data."

For your convenience I repeat the main statement of Dr. Weisser:

"It [the embryology in early-Islam times; Ch.H.] on the whole was of a
lower level than the contemporary scientific theory of reproduction,
..."

Kind regards,
Christoph Heger

[asimm...@yahoo.com]

> GHALI
> > you a reference for this with regards to the more accurate examples
> > ie. rightous persons perferablly leading the prayer and the tyrants
> > leading the prayer see Nayl Al Awtawr by Shokani. Most if not all of
> > your examples have answers. As with regards to the more extreme points
> > ie the earth on turtles or fishes? No Comment! (I need an Isnad )
>
> IMRAN
> Would you mind elaborating on what Shokani had to say? As for the hadith
> on earth situated on turtles and fish, etc, I need to find the reference
> in Abrahamov's book, so I'll get back to you on that one.
>

Wa salaam

The isnad system as being the primary criteria for accepting a hadeeth
does not find total support even from the greatest scholars of
ahlus-sunnah. ibn Jawzi has said that any hadeeth which rejects
common sense, i.e the earth being on the backs of turtles and fishes,
are to be rejected without even examining their isnad. Scholars also
say those ahadeeth which reject common experience are rejected despite
the isnad. There is a narration which says that Abu Huraiar reported
that food cooked by fire invalidates wudhu. Ibn Abbass rejected that
by saying, if it were so, than water heated by fire would be invalid
to use for wudhu. The point is that ibn abbass did not reject the
integrity of Abu Huraira, he rejected the testimony based upon common
observational experience and understood that Abu HUraior may have
reported it incorrectly. It is also narrated taht Abu Huraira
reported that there are bad omens in three things: women, and two
other things of which I forget the narration. Aisha (R) heard that
and said Abu Huraira came to the masjid late. The Prophet (S) was
actually saying the people of jahilliya say there are bad omens in
three things. There are numerous cases where Aisha rejected sayings
attributed by certain Sahabah based upon unequivocal Quranic texts,
such as the Sahabah's that claimed the Prophet had seen God on miraaj
or that dead people can hear the wailing of those alive. Baghdadi
also says similar things, ahadeeth which reject common sense are also
rejected.

The Quran relates the story of Aisha (R) and those that accepted the
slander despite its incredulousness. The Quran says that when such
news came to them, they should have asserted that it was a manifest
lie. It is well-known that those who passed on the slander were not
only hypocrites, but well-established Companiosn known for thier
sincerity. The Quran gave absolutely no credence to such narrations
despite the integrity of certain individuals. Thus, Maulana Shibli
has used this narration to support that any hadeeth which rejects such
an observable fact, which is well-beyond the norms of reason, can be
rejcted despite the isnad.

ibn Jawzi has narrated a number of ahadeeth as being rejected, such as
those which proclaim to have medicinal value. ibn Qayyim is reported
to have said in regards to an alleged ahadeeth that was perpetauted
that looking at beautiful faces is refreshing that it would be
rejected even if the narrators integrity was as clear as the sun, or
something to that effect.

Wa salaam

[Jeremiah McAuliffe]

As-Salaam Alaikum,

On 4 Jan 2002 03:23:22 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:

> The Quran deals with life; it is a book
>of Guidance as opposed to some book that is concerned with the metaphysical and
>the issues that have little effect in our worldly life.

And with one fell swoop you've not only shown you don't have the
slightest grasp of the terms and issues, but you've also rejected
(again, I think) tawheed.

Metaphysical pertains to what is beyond the physical. Y'know, like
Allah Most High, consciousness, stuff like that.

<shaking head>

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 3 Jan 2002, Denis Giron wrote:

> Indeed, the article does use satire as a major ingredient in this
> proverbial kufr cake, but that is because the issue itself is quite
> comical. These hermeneutic miracles are somewhat ridiculous, hence the
> non-believers ridicule them. That being said, the argument is quite

What a start! Poison the well and rest of the argument is automatically
refuted. Call is "ridiculous" and hence it becomes ridiculous. No proof
need. Just keep attacking and quote other people with similar minded views
and that is it!

> language? A passage can be called scientific only if it is clearly
> understood at the very outset to entail certain experiential
> predictions. None of the alleged "scientific" verses in the Qur'an
> meet this criterion.

Now indeed here a strange argument. Well, the first thing is that how will
a person some 1400 years ago will take if someone tells him that sun has
an orbit or the universe is expanding; he would simply be dumbfounded. It
is not easy to understand what we do not know of. Science develops and so
does our understanding. If people in the past did not understand the
expansion of the universe, it does not mean that they were uneducated. It
was just that they did not have means to verify such facts. The passages
may have been vague to those people but to us they are quite clear.

Do the texts of Hindus, Jews, Buddhists etc. can stand for a scientific
enquiry? That is an interesting question.

> Now, can we from here say the following: "GOSH! Gee whiz! How did
> Ashvaghosha know about the splitting of the atom all the way back in
> the first century of the common era? Golly! Maybe Buddhism is true...
> maybe we should believe any claims made by or about Ashvagosha
> regarding divinity or divine connection or enlightenment (or whatever)
> after reading this!"

Well, what did Ashvaghosha meant when he meant atom? Any ideas? There is
no point furthering this argument unless we know for sure what is meant by
"atom" of Ashvaghosha.

> strong arguments. However, now it is Dr. Saifullah who is being
> duplicitous, as he is using the same sort of argument that Katz was
> using ("so and so is bad because he made mention of an argument
> originally put forth by a man who is disrespectful of our religions,
> an avowed atheist, infidel, et cetera").

This is interesting especially when a person who has a history of assuming
names on this newsgroup to dupe Muslims. We only mentioned what ypou have
done. Nothing else. You have shown your true colours and that is
sufficient for us. If you have a weak memory please go through some of the
posts of the past to refresh your "wonderful" deeds.

<big snip of the irrelevant arguments>

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 4 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> I began by clarifying the issue of appeals to authority, since a good number

> of Muslims still believe that because a handful of scientists apparently give
> credence to 'scientific miracles' in the Qur'an, this somehow validates the
> argument. My citation of Needham was simply to show how another embryologist
> who read the Qur'an dismissed it as a 7th century echo of the Ayur Veda. So
> it's not *enough* to appeal to authority when we have shaky or no consensus
> within the authorities in question. We need to look at the *arguments* they
> present, and so far, Dr. Saifullah has not elaborated or defended the claims
> of Moore et al. He wants us to wait, which is fine. But seriously, how many
> other embryologists agree with Moore et al? Have people reviewed Moore's work
> in peer-reviewed journals?

Needham, as we have already discussed, has absolutely *no* evidence to
show and dismiss Qur'anic statements on embryology "as a 7th century echo
of the Ayur Veda". To this you have agreed to. Why bring up this matter?
The work of Moore et al. post-dates Needham and Moore has worked for more
than a decade on the issue at hand. Who is an expert? Moore or Needham? It
is not about differences of opinion; it is about who present what
evidence. Bringing Needham to show that there exists a difference of
opinion is something that would not wash here.

For a good idea about how embryology is depicted in Ayurveda why not read
a little bit more about it and then do the comparison. It is easy but
requires a little bit of effort.

The third issue is that only "handful of scientists apparently" gave
credence to the arguments. Does that make the argument bad or invalidates
it? On the contrary Moore mentions in one of the tapes that al-Zindaani
and others who were involved in the project invited the best people in the
field.

<snip snip snip of red herrings>

> Finally, Aristotle, Galen and Hippocrates will be discussed in due time once
> Dr. Saifullah's paper is up on embryology in the Qur'an.

And yes, do not forget to read them before hand so that we do not have to
get into pedantic stuff.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 3 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> GHALI

> > None taken! Anyway there is nothing to worry about here, just the
> > ramblings of Juynobl and your blind faith in his view, and oh yeah my
>
> IMRAN
> Oh dear, here we go again with the ad hominem attacks! Poisoning the well
> now, are we?

Is he? What happened to the evidence of Juynboll on naivity of Abbott,
Sezgin and Azami about the hadith papyri and the concoction of isnad? None
so far. Do not worry, there is none in the page that you had quoted
either. It is easier to quote material and harder to show the evidence of
what a person is claiming. Going the "poor" Needham way? Not surprisng.

> Yes, I do know what his position is. And pardon me, but do you really think
> that you can submit a 'refutation' of a theory simply by saying that so-and-so
> refuted such-and-such a hypothesis? Rather than expecting all of us to run off
> to the library and finding all the references, perhaps you can present us with
> the arguments of those purporting to nullify the Orientalist criticisms? And
> even before we get into that, remember that we still haven't received any
> argumentation from you to establish the authenticity of the hadith material.
> So please present some evidence.

The evidence of the refutation of Juynboll, Schacht and Goldziher has been
mentioned in the book of Wael Hallaq that was quoted earlier. He does
provide various references till late 90s post-dating the work of Juynboll.
Research has also moved on after that.

Finally, there is no such thing as a comprehensive "refutation" of
Junyboll, not at least that I know of. But there are papers published by
Motzki (two, one in English and the other in German) which deals
substantially with some of the arguments. There may be others but I do not
know or have not read them.

And by the way, what exactly is meant by "authenticity" of hadith
material? How does this "authenticity" differs from the "authenticity" of
traditional Islamic scholarship? Goldziher, Schacht and their likes have
not addressed this issue. Do you have any idea of what you are talking
about?

> "I am skeptical as to whether we will ever be able to prove beyond a shadow

> of a doubt that what we have in the way of 'sound prophetic traditions' is
> indeed just what it purports to be." (p. 71)

Refer to the quote by Wael Hallaq which deals with the issue of 'sound
prophetic traditions' vis-a-vis Juynboll.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[Omar]

imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote in message news:<a0pb42$gao$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> Asalaamu'alaikum.

Wa alaykum as salaam,

Have you ever read the work of Harald Motzki? I haven't
see him mentioned anywhere in your post. I strongly urge you to read
his articles (I will hopefully post references as soon as I can find
them). His arguments throughly vindicate the tradtional methods of the
hadith masters, as well as their confidence in the ahadith themselves.

For the moment, consider this.....we can count the
number of ahadith that have been traced back to each companion. If we
do this, then a very interesting trend emerges: Abu Bakr has about a
100 ahadith to his credit, Umar 500 or so, Ali 500 or so, Khadija none
at all, Fatima bint Muhammad(s) only one, Ibn Abbas over a thousand,
Jabir bin Abdullah over a thousand, Aisha obver a thousand, Abu
Hurayra tops the list.

Now, if the isnads we have contain a great deal of
fabrication, then we would expect to see at least as many attributions
to the older companions (such as Abu Bakr and Umar) as we do to the
younger Companions (like Jabir bin Abdullah). For the older companions
are FAR more prestigious than the younger ones (Abu Bakr and Umar
being the two best of the Umma after the Prophet(s) according to the
Suunis)and therefore are more natural choices for forgers who want to
give their ahadith some authority and weight.

The trend is exactly what we would expect if the vast
majority of isnads are accurate and not forged, for then the younger
companions like Jabir would have lived longer and would have
transmitted more than the older ones. This is a very strong
confirmation of the overall accuracy of the isnads we actually have.

Salams,

Omar Mirza

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

Nothing much to say, really, since Mr. Mahdi simply danced around all of the
points I made in my last posting. But let me clarify his incorrect understanding
of argumentum ad hominem.

Mr. Mahdi, there is a difference between an ad hominem, and an *argumentum ad
hominem*. An ad hominem attack is not an argument. If someone said "What a poor
idiot!" for example, that is not an *argument*. An argumentum ad hominem is a
fallacy committed when the argument proceeds along these lines:

Because P is a <insert personal attacks here> therefore, his argument is wrong.

So, for example:

Because Hitler was a monster, I shouldn't believe his argument that 2 + 2 = 4

qualifies as an argumentum ad hominem.

Also, I would appreciate it Mr. Mahdi if you did NOT post messages to me when
you are replying to messages I post on SRI. Simply reply to SRI. I have
absolutely no inclination whatsoever to read your postings twice. I think once
is quite enough!

P.S - Why the question mark after the salaam? Surely at this age, one would
expect you to know what it means! Or would you like me to tell you?

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum (?),

Since I said that I won't get into a tit-for-tat debate with Imran (because he
already made up his mind), let me address a few issues he raised and of course,
avoid the rest:

>Yes it would be actually, so let me pick you up on this one, and point it out
>to people. It seems you are utilizing western logical principles to refute
>it!

I am not saying the argument is invalid because you used a strawman, I said it
was invalid because you lacked evidence! I just pointed out the fact you used
strawman, to bring attention to the very principle you claim to follow but
actually are going against!

You also made a comment on why I believe that the Quran (as well as the Sunnah)
is not a book of just metaphysics. For your information, metaphysics is a
philosophy invented by man:

1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental
nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often
epistemology (2) : ONTOLOGY 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of
what is outside objective experience

The concept and reality of Allah, the angels, the Hereafter, etc., are not
philosophical, theological concepts invented by man but are real and not
"metaphorical".

In other words, if certain things are beyond the "boundary of scientific
investigations" and the Quran or the Sunnah never made an issue into discussing
the arguments such as the one of the `ilm al-Kalaam, then there is no use for
discussing them. If Muhammad (saaws) and the Sahabah (ra) never had these vain
debates like the ones Muslims were engage in after them (like the `ilm
al-kalaam), why should we? They knew Islam better than any of us and they
applied it better than any of us. They lived Islam life and not in theory or
philosophy. That is why Islam worked and was the most just and advanced system
on earth. Theories have yet to be applied; Islam was applied and it did work.
Now if you want to discuss philosophical theories in the metaphysical sense,
don't bother asking others Muslims to join you. The Ummah and the world need
to be revived with Islam and not busy themselves in vain endeavours.

Remember, I am not the one seduced and duped by Western philosophy. If the
greatest philosophers cannot even create a just and perfect system of life for
all of mankind, what makes you think their philosophy will do us any good?

As far as seeing the evidence, it hav been experts in not only science but the
Arabic language and Islam who have proven the facts and shown the evidence. I
have read the papers and I even bought a book several years ago that
specifically is about emrbryology in the Quran and even Sunnah; the authors of
the book were both non Muslim and Muslim scientists and experts in the field
embryology. If you decide to be in denial, that's your fault. You already
made it clear that even the weakest arguments that come from those trying to
refute Islam who take the concordance approach with. How many times have we
seen here on SRI and elsewhere a Christian missionaries insisting that there is
no proof that the Quran or Islam are from God? Also, you complain that truth
can come from any source, which it can, such as 2+2+4 is true, even when a
kaafir proves it. But the point is that you lack evidence to debunk something
but insist you don't need evidence to debunk it because the burden of proof is
on the person whose beliefs you are attacking!

Look at it like this: someone were to claim that there is no God and insist
there is no God. Since he made the *assertion* that there is no God, he needs
to prove what he said in order for his claim to be fact. Now instead of doing
this, he goes to a person who believes in God and tries to prove that God
doesn't exist and instead of using evidence to prove HIS case, he argues that
the person who believes in God needs to prove it first.

He is going against the principles of debating he claim to adhere to: if one
makes an assertion, he needs to prove it. Imran insist that there is basically
no embryology in the Quran and Muslims just use the apologetic arguments in
order to make it appear that the Quran contains these scientific facts. He
made the assertion first and yet he complains that it is the Muslims who made
the assertion first!

Imran decided to pick a fight but the strange part about it is that he wants us
to believe that Muslims started it first! As I said before, this is a strange
way of debating!

Mahdi Muhammad

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>And with one fell swoop you've not only shown you don't have the
>slightest grasp of the terms and issues, but you've also rejected
>(again, I think) tawheed.

You do not know what metaphysics is. I was talking about metaphysics as a
branch of philosophy in the debate with Imran, in case you didn't know. I used
"metaphorical" to desribe the viewpoint of how some Muslims think that Islam is
just some metaphysical religion (like your beloved Sufism) that deals with
topics that have little to do with life itself. In case you need a quick
lesson, here is the definition of metaphysics, the word I alluded to in the
debate with Imran:

1 a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental
nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often
epistemology (2) : ONTOLOGY 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of
what is outside objective experience

>Metaphysical pertains to what is beyond the physical.

Well, like I said before, I was talking about metaphysics; what you are talking
about is supernatural:

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable
universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or
devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to
transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost
or spirit)

Is it not embarrassing to say someone doesn't understand the terms you yourself
do not?

As for your slanderous allegation I reject tawheed, I be the first one to say I
am not a secular-minded person who believes in the seperation of religion from
life nor do I reject Hadiths because it doesn't agree with my desires. I do
not call upon other than Allah and His Messenger when it comes to referring to
what is just (as in terms of a system and ideology). I do not put it up to man
to determine what is "modest" when Allah and His Messenger already defined that
for us. These things are what I called "rejecting tawheed."

So you are the last one to accuse any Muslim of rejecting tawheed.

Mahdi Muhammad

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

DR. SAIFULLAH

> As far as I am concerned, I think this thread is pretty much finished from
> the point of view of Imran. He has nothing to show as an "evidence". No
> amount of philosophical or Ghazalian "approach" would do anything to this.
> People who are more qualified in the field of linguistics, hadith,
> anatomy, Qur'an and history of science have already given the verdict.
> Imran should read their literature first before arguing.

IMRAN
Indeed, this thread is pretty much finished, but not for the reasons that
Dr. Saifullah submits. Let us summarize the exchange so far. It was argued
that embryology in the Qur'an tantamounts to proof for the miraculousness
of the Qur'an. In reply, I dismissed this as an inadequate polemic for it
falls prey to two main charges:

1. The arbitrary enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical principle.
2. The violation of Occam's Razor.

To this, Dr. Saifullah did not answer, despite repeated mentions of these
problems (e.g. as noted by Denis Giron).

Furthermore, although stating this is not the way he is arguing, what Dr.
Saifullah is tacitly implying with assertions like "People who are more

qualified in the field of linguistics, hadith, anatomy, Qur'an and history

of science have already given the verdict" is his position is automatically
certified as no one can prove him wrong. Let me repeat once more, this is a
fallacious argument, for it argues from the premise of ignorance.

It is incumbent upon Dr. Saifullah and others who think there is embryology
in the Qur'an to present their evidence. Unfortunately, those like Mr. Mahdi
argue: "Because you cannot prove X wrong, therefore X is true." With this
erroneous logic, one could argue in manners like this for example:

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

For details, please see:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Until some positive argumentation is received by proponents of this sort of
polemic, their postings dissolve into nothing more than unproven assertions.
Hopefully, once Dr. Saifullah completes his paper on the subject, we can go
forward from this current deadlock.

[Enisar]

>IMRAN
>Oh please, stop repeating the same old boring claim that Christians take
>their
>beliefs on blind faith. Welcome to the new millenium. William Lane Craig's
>floor mopping with Jamal Badawi was sufficient to demonstrate exactly as to
>who
>stands where with respect to academia (I'm not a Christian but Craig won that
>debate hands down):
>
>http://www.thegreatforum.com/archives/badawi_craig/

I watched the debate between Dr. Jamal Badawi and Dr. William Lane Craig. And
i don't see how Craig won the debate. Craig just showed what kind of knowledge
he had about the Qur'an and the funny thing is that he didn't even know how to
quote Qur'an correctly, he had no knowledge about Islam whatsoever. He
probably asked Jay Smith before the debate about the few verses that he quoted
from the Qur'an. On the other hand, Badawi showed how Craig put's his words
into his mouth, which Badawi didn't say. Craig in his rebuttal repeated the
same thing what in his opening speech about "conditional love of god" in the
Qur'an, which i think Badawi answered very well about. Anyhow, i think Craig
is good when debating atheists about "the existence of God", but when it comes
to Islam i really think he's not familiar about it's theology, history and
Qur'an. Even though Badawi did good job, i think Shabir Ally would have done a
better job and he would destroy Craig on the "person of christ"

[asimm...@yahoo.com]

> Would you call this an ad hominem attack? If Allah exposes the true nature of
> the enemies of Islam and uses words like "zaneem" (again, titles befitting
> their character), is this a "logical fallacy" in the Quran? I don't think any
> Muslim is going to say that Allah commits "logical fallacies" (astaghfirullah!)
> because he violated some philosophical principle invented by some kaafir
> logician!
>
>

Wa salaam

I have to step in here, because of the reference to zaneem. It seems
that Brother Mahdi is emphasizing that word is devoid of the
intellectual aspect.
The actual meaning of this verse is rootless and the point being made
is the inferiority complex of some of the leaders of Quraysh, who
actually belonged to other clans. They are trying to be more faithful
to the clan itself than even their own members.

he Quran is not calling them 'zaneem' just to derogate and it never
does. There is no doubt the Quran appeals to emotion, but this
emotion is based upon intellectual truth. The Quran starts this surah
with the observable truth of the Prophet's character. It was obvious
that the Quraysh no longer had any argument to present with respect to
the claims of the Quran, thus they had to resort to the besmirching of
his impeccable integrity. The Quran than contrasts the Prophet's
character with these leaders of Quraysh. The argument they could only
come up with was "tales of the ancients", thus their taking refuge in
the comment.

Take for example in surah Lahab where the hand is representative of
power. The Quran is alluding to the fact that the leadership of the
Ka'aba as represented through Abu Lahab is now broken. This surah is
preceded by surah Nasr which indicates that victory is near. After
surah Lahab, is surah Ikhlas, thus when the center of monotheism has
been cleansed of idol-worship and the restoration of Abraham's house
is complete, then proclaim tawheed, as represented in surah Ikhlas.

The Quran is not using ad hominen attack, it is displaying the
psychological charcter of the people, i.e. the root cause of their
rejection after being exposed to truths they cannot refute
intellectually. Ad hominen from my understanding is resorting to
attacking a character when one cannot refute the intellectual
argument. The Quran is actually tell people to look for yourself and
see the character of a man that says He is God's Prophet, and these
people who claim that they are entitled to custodianship of the Ka'aba
because they are from 'Quraysh'. Who are you going to support and
believe?

Wa salaam

[Altway]

"Jeremiah McAuliffe" <ali...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:a17iov$dcu$1...@samba.rahul.net...

> On 3 Jan 2002 19:02:00 GMT, imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

> >Not necessarily. I think the entire enterprise of establishing modern
science
in the Qur'an commits a category error, much like the mathematical
enterprise
of Rashad Khalifa and his followers. The use of scientific exegeses is
simply
an arbitrary move (read my response to Dr. Saifullah for details). I'm not a
proponent of arguing for or against science in the Qur'an at all, as
Bucaille
and Moore see it. I deny the scientific hermeneutical principle altogether
because the Qur'an is a book which speaks on matters concerning theology and
metaphysics primarily.

> I Completely agree. And indeed, am confident enough to say this is

correct.
> I'd phrase the end part a little bit differently though.... not even
so much theology and metaphysics, but solely *The Transcendent*. The
entire book is about The Transcendent and our relation to, response to
The Transcendent (one such response might be encouraging science), and
nothing else.

Comment:-
There are many views on what the Quran is.
I, for instance, do not quite agree with any of the above views, though I
think Jeremiah is close.

The Quran is concerned with the Real ( not primarily with ideas or
experiences though these are affected)- the inner and the outer
manifestation, with human adjustment to the Real, with human consciousness
and its limits and development. Though it is concerned with the
Transcendental it is also concerned with the effects of the transcendental
on the mundane and on the Way of life.

The Quran has its own World View. Though it is not a book on these subjects,
the Quran touches on Metaphysics, Epistomology, Rationality, Science,
Theology, Ethics, Politics, Economics, and History.
There is nothing which it does not directly or indirectly affect.

To get its thesis accross it uses facts about nature, human history, and
human nature, argument, feeling, threat, instructions, appeal to
consciousness, conscience and will.

It is certainly written in a pre-scientific language (how else could it have
been understood in the past), but the words have meaning when they refer to
experiences and these have validity when they refer to objective truths. All
these arguments at the verbal level whether the Quran contains scientific
facts or not is superficial nonsense. We ought to be concerned with the
truth and not the way they are formulated. These can be and should be
translated into a language which can be understood by contemporary man.

The Quran can be understood, and correctly applied, only when it is taken as
the criterion by which all things are judged.
Islam was a revolution in attitude and consciousness.
It seems to me that brother Imran Aijaz and some others have a different set
of criteria by which they judge things as well as the Quran.
There cannot ever be any agreement between the two.
Aijaz and others ought to recognize and admit his preconceptions and the
alien
criteria he uses. In particular it is necessary to realize that must not
expect others
to conform to ones own own frameworks or paradigms.

At least, in the case of Christian scientists they tend to keep the two
modes of thought separate, giving each a separate sphere of operation.
Aijaz ought, perhaps, to adopt this attitude.

But this kind of schiziphrenia is not possible in Islam which requires
Surrender to Allah, and therefore, a unified way of life and inner
psychological integration.

It is necessary to reconcile all aspects of life and this is an ongoing
process.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com

.

[surayya]

Mr Mahdi <mrm...@aol.com> writes

>You look up in a dictionary and find where it says that civilization needs a
>SPECIFIC culture.

Civilisation includes a specific culture, you can't just remove it and
replace it with another culture, it grew from a specific culture, and
without that specific culture it collapses and becomes no more. If you
looked up the full meaning of civilisation and what it encompasses and
how culture is so intertwined, you would realise that it is not
something that can be removed and replaced.

>Let's take the TV as a product of civilization. Did
>it need to be in a Western culture in order it to be invented? Would of been
>impossible for something like a TV to be invented in a Islamic culture?

That may be so, it depends what drives that Islamic culture. Would that
Islamic culture be obsessed with entertainment and communication?
Perhaps communication, but would it still pursue the avenue of visual 24
hour communication, or would it take the line of the internet?

>That's my point, that a civilization does not need a *specific* culture. Do
>you get it this time?

It does need a specific culture. Without that specific culture at its
core, it doesn't exist.
Thats why the revolution where you surgically remove their culture, and
imagine that the civilisation just sits there intact, ready for you to
insert your own culture, is a myth. No-one has ever pulled it off, and
those that tried have reduced populations to ground zero, where they
have to start all over again.

>Ok, ask what scholar? And if I do and the scholar is ignorant, so what? I
>know many scholars who cannot tell the difference between photos and paintings
>of animate objects.

Well, obviously ask a scholar whose judgement you respect.

>So if this scholar who says birth control is Haraam is like the one who says
>that photographs of animate objects are Haraam, then he can keep his fatwa to
>himself and you can choose to follow if you please.

NOT all birth control is haram, because it does not all work in the same
way. Do you understand? You don't seem to understand that the way an
invention can work, can be what makes it haram, before you even get to
applying it.
Thats why we do not inherit anything automatically including inventions.

>Provide the daleel for what? You need to be specific.

The daleel that says we can automatically inherit the science booty, but
not the politics booty.

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 5 Jan 2002, Mr Mahdi wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> We must not forget that we can find many verses bashing the leadership of

> Quraysh with names befitting their character. Allah even had a chapter about
> Abu Lahab where He he attacks Abu Lahab and his wife.
>
> Would you call this an ad hominem attack? If Allah exposes the true nature of
> the enemies of Islam and uses words like "zaneem" (again, titles befitting
> their character), is this a "logical fallacy" in the Quran? I don't think any
> Muslim is going to say that Allah commits "logical fallacies" (astaghfirullah!)
> because he violated some philosophical principle invented by some kaafir
> logician!

The issue of Abu Lahab has already been discussed by me in an earlier
post. It is not a logical fallacy for the simple reason that Abu Lahab was
already being informed about the message of Allah, tawheed among other
things. Even then he consistently rejected the message along with his
wife. The same is also seen for the Children of Israel and Christians.
They have been warned about what they differed on and why in the Qur'an.
The Christians, for example, if they stubbornly defend that Allah is a
third of three or trinity, they will get the punishment most befitting to
their beliefs. And as one of the brothers had mentioned that perhaps the
most befitting punishment for Christians on this earth is Jesus slaying
them with his own hands for their disbelief.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[Jeremiah McAuliffe]

>The paper does make strong points about how the Quran appeals to the intellect
>rather than invalid things like emotions and feelings.

Ugh!

This is very dehumanizing, it seems to me, and contrary to the
tawheedian world-view. Emotions and feelings are completely valid
sources of information regarding reality. For instance, if you were
swimming and saw a shark you might feel fear..... the feeling of
hunger is usually an accurate source of information regarding the need
for food. Is the feeling of love "invalid"?

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 5 Jan 2002, Dr. Christoph Heger wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> When the Umayyad `Abd al-Malik fought with Ibn az-Zubayr for power, he

> realized how bad it was for him that his followers made the pilgrimage
> to Mecca when his enemy was in domination of this city. He therefore
> caused Ibn Shihaab as-Zuhriy (+ 741), an otherwise pious and righteous
> man, to render a saying by Muhammad that you could make the pilgrimage
> equally well to Jerusalem or to Medina (according to Ibn WaadhiH
> al-Ya`quwbiy, whose history was published by M. Th. Houtsma under the
> title "Historiae", Leiden 1883, vol. 2, page 311).

The charge that al-Zuhri was the fabricator of traditions has been refuted
by both Western and Muslims scholars. Goldziher also used this charged
against al-Zuhri. Goldhizer's charge that al-Zuhri was responsible for
fabricating the traditions in favour of Umayyads had been refuted by
Horovitz. Horovitz has shown that this claim is false and tendentious.
In fact, al-Zuhri at times enraged some of the caliphs by quoting
traditions against their interests, and sticking to these traditions in
spite of the fury of his patrons.

See J. Horovitz, "The Earliest Biographers Of The Prophet And Their
Authors - II", 1928, Islamic Culture, Volume II, p. 48 also pp. 41-42.

As for al-Zuhri being responsible for Hajj to Dome of the Rock at
Jerusalem, it is already being refuted at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/hajjdome.html

Further, al-Zuhri was not the only person resposnible for the tradition of
going to three mosques. There were others who transmitted the hadith
independently as can be seen in the above link.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 4 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Furthermore, even the Qur'an does not utilize such fractured logic of polemics

> based on blasting the source out of the water with ad hominem attacks. See the
> following link which proves that the Qur'an actually is perfectly consistent
> with some of the logical principles on which one can accept or reject
> arguments:
>
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Mirlogical.html

The basic principle of calling people what they are in the Qur'an is that
a Messenger or a Prophet is sent to them calling people to tawheed and
then only after they are called disbelievers or hypocrites depending upon
what they professed. A good example of it is Abu Lahab. He had been warned
as other Makkans but still he and his wife were adament in reject the
Prophet's, SAW, message.

I think the above article is only a preliminary discourse on the issues of
logical fallcies dealt with in the Qur'an. Mustansir Mir, a well-known
Professor of Qur'anic Studies in the West, mentions that:

"A logician with a keen sense of the Qur'anic language and method can
expect to reap a rich harvest."

Hence it is not a complete study in the subject.

Perhaps somebody someday would do a PhD on this issue...., insha'allah.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[ghali]

As-Salaam Alaikum,

>
> Oooo! Ouch! I must have missed a post or something.
>
> Regardless, the hadith are problematic. Isnad is no longer an
> automatic "proof" that a report is necessarily "what really happened".
>
> Imran, in his argumentation, seems correct and the issues are valid.
>
> "Conspiracy" is indeed a red herring.

Hello there Jermiah, Love your subtle sarcassim. So your here to give
your friend Imran a pat on the back. That all it seems to me, an
emotional appeal

"Isnad is no longer an automatic "proof"." "Imran.....seems
correct and the issues are valid." One more thing the "conspiracy is a
red herring". FULL STOP

Any disagreement and you would be forced to take drastic action. Maybe
even let your friendly Israeli mates on us, as after all they have
offered us a peace treaty that we must accept because were such nice
guys! What do you think ? Do they hve permanent rights to Israel,
Jerusalem, e.t.c...

>
>
> Greater archeological efforts, and research into dusty corners of old
> libraries in the countries of Islam's birth could provide many
> insights into the hadith and to what degree they tell us "what really
> happened" and to what degree they tell us what our predecessors
> *believed* about what really happened...... imagine finding an Islamic
> set of Dead Sea Scrolls!

Thanks for taking us on a tour of your magical world of what if's. No
evidence though to support Imran's contention.

Ghali

[ghali]

Hello Her Doc.

> I am not going to discuss the merits of Goldziher, Schacht, Motzki,
> Sezgin or Azami in Hadith criticism. I simply give a little example how
> hadiths were forged.

Do what you want! We don't need the privilege of your discussion!

> When the Umayyad `Abd al-Malik fought with Ibn az-Zubayr for power, he
> realized how bad it was for him that his followers made the pilgrimage
> to Mecca when his enemy was in domination of this city. He therefore
> caused Ibn Shihaab as-Zuhriy (+ 741), an otherwise pious and righteous
> man, to render a saying by Muhammad that you could make the pilgrimage
> equally well to Jerusalem or to Medina (according to Ibn WaadhiH
> al-Ya`quwbiy, whose history was published by M. Th. Houtsma under the
> title "Historiae", Leiden 1883, vol. 2, page 311).
>
> I think there is no doubt that Muhammad never had thought or said so.

Don't you have anything more original then this! At least give me more
modern studies like that of Crone et al.. Especially as you are a Doc
, who loves to give us references from the Fatherland in German. The
source of this point is the shite Historian Yaqubi. We know that
Zuhri's meeting with Abd al Malik did not take part earlier in 81 A.H
. In 67 A.H palestine was out of Abd-Malik's control. He began to
bulid the dome after this date i.e the Ummayad caliphate . Zuhri at
this time was something between 10-18 yrs old in anti -Madinah region
Syria!. So why would Abdul Malik want to use a 10-18 yr old boy to
change such a significant divine obligation when he could use more
prominent companions? Why would he AFTER 72 A.H when the Dome of the
rock was finished order Hajjaj his governer to take control of the
Hajj to MECCA as admitted by he shite himself. Finally Zuhri's
statement Dosen't even mention the Sacredness of the rock or that we
need for Tawaaf around the pseudo-Kaaba! Also this same narration of
his is mentioned in other collections with different Isnads ie.
Hisham -Nafi-Ibn umar, thru salamah b Kuhail...., Qusaim..., Zaid ibn
Salim and others which don't even mention Zuhri!! Even Horowitz agreed
and said "Whatever one may think about the authenticity of hadith
there is no ground whatever to doubt but Zuhri really had heard the
hadith from the mouth of Said ibn Musaiyab" p36 Art al Zuhri, See
Azami's work for more details 287-292.

Also we can verify the veracity of Zuhri because of the papyrus of his
collection checked and cross-referenced by Nabia abbots (see the
seperate thread) . He faithfully records event which are collected in
different collections. So unless he was in cahoots with the sunni
Islamic world on such a large scale we take him as trustworthy until
proven otherwise.

Finally why this arbitary acceptance of Historical events? When is an
event an expression of reality and when is it a fabrication? What are
your higher principles that differentiate? An answer please. You being
a German doc is not enough!

Ghali

[Jeremiah McAuliffe]

As-Salaam Alaikum,

On 5 Jan 2002 19:05:17 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:

>>That makes no sense, civilisation includes and needs culture, period.
>>Look it up in a dictionary.
>
>You look up in a dictionary and find where it says that civilization needs a
>SPECIFIC culture. No need to get pedantic on your part, just accurate within
>the confines of reality. Let's take the TV as a product of civilization. Did
>it need to be in a Western culture in order it to be invented?

Very possibly it did. You do not understand how science works. Surraya
is correct.

Have you ever heard the phrase "the personal is political"?

Cultural context shapes and determines the objects of science-- what
science chooses to explore. Thus, the new objects that may come from
science reflect the culture in which the science is taking place. For
instance, a war-like culture will produce more types of weapons than a
peaceful culture......

[ghali]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> IMRAN
Oh dear, here we go again with the ad hominem attacks! Poisoning the
well
now, are we?

Well, well, call me naive and that is o.k but when I engage in
dialogue with phrases that I guess you will have to support, then I am
poisoning the well. This interesting age old paradox of epistimology
that you have put forward i.e infinite regress or a self-referring
halt, just forces you into blind faith. This will crop up more so as
you go along.

> IMRAN

> Yes, I do know what his position is. And pardon me, but do you really think
> that you can submit a 'refutation' of a theory simply by saying that so-and-so
> refuted such-and-such a hypothesis? Rather than expecting all of us to run off
> to the library and finding all the references, perhaps you can present us with
> the arguments of those purporting to nullify the Orientalist criticisms? And
> even before we get into that, remember that we still haven't received any
> argumentation from you to establish the authenticity of the hadith material.
> So please present some evidence.

I will take you up on this and just show again the double-standards
you portray. A quotation of Juybnobll, Rashad Khalifa!!, Shuaib Hassan
(of all people)and others is enough for us not to venture out to the
library but when I give you PRIMARY sources as a reference, you
object. Subhanallah. I have been giving you argumentation all along
but you are repeating the same old hash over and over again! What
about this significant sample of pre-standard collections that can
allow us to trace back hadith to the prophet? Isn't that evidence? It
is not the papyri alone, but the fact that the collectors were in
different geographic regions reporting similar incidences, narrators,
verified also by Islamic bibliographies e.t.c.. This can be falsified
and cross-referenced. The fabricated narrations that you mention which
did occur on a significant scale , something I never denied CANNOT be
verified by such a system. Do you see the difference?

> Even a fairly sympathetic Muslim scholar like John L. Esposito remarks that:
"By the ninth century, the number of traditions had mushroomed into
the
> hundreds of thousands. They included pious fabrications by those who believed
> that their practices were in conformity with Islam and forgeries by factions
> involved in political and theological disputes." (John L. Esposito, "Islam -
> The Straight Path" (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 81).

John L. Esposito is a Marxist, Come on! Which is important to know
because of Marx's unique view on history. Does he hold onto orthodoxy?
As a side issue do enlighten me. And why this mention of the word
"sympathetic"? It does not add any credence to his quotation.
Obviously I am expected now to go to the library and search his
sources to find out the basis of this misapprehension about
mushrooming of tradition. This has a good refutation on Saifullah's
site. A specific response to the so-called sudden appearance of many
traditions. What is wrong with his answer?

> Thus, we have, prima facie, reason to doubt whether the historical image of
> the Prophet (to be distinguished from the mythological encrustations) can be
> ever established.

Do we? Hah! Keep dreaming and conjuring up you blind faith. So where
are the references for this? Remember your infinite
regress/Self-Referring paradox of Knowledge. Quotations will not do
now unless they have primary sources, O.K? Anyway I will have to take
the effort and go to the Library. How dare you do claim such a thing?

> So before you try and blast Esposito away now, would you mind presenting us
> with some solid evidence, primarily to prove that we do indeed have an honest
> picture of the 'Historical Muhammad' in the hadith? (and sira) Remember, I'm
> talking about the Muhammad of history here, not the Rasul Allah of faith.

I have, often. I am just repeating myself now! By the way, this Rasul
Allah of faith, did he come to you in a dream? Is this why you believe
in him? Because, for all intent purposes, how do you know that he
exists? Where are your historical proofs for that? What are the
standards reached in getting to this conclusion and so on... But I
know there are narrations that mention him coming in dreams ,though,
not has a source of ultimate proof, just in case you thought of
mentioning it.

> IMRAN
> Really? I have his book right here sitting on my desk. In criticizing the

> isnad's he writes:
>
> "I am skeptical as to whether we will ever be able to prove beyond a shadow
> of a doubt that what we have in the way of 'sound prophetic traditions' is
> indeed just what it purports to be." (p. 71)
>

> Perhaps you can fill us in on where he deems the isnad system credible?

You only have to search on the internet, no need to rush to the
library. Juynobll position is, well I leave it to him, (A very pithy
remark anyway, so you have to read it slowly.) "Now it must be
conceded, first of all that,in my opinion, the common link theory is a
brilliant one" Papers on Islamic History, Studies on the first
century...p207. What does he mean by this? See Motski's interesting
rebuttle of a significant part of his argument which, guess what, I
got from the internet! A point to note Juynobl's common link theory
falls on the premise that if a single narrator has only one student in
a chain then it is a fabricaion. For a fabrication to be ruled out
then it must have multiple branches (Ulriek Mitter Der Islam 34-72
2001)

Summary:
In this article Motzki studies and comments on Juynboll's article,
"Nafi' the mawla of Ibn 'Umar, and his position in Muslim Hadith
Literature," which is for Motzki a good example of isnad-analysis as
practiced today in Western scholarship. Motzki summarizes the results
of Juynboll's article as follows (pp. 42-43):

1. The ahadith with the isnād Nafi'--Ibn 'Umar in the canonical
collections go back not to Nafi', but mostly to Malik b. Anas.

2. The student-teacher relationship between Malik and Nafi', which is
mentioned in the Islamic biographical literature is not historical.

3. The ahadith with the isnad Nafi'--Ibn 'Umar which are not
transmitted via Malik are all later inventions or falsifications by
the authors of the canonical collections or their teachers.

Motzki begins by examining the concepts of isnad-analysis (pp. 43-54).
He provides an explanation different from that of Juynboll for the the
phenomena of common links and single strands. He argues that the
common link was the first systematic collector and "scholarly
transmitter" of the tradition. The fact that only one strand survived
does not mean that only one had existed. There were other strands that
were not recorded by our collector (pp. 43-47). He argues against the
unhistoricity of single strands after the common link by giving a
mathematical example: if every transmitter gave his version to five
students then we would have 25 transmitters in the second generation
(after the common link), 125 in the third, 625 in the fourth, etc.
Suppose that six collectors of the fourth generation each record three
versions of the hadith. The possibility that the collectors who
together choose 18 strands out of 125 often choose the same ones is
rather small. It is far bigger one generation earlier (18 of 25) and
even bigger on the first generation after the common link (18 out of
5). This is what most of the isnad bundles look like, they can
therefore be explained mathematically (p. 49). Juynboll's
interpretation that a single strand means that only a single student
gave the tradition to only a single student, etc. (p. 50) is thus
wrong. Juynboll incorrectly interprets the bundles "from the bottom,"
and not "from the top," as it should be: the isnad bundle shows that a
collector got his traditions from three teachers who in turn got it
from their teachers, etc. and what can be derived from a single strand
is only that the other collectors had different paths of transmission
(turuq) which did not cross our collector's (p. 51). Single strands
should be, mathematically, the rule, not the exception. Thus they
cannot be dismissed as unhistorical (p. 52). Another drawback of
Juynboll's argumentation is that the rule "the more knots the greater
the historical probability" only applies only if we can rule out the
falsification of knots (pcls), which we cannot (p. 52). Motzki
concludes this part (II) by remarking that if we were to accept
Juynboll's theory that all single strands are unhistorical, we would
be forced to regard most of the sources we use as unhistorical. For
example, Ibn Hanbal's Musnad in the existing recension has a single
strand of at least four persons, Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqat at least 8 persons
etc. Many examples of this could be found. (p. 53). But Juynboll
doesn't seem to regard these sources as not historical (p. 54).

In the third part (III, p. 54-80), Motzki examines Juynboll's
arguments against the historicity of the person Nafi'. He summarizes
Juynboll's arguments as follows:

1) Much less is known about Nafi''s life than other transmitters''.

2) There are contradictions in what is known about Nafi'.

3) Nafi''s biography is missing in the important tabaqat works that
deal with the Medinese successors.

4) Malik's statements about his being a student of Nafi' are not
plausible. Because of the age difference between them, he could not
have been Nafi''s student (p. 54).

Motzki examines these arguments step by step.

To point 1: There are other important transmitters about whom not much
is known, while other, less important transmitters, have large entries
in the biographical works. It seems that more is known about Arab
transmitters than about mawali ones (p. 54f).

To point 2: Most of the contradictions can be explained (e.g. that
some took literally Nafi''s statement that he worked for Ibn 'Umar for
30 years, and therefore concluded "facts" about his life. For example,
they extrapolated that he was taken prisoner 44 A.H., and from that
they concluded that he must have been from Kabul, as Kabul was
conquered in that year. However, others had some other, independent,
knowledge about his place of origin and took the 30 years as "a long
time," i.e. not literally. Some minor contradictions remain, but these
occur in many other biographies as well and cannot be taken as a proof
of a person's nonexistence (pp. 55-57).

To point 3: The absence of Nafi''s biography in Ibn Sa'ds tabaqat is
explained by the fact that the tabaqat were incomplete. The missing
part has been discovered in the meantime and includes an entry on
Nafi'. His biography is mentioned in numerous other biographical
works. That many of Nafi's traditions are not to be found in the
canonical collections may well be due to the fact that they are not
prophetical sayings, but sayings of or about Ibn 'Umar.

To point 4: Motzki examines many of the arguments used by Juynboll to
show that the teacher-student relationship between Nafi' and Malik
could not have been historical. I will mention only a few. Motzki
shows that students often described how they made the acquaintance of
their teacher and not, as Juynboll argues, only in cases when there
was a large age difference between the two (p. 61). To Motzki, the age
difference between Nafi' and Malik is not so big as to be implausible
(p. 62).

The mu'ammarun Juynboll refers to occur only in Iraqian isnads (mostly
Kufan), not in Hijazian, and usually are persons in the Successors'
(tabi') generation. Thus Nafi' most probably is not part of this
phenomenon (p. 62).

In the last part of the article (pp. 68-80), Motzki gives a detailed
critique of Juynboll's conclusions concerning a number of
isnad-bundles.

Juynboll's thesis is that most of the prophetic traditions with the
isnad Nafi'--Ibn 'Umar were invented by Malik. Nafi' is only a seeming
common link (cl), while the real cl is Malik, because it was only
Malik's students who each transmitted the hadith to several students,
while the other paths of transmission from Nafi' are all spiders or
single strands. Motzki writes that while Juynboll states that he used
sources other than the six canonical collections, he did not use them
systematically (p.69). But when one wants to draw far reaching
conclusions, as Juynboll does, one has to use all transmissions that
can be found. One may argue that later collections might include
falsifications based on the isnads of the canonical collections, but
there is no reason for not taking into account the earlier
collections, namely Malik's Muwatta', Ibn Abi Shaiba's and
Abdarrazzaq's Musannafs, and the Musnads of Ibn Hanbal, al-Tayalisi
and Humaidi, to name the most important ones (p. 70). In all the isnad
bundles Motzki studies (nos. 2,3,4,6,8 of Juynboll's article), he is
able to show that numerous other ways of transmission exist in
addition to the ones found by Juynboll, and that therefore most of the
spiders and single strands are not what they seem to be. Therefore
Nafi' is to be considered a real common link, even when applying
Juynboll's criteria.

The new strands adduced by Motzki invalidate some of Juynboll's other
theses as well. For instance Juynboll states that in strand 4 Hammad
b. Zayd fabricated a Basran dive via Ayyub, "to establish a Basran
background for the fitr precept" (p. 71). But a look into the earlier
works of Ibn Hanbal, Abdarrazaq, and Humaidi shows that at least three
other isnads of this tradition exist in which Ayyub plays a role, of
which two are not Basran but Meccan or Yemenite (p. 72). In most cases
Motzki presents the assumption of falsification raises more problems
than it resolves.

See Benhim's bibliography on the internet. So in conclusion he accepts
the branches of the Isnad, but just that the REAL common link is the
source of the fabrication. Note how Motski puts the owness on Juynobll
with convincing arguments, if I say so myself.Another contention I
have about him. Why does he mention in the previous reference that the
reports i.e of the hadith taken together may in all likelihood be
taken to be not far from, I quote " ...what really happened" Ibid p7.
Some intuitive acceptence of muttawatir? A thing he relies on alot as
he himself confesses.

> IMRAN
> This is nothing but your argument from incredulity: "Gee, I can't see how
> something like the compilation of the hadith could have happened otherwise
> from the traditional account." Not only that but you are setting the tone
> for bifurcation, i.e: Either the transmission of hadith was authentic OR
> it's all a "daft conspiracy theory." Nah, I don't buy it. For example, the
> position of Juynboll falls *in between* the excessive skepticism of those
> like Goldziher and Schacht and the excessive trust of the traditionalists.

No this is not! As a prinicple if many narrations are mentioned in
different areas which can be referenced and historically validated
then we take this as a given until proven otherwise or else we have as
mentioned before a problem with our trust in Language and history as
well. Secondly this is a false dichotomy which I never held on to. It
could be in, more authentic terms, be

An event recorded in different regions by different collecotors that
is verified historically is taken as authentic until proven otherwise
OR ELSE Everything then becomes a daft conspiracy until proven
otherwise.

A more accurate bifuraction. Yes I do believe there where fabrications
and mistakes. This can be cross-checked and falsified. Motski and my
example from Nabia Abbots on ONE hadith ONLY shows this! (Obviously an
example of method only)

> Even Dr. Muhammad Husayn Haykal had this to say:
>
> "[A]fter Muhammad's death the Muslims differed, and they fabricated
> THOUSANDS of Hadiths and reports to support their various causes. From the
> day Abu Lu'lu'ah, the servant of al Mughirab, killed 'Umar ibn al Khattab
> and 'Uthman ibn 'Affan assumed the caliphate, the old pre-Islamic enmity of
> Bani Hashim and Banu Umayyah reappeared. When, upon the murder of 'Uthman,
> civil war broke out between the Muslims, 'A'ishah fought against 'Ali and
> 'Ali's supporters consolidated themselves into a party, the fabrication of
> hadiths spread to the point where 'Ali ibn Abu Talib himself had to reject the
> practice and warn against it. He reportedly said: "We have no book and no
> writing to read to you except the Qur'an and this sheet that I have received
> from the Prophet of God in which he specified the duties prescribed by
> charity." Apparently, this exhortation did not stop the Hadith narrators from
> fabricating their stories either in support of a cause they advocated, or of
> a virtue or practice to which they exhorted the Muslims and which they
> thought would have more appeal if vested with prophetic au­thority."
> (http://www.isnacanada.com/prophets/pref2.htm#p219)

Another quote where I have to go to the library eh! As for writing of
authentic hadith by the early generations then this has been dealt
with adequately by Azmai in his Studies.. which to be frank, I am not
in the mood to quote in totality ( it is just to large, almost a whole
chapter). Something which one can only do, to do justice to his
position. You will just have to go to the Library! Muhammad Haykel is
not an expert in Hadith, just a famous Nassarite Journalist form
Eygpt. This is important as he provided NOTHING more than that can be
gained by the experts. It is like quoting Henry Kissinger on the
details of the anatomy of the Cerebellum! Just to note I do not rely
on quotes only. But if you do, which you are obviously doing then at
least quote an expert!

> Daft conspiracy theory huh? Not at all. Dr. Suhaib Hasan, in his book titled
> "An Introduction to the Science of Hadith" published by totally traditionalist
> publishers like Darussalam (Riyadh: 1996) should suffice as an unquestionable
> authority lest anyone think I'm quoting from Orientalist baddies. On the
> section relevant to hadith fabrications he writes:
>
> "Some of these ahadith were known to be spurious by the confession of their
> inventors. For example, Muhammad bin Sa'id al-Maslub used to say, "IT IS NOT
> WRONG TO FABRICATE AN ISNAD FOR A SOUND STATEMENT." Another notorious
> inventor, 'Abd al-Karim Abu 'I-Auja, who was killed and crucified by
> Muhammad bin Sulaiman bin 'Ali, governor of Basrah, admitted that he had
> fabricated FOUR THOUSAND ahadith declaring lawful the prohibited and vice-
> versa." (p. 49)

More Quotes!! O.K then from the authentic traditions where are these
narrators? The system of Isnad just allows us to rule this out. A
Fabricated Isnad using your wonderful Verification Principle cannot be
falsified because there is no way of cross referencing, finding out
who the sources are and so on.. An Authentic hadith can have this
method applied to it. See the above work by Motski and my other
quotation of Nabia Abbots work, seperatly in this thread.

Anyway as you Know Dr Hassan is not one to quote as he is very much in
agreement with the SALAFI position on hadith. Even a single narration
is DEFINITE until proven otherwise!

> IMRAN
> Once again, appeals to emotion and an argument from incredulity do not give
> valid reasoning. Not only that but you misconstrue my own position and start
> attacking a straw man. Let us not forget that I asked you for some good
> evidence for the reliability of the hadith, and so far we have seen none, and
> second, my skepticism is confined, not to the Islamic corpora *in toto*, but,
> to the *historical* image of the Prophet. What good reasons do we have to be
> able to believe that the image of the Prophet is accurate and historical as
> presented in the hadith? Also, just out of interest, have you read the latest
> book by Ibn Warraq entitled "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad"
> (Prometheus: 2000)?

I think your mixing the fact that I am shocked by your radical
departures from reality using VALID proofs, a healthy emotion, and I
being just in a state of shock full stop. An interesting dichotomy. So
when is Islamic Corpora valid? And when do we axe it? What are your
sources, references etc... Why quote books just give me the details of
the argument ( does the objection sound familiar)

> It's no use pretending that fabrication of hadith did not occur, or that it
> was on a very low level. Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars acknowledge the
> fact that huge numbers of hadith were fabricated. What I find puzzling is
> the apparent contradiction between your claim that the isnad system is some-
> thing which can be relied upon, and the fact that such huge fabrications had
> occurred. IF the isnad system did do it's job, then why the huge number of
> fabrications? Conversely, if there is a huge number of fabrications (which,
> there evidently is) then what's the story with the isnad system? Perhaps
> you can elaborate a bit more on this.

Firstly I am not pretending or in denial, I do accept the fact that
hadith were fabricated. The extent? Well I am not sure. My intution
would say quite alot. I have not come onto studies which give an EXACT
nature to this level. Any insights from the likes of the cultish
Rashad Khalifa and Jeramiah ( sorry I just had to put that one in, I
know it is "wrong"). It just does not follow though. Huge fabrications
therefore the Isnad system is invalid. The Isnad system detects the
authentic ones. Bad Logic!

> IMRAN
> Au contraire, the above argument is very sloppy. First, I am not denying
> that the *conceptual application* of mutawatir hadith. The *idea* of tawatur
> is fine, but you need to prove that this actually is the case with respect
> to the hadith that apparently fall into this category. And of course, you'll
> only be able to do this after you prove that isnads do provide an authentic
> criteria for the classification of the hadith. Please don't fall into the
> trap of thinking that simply because we can provide an isnad which goes
> right back to the Prophet, that therefore, the isnad is true! You need to
> give some kind of corroborating evidence to back this up.

Good start, you accept the conceptual nature of Muttawatir. So what do
you understand by it? Why do you accept it? And why not apply it here?
I think I have clearly shown it. Nabia Abbots example with ONE hadith
(we have hadiths with much larger chains that can be cross referenced)
just shows the system in work.. It is not a circular argument by the
way . How do you know the Isnad system is valid ? Because the Hadith
are sahih! How do you know the Hadith are sahih? Because the Isnad is
correct! The fact that we can go ABOVE this and see the collections in
different areas and I repeat ad nauseum cross check them removes this
circular nature.

> The assertions about human language and tawatur are all well and good, but
> are unfortunately red herrings because they have no bearing on the truth of
> corpora of hadith which are *claimed* to be mutawatir tradition.

No they are not red herrings, for they prove that we have to have at
least a concept of muttawatir as true until proven otherwise. That is
important which I will show later on in rebuttle to the apparent
paradox of knowledge.

> IMRAN
> Off you go again with misconstruing my position! Who said I denied the hadith
> completey? Or that I ever claimed that the Mu'tazila ever did so? They regarded
> the hadith *on the whole* as being rather problematic like myself.

What do we mean by "whole"? Which Hadith do you accept? That way you
can rule out my "misconstring" . Your analogy with the Mutazzila is
still wrong. They believed that some hadith were Muttawatir in
REALITY, not problematic like yourself!

> GHALI
> > Jeremiah is not good company trust me! Just check out his refutations
>

> IMRAN
> Another argumentum ad hominem eh?

Keeping to your standards really!

> GHALI
> > Corpus! What?! So were is your proof for this? Have you actually sat
> > down and seen most of the hadith and come to the conclusion that they
> > mostly lead to contradictions that cannot, let us just say POSSIBLY
> > be explained away?
>
> IMRAN
> No, I admit I have not sifted through the entire hadith collection trying
> to find contradictions, but I have read the writings of *Muslim* scholars,
> not just Orientalists, who admit that there are contradictions in the
> hadith literature. I can get the references if you want!

Please do! Rememeber no quotations for the sake of it. I need clear
references to primary sources with the argument involved. Since you
have not sifted through them, I can say that your beliefs are based on
trust! An interesting issue for one obsessively invoking the
verification principle.

> IMRAN
> Would you mind elaborating on what Shokani had to say? As for the hadith
> on earth situated on turtles and fish, etc, I need to find the reference
> in Abrahamov's book, so I'll get back to you on that one.

Why can't you just read it for yourself. I don't have time to quote
large sections from books everytime a hadith is brought forward with
an APPARENT contradiction, we would be here forever! For examples on
the methodology of bringing hadith in conformity just read the ENGLISH
translation of Bidayaat al Mujtahid. It probably has some of the
examples you mentioned. Any Usul al Fiqh work will give you details of
the methods used. An important claim to mention here. If hadiths can
be brought together in harmony then it is not NECESSARY that they are
in contradiction. That is all I am claiming. The burden of proof is on
the person who say they are NECESSARLY contradictions as this would
have to apply in every possible world, that is if we take modal logic
as a criteria for the defn of Possible and Necessary.

> IMRAN
> Now, now, let's not get all excited. First of all, allow me to correct you
> on your erroneous assertion. David Hume did NOT consider miracles to be
> IMPOSSIBLE. This was the position of Benedict de Spinoza. David Hume on the
> other hand gave arguments against the IDENTIFICATION of a miracle. See the
> following article for more details:
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html

The link didn't help. First spinoza cannot be quoted here as they both
have different understandings of what was necessary, Spinoza being the
archetype of Rationalists. So what was David Hume's argument? A
miracle has to break the laws of nature, we can never realise that
because we can never have an understanding of Necessary de re rather
than de dicto (He did not believe in synthetic a prior truths, one of
the reasons of Kant's work)so we can never know that the laws of
nature are broken i.e we can never identify a miracle as truly being a
miracle. A subtle difference if I say so myself. So subtle that I
think really there is NO difference. IF we cannot talk MEANINGFULLY
about a miracle, something which his position leads to, then I would
say it is Impossible. "Something about which nothing can be said is
exactly the same as nothing about which nothing can be said!" The
miracle in the end becomes a
"nothing". I know Craig does not put it in this way but I can defend
it. Hume only believed in the empirical world not in a world of
rationalist logic.

> In the "Wars of the Jews", the Jewish historian Josephus reported that during
> the Roman siege of Jerusalem, people saw chariots and armoured soliders in the
> clouds surrounding the city. Do you believe that? Would you believe it if one
> established the authenticity of the works of Josephus? The Roman historian
> Suetonius in his work, "The Twelve Caesars" reported that when Roman officials
> were disputing where they would cremate the body of Julius Caesar, two divine
> forms came down with torches and set fire to the pyre, and thus Caesar was
> cremated there. Do you believe this? Would you believe this if Suetonius's
> work was proven authentic today? If not why not? I mean, these are HISTORIANS
> man, they wouldn't be daft enough to lie! ;) Please give an answer with does
> not special plead for the hadith.

The quote " I mean these are HISTORAINS man, they wouldn't be daft
enough to lie" is quite hilarious. At least you have a sense of
humour.

but the majority
> of New Testament scholars agree that there is ample evidence to suggest that
> Jesus was indeed crucified. And applying Occam's Razor, the standard Christian
> belief in crucifixion is clearly favourable over the Muslim belief, based on
> the available *historical* evidence. No daft conspiracy theory here!

Interesting claim. A Reliance on the majority. Where is there proof?
Especially as one of the references they love to quote is JOSEPHUS,
see above. Occam's Razor? What?! Where? How? Why? so many questions.
Occam would not be to pleased ( I know he is not the source of the
principle) when you go into the details of this argument and
complicate it beyond recognition!

> (a) we have an infinite regress of justified beliefs or (b) none of our
> beliefs are justified (since the regress if finite will terminate at some
> fundamental non-inferential presupposition). Which is it?

Not a dichotomy! What happened to your verification principle? Thrown
out of the window? Arguments can stop when provided with Statistical
empirical evidence that can be repeated or when we are provided proofs
of a Muttwatir nature. Maybe even both! So arguments of the nature, It
is true because the propostion says so is still invalid. The problem
is that you have not refuted the Curry's paradox which leads from
this. Do you believe that Snow is black or that the earth is flat or
even

If this proposition is true then the Isnad system is correct.

The arguments continues as in the previous contribution to this
thread.

> You will come across the testimony of EYE-WITNESSES who saw the golden
> plates handed to Joseph Smith. Do you believe this account? The Book of
> Mormon is only about 150 years old, compare this to the testimonies of
> the hadith written well over 1000 years ago. So the testimonies of the
> Mormons is much more recent and authentic than the hadith. Do you believe
> it? Of course you don't. You think it's nonsense. I think you'll need to
> do some major surgery now on your evidentialist principle!

Who are these eye-witnesses? Can they be verified in the same manner
as mentioned before? Really the analogy is a bit pathetic. So go on
and give me the details of the Mormon argument that would be fun! As
for the 150/1000 year apparent problem, it is just getting worse for
you isn't it.

> IMRAN
> No, I spoke of the distinction between scientific and personal explanations.
> Go ahead and check it out, it's in the first few chapters of his book.

Really? it seems to me you have misunderstood him. In the Existence of
God Swinburne, not satisfied with the logical arguments for God's
existence, bases his proof on a PROBABLE scientific notion so he can
lead to the conclusion that we are justified in having a PERSONAL
explanation for the Universe. What does he means by personal? Someone
with an intention and also in this case not material. Being the
simpler explaination ( a very scientific method here) God would be the
best example. It just is a Probable version of the design argument
which uses SCIENTIFIC METHODS. It is NOT the personal experience which
you were alluding to before. A totally different argument i.e. I have
a personal experience and therefore it must be from God.

> IMRAN
> OK, why don't you present to us your arguments then? Dr. Saifullah has not
> presented any so far in our discussions.

I have refuted your arguments for the first stages i.e nutfah alaqah.
That was a start (see the thread ) So why don't you comment?

> IMRAN
........................................................., you're
ignoring
> the fundamental aspect of human nature and experience which plays a HUGE
> role in why people believe in God and so on (e.g. the "fitrah", etc). Even
> Kant, who hammered nearly all the so-called proofs for believing in God had
> this to say in his "Critique of Practical Reason":
>
> "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe,
> the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens
> above and the moral law within. I have not to search for them and conjecture
> them as though they were veiled in darkness or were in the transcendent
> region beyond my horizon; I see them before me and connect them directly with
> the consciousness of my existence ... the moral law reveals to me a life
> independent of animality and even of the whole sensible world, at least so
> far as may be inferred from the destination assigned to my existence by this
> law, a destination not restricted to conditions and limits of this life, but
> reaching into the infinite."

I don't know about the extent that personal experience contributed to
people's beliefs. I know though that it cannot be the ONLY source. As
for Kant, well he is known to have later introduced God as a PRAGMATIC
necessity for his moral imperatives. Something I guess which is
difficult to defend from his position. It would be best if they had a
FORMAL basis in logic. That is the reason why one of the criticisims
against him is just that FORMALISM. Maybe he introduced this comment
or political reasons. But anyway another quote! Devoid of argument.
Just resorting to the fact that it was "..EVEN KANT"!

> No, not the sole proof, but a strong component.

Agreed!

> GHALI
> > I think it boils down to this notion of Multiple narrators in
> > different geographic areas. (Muttawatir). So how do you answer all the
> > proof we have given you with numerous manuscripts found in different
> > areas of the world traced back to the times of the companions?
>
> IMRAN
> What proof?

Lots of it mentioned!

> GHALI
> > Any comments?
>
> IMRAN
> Oh just a few trivial observations here and there.

Your right about that!

Any comments?

Ghali

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>It seems
>that Brother Mahdi is emphasizing that word is devoid of the
>intellectual aspect.

No I am not. I said that Allah was describing these people in ways befitting
their character. For example, an attack against Abu Lahab was not just some
personal vendetta against him, but an attack on also the very kufr way of life
he represented. Notice how Allah mentions in the Surah the fate of Abu Lahab
and his wife. It is of course in the Hell Fire. Those who follow a similar
path such as Abu Lahab will also suffer the same fate as well.

>There is no doubt the Quran appeals to emotion, but this
>emotion is based upon intellectual truth.

I say that the emotions in Islam is based on beliefs (intellectual truth)
rather than vice versa. Yes, emotions are evoked after Allah tells us
something in the Quran, and when Allah describes the Kuffar in a certain way or
tells us about the truth of Islam.

>Take for example in surah Lahab where the hand is representative of
>power. The Quran is alluding to the fact that the leadership of the
>Ka'aba as represented through Abu Lahab is now broken.

I agree akhi. :-)

>Ad hominen from my understanding is resorting to
>attacking a character when one cannot refute the intellectual
>argument.

People like Imran would contend that what you are describing is "argumentum ad
hominem," not just "ad hominem."

Mahdi Muhammad

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum (?),

> Unfortunately, those like Mr. Mahdi
>argue: "Because you cannot prove X wrong, therefore X is true."

Fortunately, I do not argue like that. You cannot quote or cite a single
example where I use such reasoning.

I already read and have books on embryology in the Quran and the evidence is
already presented in these books. A few years ago right here in SRI I
recommended a book where several prominent non Muslim and Muslim scientists
authored a book about embrology in the Quran and Hadith. Basically what I am
saying is that the evidence is there but since you seem to be bent on insisting
that Muslims are using logical fallacies when trying to prove embryology in the
Quran, what is the use of wasting my time to prove to someone who already made
up their mind.

Oh yeah, before I close out, I want to mention there is no such thing as
"liberal" or "conservative" Muslim because no Sahabi or even Muhammad (saaws)
ever labeled themselves as such as title. Since I am not talking about labels
that can be considered legitimate such as what madhhab you belong to, etc., but
actually descriptions of people stance towards Islam itself, such labels are
illegitimate.

The only person here that I know calling themselves as "liberal Muslim" was
Jeremiah. We all here know his views, so enough said. The point that needs to
be made is that "liberal Muslim" really means a Muslim who is not only
infatuated and seduced by the West but adopts their secular viewpoint on life.
Their criterion and measurement for life itself is not Islam but the Western
viewpoint on life. That is why they think that they can own Islam and give it
their own twist and interpretations to it. They consider Muslims who believe
that Islam cannot be interpreted based on whims and desires or the Western
viewpoint on life as "fundamentalist, extremist, fanatic," etc.

To reiterate, I didn't skirt around the issue, I just didn't feel like wasting
my time presenting the evidence you are going to try so hard to "debunk."

To use your reasoning,

"Christian missionary ask for evidence that the Quran is from Allah..."

"Muslim presents evidence to prove that the Quran is from Allah..."

"Christianity missionary rejects the evidence and insists the Muslim is using
invalid debating technique..."

"The debate goes nowhere except for those who believe that evidence has
precedence over no evidence...."

Mahdi Muhammad

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum (?),

>But let me clarify his incorrect understanding
>of argumentum ad hominem.

What misunderstand? You clarify for yourself (and not me) in this following
statement:

>Mr. Mahdi, there is a difference between an ad hominem, and an *argumentum ad
>hominem*. An ad hominem attack is not an argument. If someone said "What a
>poor
>idiot!" for example, that is not an *argument*. An argumentum ad hominem is a
>fallacy committed when the argument proceeds along these lines:
>
>Because P is a <insert personal attacks here> therefore, his argument is
>wrong.

Ok, where did I mention "argumentum ad hominem"? I was saying that Allah
attacks certain people in the Quran, and I said that this can be considered "ad
hominem." Calling someone "zaneem" is correctly describing what they are in a
literal sense, as well is calling some "Abu Lahab" which means "Father of the
Flame," although that is not his real name. People consider such "name
calling" attacks, and they can be argued as such. But then, so what. Now you
*assumed* that I was talking about "argumentum ad hominem", but lacked any
evidence that I even used it.

BTW, I took a class in logic in college and got a B in the class because I was
too lazy to study hard. At any rate, I am quite familiar with these
principles.

You said it yourself that an ad hominem was "An ad hominem attack is not an
argument." Ok, and?

So what are _you_ talking about?

Mahdi Muhammad

[Johnny]

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a17qkm$esa$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

Discussion and comparasion of the Quranic statements on embryology
with those of Galen, Aristotle and Hippocrates is to be found here:

http://www.aquaire.clara.net/

wassalam

Johnny.

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>Cultural context shapes and determines the objects of science-- what
>science chooses to explore. Thus, the new objects that may come from
>science reflect the culture in which the science is taking place.

There is absolutely no proof that the TV *needed* to be in a Western culture in
order for it to be invented. Yes, it could of been more conducive in the West
for the TV to be invented, but all what is needed for something to be invented
is the knowledge that stems from the technological advances.

For example, the West were the first ones to create a nuclear bomb. India,
Pakistan, China and North Korea were also able to created a nuclear bomb, but
these countries are not in the West. They had the knowledge and resources to
created the nuclear weapons. Now you get my point?

In an Islamic society with of course an Islamic culture, anything can be
invented including the TV if the technology is there. It would not be
*impossible* for the TV to be invented in an Islamic society.

That is why I keep saying that civilization and the products of it do not need
a *specific* culture.

Mahdi Muhammad

[Mr Mahdi]

As-salaamu `alaikum,

>This is very dehumanizing, it seems to me, and contrary to the
>tawheedian world-view. Emotions and feelings are completely valid
>sources of information regarding reality.

Ugh! Understand what I am trying to say...

The point that needs to be understood here is that in Islam, we based on our
emotions and feelings on our beliefs and not vice versa. For example, when we
see someone insulting Muhammad (saaws), we get emotional because we believe in
Muhammad (saaws) as the true rasul and nabi of Allah. Our emotions emanate for
our beliefs.

On the other hand, we cannot base our beliefs on emotions. Emotions lack
thought and understanding. It is reactive and cannot analyze the situation.
People join cults and other false religions because of basing beliefs on
emotions. For example, if you were to refute intellectually and conclusively a
belief of a Christian and he refuses to accept the fact that this is indeed a
refutation, what keeps him believing is the fact that he emotions takes
precedence over the intellect for him. Usually, he will justify his blind
faith by using typical, apologetic cop-outs used by religionist apologists
(e.g., "I know its the truth because I 'feel it'.").

>Is the feeling of love "invalid"?
>

Of course not, but I love Islam because I believe in it to be the truth. I
don't believe in Islam because of love but evidence that proves Islam to be
from Allah.

Mahdi Muhammad

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 7 Jan 2002, Omar wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barkatuhu:

> Have you ever read the work of Harald Motzki? I haven't
> see him mentioned anywhere in your post. I strongly urge you to read
> his articles (I will hopefully post references as soon as I can find
> them). His arguments throughly vindicate the tradtional methods of the
> hadith masters, as well as their confidence in the ahadith themselves.

If somebody quotes Juynboll but does not quote Motzki on the issue of
hadith itself is perplexing. It actually shows where exactly is the
scholarship of that person stands. Life has moved on since Juynboll
published his book in early 1980s.

Further it should be added that ever since Motzki published the early
works of hadith (i.e., before "pre-canonical" collections of Bukhari et
al.) such as that by Abd al-Razzaq al-Sana'ni (called Musannaf) among
others, the influence of skeptics such as Schacht, Goldziher and Juynboll
had been receding and it accelerated pretty fast in the 1990s. Imran is
quite oblivious of these developments. In a recent publication on the
collection of the Qur'an, Motzki uses the pre-canonical collections to
establish that the traditional Muslim account is more reliable and that
the Western views which claim to replace them by more plausible and
historically more reliable accounts are obviously far away from what they
make themselves out to be.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 7 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa baraktuhu:

> Indeed, this thread is pretty much finished, but not for the reasons that
> Dr. Saifullah submits. Let us summarize the exchange so far. It was argued
> that embryology in the Qur'an tantamounts to proof for the miraculousness
> of the Qur'an. In reply, I dismissed this as an inadequate polemic for it
> falls prey to two main charges:

Well, firstly, do not put the words in my mouth. I have not claimed or

argued that embryology in the Qur'an tantamounts to proof for the

miraculousness of the Qur'an. And secondly, neither in your reply you were
able to dismissed it as an *inadequate polemic*. In fact, the evidences
that you had produced were no good as it has been analyzed and shown
amply. So, from your point of view Needham turned out to "poor" and his
quotation was nothing but an "appeal to authority" (we do understand the
logic, btw!).

> 1. The arbitrary enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical principle.
> 2. The violation of Occam's Razor.
>
> To this, Dr. Saifullah did not answer, despite repeated mentions of these
> problems (e.g. as noted by Denis Giron).

It is not a good idea to ride on somebody's back without understanding the
argument. The first charge here is that the there was an arbitrary
enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical principle. Instead of showing
the example in the Qur'an somebody scripture was quoted. What has that got
to do with embryology in the Qur'an? Nothing remotely whatsoever. Further,
Basim Mussalam's book was quoted by you in fashion. But you did not
realize that he himself says that Muslims had been using the Qur'anic
terminology to describe Galenic stages centuries ago. So, Muslims a few
centuries ago did understand what these verses said and what they meant.
Arbitrary enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical principle: What are
you talking about?

Further, it should also be pointed out that the issue a mixture of history
of science and scientific interpretation; therefore, there is nothing like
a strict "enforcement of the scientific hermeneutical principle". Please
read a little bit before you argue in haste.

And the next issue is of violation of Occam's razor. Sorry, but this
principle is used in all scientific modelling and theory building. It does
not apply to issues that are a mixture of history of science and
scientific interpretation. You should check again that the realm where
Occam's razor is applied. We are neither involved in building a theory
around the embryology and neither are we interested in theorizing the
whole issue.

> Furthermore, although stating this is not the way he is arguing, what Dr.
> Saifullah is tacitly implying with assertions like "People who are more
> qualified in the field of linguistics, hadith, anatomy, Qur'an and history
> of science have already given the verdict" is his position is automatically
> certified as no one can prove him wrong. Let me repeat once more, this is a
> fallacious argument, for it argues from the premise of ignorance.

Premise of ignorance: what have you been doing all the time? When we asked
you for the evidence to show what Needham has said, you had none to offer.
When we questioned the issue of "appeal to authority", you were caught in
your own web when it was pointed out that you were using Needham that
amounted to "appeal to authority". If you want to prove the people who
worked on the issue of embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith as
incompetent or whatever you have to simply show that the methodlogy that
they adopted is wrong. We know for sure you have not studied it and we
know for sure, right now, you will not be able to even question it. That
leaves you where? Taking refuge in Christian missionary writings? Or Denis
Giron, the self-proclaimed dajjal?

> Until some positive argumentation is received by proponents of this sort of
> polemic, their postings dissolve into nothing more than unproven assertions.
> Hopefully, once Dr. Saifullah completes his paper on the subject, we can go
> forward from this current deadlock.

There is no deadlock from my side. As far as you side is concerned it is
*finished*, no doubts about it. And as far as our side is concerned, you
have to wait and then we will resume the discussion, insha'allah. Till
then, read about the subject!

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[imran...@xtra.co.nz]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

GHALI

> Hello there Jermiah, Love your subtle sarcassim. So your here to give
> your friend Imran a pat on the back. That all it seems to me, an
> emotional appeal

IMRAN
The fact of the matter is, you may be surprised to know there are people
who actually agree with the skeptical outlook I have taken on the hadith.
Condenscending behaviour is a nice tactic, hardly daft I would say, but
it doesn't add an iota of truth to your argument

<snip>

GHALI

> Thanks for taking us on a tour of your magical world of what if's. No
> evidence though to support Imran's contention.

IMRAN
Of course, and we are to think you would humbly concede defeat and step
down from your platform if your argument was shown to be bankrupt? It has
yet to be shown that the archaic science of isnad has anything serious to
offer regarding the authenticity of the corpus of hadith.

[Imran Razi]

wa salaam,

> BTW, I took a class in logic in college and got a B in the class because I was
> too lazy to study hard. At any rate, I am quite familiar with these
> principles.

You would have benefited from more attentive study. It seems to me
that you don't grasp the basic point about logic, that it is no more
than a tool, but a valuable tool. Think of logic as similar to
mathematics (arithmetic, to be precise). In fact, one of the hot
topics in philosophy of logic and mathematics is if math is a form of
logic, or logic is a form of math.

What holds of logic, holds more broadly of philosophy. I see many
students believe philosophy will teach them the meaning of life, and is
therefore a rival of religion. It won't, and it's not. It's just a
tool to help you think more clearly.

Or let me put it this way: logic applied to Islam = theology.

In my book, though, thinking clearly is a virtue, and an Islamic one at
that. I wish more people, esp. Muslims, would engage in it more
intensely.

Now I suppose the next move in this discussion is to debate what
"logic" is. I may check out at this point.

wa salaam,
Imran Razi

[ghali]

Asalaamu'alaikum.

> GHALI
> > Hello there Jermiah, Love your subtle sarcassim. So your here to give
> > your friend Imran a pat on the back. That all it seems to me, an
> > emotional appeal
>
> IMRAN
> The fact of the matter is, you may be surprised to know there are people
> who actually agree with the skeptical outlook I have taken on the hadith.
> Condenscending behaviour is a nice tactic, hardly daft I would say, but
> it doesn't add an iota of truth to your argument

Why should I be surprised? The fact is, he didn't give any evidence
and with that I have a right to be condescending! But the plethora of
evidence I have given regarding the pre-canonical traditions which
allow us to trace narrations back to the prophet using the
"Isnad-cum-Matn" analysis of the likes of Schoelar and Motzki (eg Der
Islam 2001 on the collection of the Quran), well that is not an iota
of evidence. Deny all you want, the case, I think now is closed!

> GHALI
> > Thanks for taking us on a tour of your magical world of what if's. No
> > evidence though to support Imran's contention.
>
> IMRAN
> Of course, and we are to think you would humbly concede defeat and step
> down from your platform if your argument was shown to be bankrupt? It has
> yet to be shown that the archaic science of isnad has anything serious to
> offer regarding the authenticity of the corpus of hadith.

Who are you to say when anything of value has been shown to prove the
"archaic" science of Islam? A skeptical Muslim? I know that! Maybe in
the end you are just screaming for originality! Or maybe you aspire to
be that wonderful "moderate" Muslim that our Reverend Blair and Shiekh
Bush keep talking about

Ghali

[Omar]

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a1dh5g$jfl$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> In a recent publication on the
> collection of the Qur'an, Motzki uses the pre-canonical collections to

> establish that....

Do you have the details of this publication?

Anybody interested in a good summary of one of Motzki's articles
should go to Behnam Sadeghi's hadith bibliography:

http://www.personal-umich.edu/~beh/islam_hadith_bibl.html

Go to the list of secondary sources and click on 'M'. Then scroll
down to 'Motzki'. At the bottom of the 'Motzki' entry is a link to a
good summary of one of his articles. The article attacks some of
Juynboll's misunderstandings about the isnad Malik-Nafi-Ibn Umar, and
gives a good idea of his approach.

Wassalam,

Omar

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 8 Jan 2002 imran...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> GHALI
> > Thanks for taking us on a tour of your magical world of what if's. No
> > evidence though to support Imran's contention.
>
> IMRAN
> Of course, and we are to think you would humbly concede defeat and step
> down from your platform if your argument was shown to be bankrupt? It has
> yet to be shown that the archaic science of isnad has anything serious to
> offer regarding the authenticity of the corpus of hadith.

We have already asked you concerning what do you mean by "authenticity" of
hadith. How is this "authenticity" of yours different from the
"authenticity" as suggested by tradition Islamic scholars? Any brilliant
ideas?

And as for the science of isnad, Motzki and others have used precisely
this science to show how poor was thesis of Schahct, Juynboll and
Goldziher. Perhaps you would be better off reading some of the recent
works, I mean of 1990s. We are not in 1983, are we?

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[M.S.M. Saifullah]

On 9 Jan 2002, Omar wrote:

Assalamu-'alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Do you have the details of this publication?

Harald Motzki's work in Der Islam, "The Collection Of The Qur'an: A
Reconsideration Of The Western Views In Light Of Recent Methodological
Developments", 2001, Vol. 78.

He has shown using the pre-canonical works and canonical works of hadiths
the reliability of the transmission of the hadith concerning the
collection of the Qur'an. He conservatively dates the availability of the
hadith to the last part of 1st century of hijra. And beyond that he has
not commented upon (perhaps another time!). Anyway here are his
conclusions:

"We are unable to prove that the accounts on the history of Qur'an go back
to the eye-witnesses of the events which were alleged to have occurred. We
cannot be sure that the things really happened as is reported in the
traditions. However, Muslims account are much earlier and thus much nearer
to the time of the events than hitherto assumed in Western scholarship.
Admittedly, these accounts contain some details which seem to be
implausible or, to put it more cautiously, await explanation, but the

Western views which claim to replace them by more plausible and
historically more reliable accounts are obviously far away from what they

make themselves out to be." p. 31.

In other words, the methodlogy of Wansbrough and Burton, not be mention
Schacht from whom they derived their skepticism, have been laid to rest

I think Motzki's paper should be read with:

Estella Whelan, "Forgotten Witness: Evidence for the Early Codification of
the Qur'an", 1998, Journal Of The American Oriental Society, Volume 118,
No. 1, pp. 1-14.

as well as a recent publication on the Qiraa'aat of Ibn 'Aamir deciphered
in a 1st century Mss of the Qur'an.

Y. Dutton, "An Early Mushaf According To The Reading Of Ibn 'Aamir",
Journal Of Qur'anic Studies, 2001, Volume III (no. I), pp. 71-89.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/

[Saabirah]

Salaams,

> Of course not, but I love Islam because I believe in it to be the
> truth. I don't believe in Islam because of love but evidence that
>proves Islam to be from Allah.

Does Faith enter into the picture at all? IT's not Faith to believe
something because it's been proven to you. Do you trust in Allah (swt)?
Trust is a feeling.

Thinking about and feeling our religion is necessary in order for our
attitudes (feelings) are in the right place. Obeying rules, memorized by
rote, is intellectual/cultural only. If we are going to follow the example
of the Prophet (pbuh) then perhaps we might try to understand why he did
what/when/how he did it if we are to adopt his behavior to our own lives.

Maybe it appears so hard to adapt to the Western lifestyle because Islam has
become a culture instead of a Faith. It appears impossible to adapt to a
different set of experiences because so much of the *reason religion is
practiced is dependant upon a given set of circumstances. Example: Men....
don't bother thinking about and controlling your feelings around women. You
don't have to... they're all covered up to the point that you cannot tell
one from the other..... i.e., sheep. Your feelings do not go away just
because you avoid testing them. One certainly would not like admitting
feelings if it appears to be impossible to master them.

Not admitting feelings also allows a person to fool themselves into thinking
they possess all kinds of virtue. Example: "I'm having a terribly hard
time...tragedy! I'm wondering if Allah (swt) even exists!" Feelings...
sadness, anger, doubt. Those are real whether you care to admit it or not.
Maybe it's easier to discount feelings and merely say, "AlHumduli'Llah" no
matter how you feel. But, when you deny "bad" feelings, you cannot
appreciate "good" feelings. "Allah sends laughter and tears" and generally
people feel happy when they laugh, sad when they cry. Can you trust in or
be grateful to Allah (swt) if you cannot feel happiness and sadness?

waAllahu 'Alim.
--
Saabirah

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Contemporary Muslim Expressions
http://users.sgi.net/~saabirah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Omar]

ghal...@yahoo.co.uk (ghali) wrote in message news:<a1bejt$71v$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> Finally why this arbitary acceptance of Historical events? When is an
> event an expression of reality and when is it a fabrication? What are
> your higher principles that differentiate? An answer please. You being
> a German doc is not enough!

I don't know what kind of answer you are expecting to get from this
character. He writes off the Koran as a forgery, and yet sees no
problem with an isolated allegation about Zuhri.

Agreed: being a German doc is not enough... even to other German
docs :-)

The *reputable* German docs, the ones who actually hold academic
chairs in respectable insitutions, laugh their heads off at Heger's
silly arguments.
Heger can't get published in a decent peer-reviewed journal, so he
comes here expecting to intimidate amateurs like us with references to
obscure figures on the lunatic fringe of nineteenth century European
Orientalism.

To those who care about historical truth, the classical hadith
science whose finest representatives include such men as Bukhari,
Muslim, Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and many others, is more than enough as a
reliable guide to what happened in early Islamic times.

German docs, French docs, and Dutch docs are all irrelevant, except
perhaps for occasional comic relief when they won't leave us alone.

[ghali]

> > In a recent publication on the
> > collection of the Qur'an, Motzki uses the pre-canonical collections to
> > establish that....
>
> Do you have the details of this publication?
>

Assallaam alekuum Omar,

Jasakallah for your contribution, I have in fact pasted the summarised
responses to Junobyll in the one of my responses to the Imran the
personel faith fanatic. Motzki has also advanced since Benhim's
Bibilography. Things are going fast! For more interesting articles see

His work on the collection of the Quran i.e. the narration were he
traces it to at least the time of Zuhri. He even has no difficulty in
acccepting the narration going back to the eye-witness reporters is in
Der- Islam 2001 in English (Eat your heart out Herr Doc Heger). You
know though the number of German articles on this are plenty. Any
German or even French speakers in your area. The English articles are
enough though.

In his bibliography see his article on the prophet and the cat, a
hilarious response to calder who sees most of the pre-canonical work
as later redactions traced back to the authors. So Bukhari, Muslim,
Malik, Ibn Hanbal, Abd-Razzaq and so on did not actually write them.
It is of interest, though obviously we have many papyri actually dated
in the first 200 year. see Khouri's work in his Codex's of arabic
antiquity volume 1-6. Also see Nabia Abbots famous works on this. But
we have enough manuscripts of the above collections written by their
students or their followers in different parts of the world that
actually allow us to trace it back. Yassin Dutton has an excellent
response to Calder on the Muwatta alone. For even Schact of all people
said that Malik actually wrote it. That is why the likes of Juynobll
have emerged to recover what is left of their radical theories and
"moderate" it a bit more. It only plays into our hands. I have also a
work by one of the scholars on the Risala of Shafi for which I will
get more details, who actually has a manuscript written by Rabi i.e
the student of Shafi himself. The other issue to note is that the
system had become much more advanced at this stage and it is much
easier to trace back the collections to the authors. Don't forget the
works of Abd-Wahb which is actually a pre-canonical early papyrus
collection about thirty sheets of it, the earliest extant papyrus
collection of this magnitude.

Another reference is the recent book The Bibliography of Muhammad an
issue of sources edited by Motzki which has numerous articles by the
Motzki camp. Even a very old papyri of Uqba bin Musa from around his
time i.e a successor, which is noted by Schoeller. He drastically
concludes that Schact's theory is in need of serious revision.

Also Motzki has some lecture notes on the Internet about Zuhri (see
the bibliography of his collections article in Der Islam 2001.

In the same periodical is the works of one of his students? on the
manumission of the slaves in hadith a response to Patricia crone. i.e
Der Islam 2001

Motzki though is not the only one in this camp ,I will get a list of
many Orientalists who are entering his "fold" with quite a few
articles to their names as well.

There is alot more but I think this will suffice for the moment. Don't
you think it is amazing that this Imran keeps quoting out-dated
material over and over again claiming we are not providing him
evidence! If this is not evidence what is?

Ghali