The Quran And Modern Science Dr Zakir Naik

[Mariam Obregon]

HiSalman,

Not sure whether I should be even saying anything at all. I probably should shut up. But can't help ...

First, thanks for the post.

"In fact, medieval Muslim scholars can set a nice counter example. Al-Haytham, Al-Bitruji, Ibn-al-Shatir, etc. did not use the Qur'anic text to raise objections to Ptolemy's models."

How many text books of science even mentions their name?

I am yet to find a main stream science book that even discusses the work of these Muslim scholars. Any objection to Ptolemy's model is mentioned in the form of the Coppernican model. No one talks of how Coppernicus worked out his model. Not even his book (De Revolutionabis? -- I hope the spelling is correct) mentions or acknowledges any of these people. So how do you know that these people did not use Qur'an? As far as I know, their main inspiration was Qur'an.

"For present, if you want to make progress in science, please keep it separated from religion."

Stephen Jay Gould says science and religion are non overlapping magisteria (NOMA). So they should be kept separate?

I don't think they are totally NOMA. Nor do i agree with you that science should be kept separate from religion.

Well, science and religion are 2 very different domains. And probably practiced also in very different ways.

I do not understand why you think progress in science cannot be made if one cannot keep it separate from religion. I think science works in a certain way and irrespective of what religion offers, it will continue to work its way.

"But motivations for finding modern science in the Qur'an is mostly driven by apologetics."

Forgive me if I am wrong. But you seem to not like that people do look for scientific facts in Qur'an. Any particular reason for this? I am asking because I see nothing wrong in doing it.

Anonymous:

"How many text books of science even mentions their name? "

Most serious history of science books in the last two decades do talk about efforts of medieval Muslim astronomers to challenge the Ptolemaic system. Ibn al-Shatir's name is quite prominent in this regard (see Saliba's lecture that I have added to the post). Al-Haytham is usually mentioned in optics textbooks and a crater on the Moon and an asteroid has been named after him.

As far as Copernicus' work is concerned, do check out the Saliba lecture. He talks about this towards the end.

"how do you know that these people did not use Qur'an? As far as I know, their main inspiration was Qur'an. "

Qur'an may very well have been the motivation to explore the heavens (and to get a better handle on the calendar system, and prayer times, etc). But when they listed objections to the Ptolemaic system, as far as I know, they did not cite a Qur'anic verse for that. And remember, their objections to the Ptolemaic system did not include removing the Earth from the center of the universe. They were dealing with ways to accommodate observations and models that predict the motions of planets and did not like epicycles and off-centered equants.

"Forgive me if I am wrong. But you seem to not like that people do look for scientific facts in Qur'an. Any particular reason for this? I am asking because I see nothing wrong in doing it."

As I explained in the post, there is nothing of scientific value (again, I emphasize, scientific value) that can (or has been obtained) from looking for clues in any of the holy books. Its not just the Qur'an. I have the same feeling for the Bible, the Torah, Bhagvad Gita, etc. Again, the reason why people look for science in these books is antithetical to the way science works. By the way, I'm also not fond of the idea of finding science in Moby Dick, Lord of the Rings, and the Rubayyats of Omar Khayyam.

A deeper reason is that I hope the best and the brightest minds in the Muslim world apply themselves in doing actual science, and not be distracted from such pseudo-scientific activities as finding science in the Qur'an. As I explained in the post, nothing follows from such an activity.

I expect that people believe - because they have faith. This is a personal journey for everyone. I hope this faith is strong enough to not need the crutches of science to validate it. As is, people of different faiths are already "finding" science in their respective holy books. I'm sure, everyone involved believes that they are absolutely correct and everyone else is absolutely wrong.

Hope this answers some of your concerns. If you are in college, I hope you take up science. It would be great to have good critical thinkers from the Muslim world - in the tradition of Al-Haytham or John Herschel or Edwin Hubble or Abdus Salam.

Thanks for your long response, Salman. I enjoyed reading it.

"But when they listed objections to the Ptolemaic system, as far as I know, they did not cite a Qur'anic verse for that."

Why would they?

They did not take Qur'an as a scientific text book. That is not what it is. And citing a Qur'anic verse on a purely scientific piece of writing will not add any value to it. Why then is this even expected?

"And remember, their objections to the Ptolemaic system did not include removing the Earth from the center of the universe. They were dealing with ways to accommodate observations and models that predict the motions of planets and did not like epicycles and off-centered equants."

My saying that the Muslims scholars did raise objections to the Ptolemaic model is not to lay emphasis on WHY they objected. But to let people know that some scholars did contribute to the work of Coppernicus even though, as Saiba too mentioned, they were not acknowledged.

"A deeper reason is that I hope the best and the brightest minds in the Muslim world apply themselves in doing actual science, and not be distracted from such pseudo-scientific activities as finding science in the Qur'an."

The best and brightest minds are probably dong science.

But what you call 'psuedo-scientific activity' is not pseudo-scientific activity in my opinion. It is not a 'scientific activity' of any sort. But it is a 'scholarly activity.'

This 'scholarly activity,' in my mind, should be revived and reinvigorated for it has been largely buried for a long time. I don't think people should shy away from work that adds value to the Qur'an and Islam.

I don't mind if people do similar work to add value to the Bible or Torah or other religious texts. Such activity should not be discouraged.

"I hope this faith is strong enough to not need the crutches of science to validate it."

This is so very wrong. Sorry to say so.

Science is not used or misused as a 'crutch' to validate faith. Science is simply used to add more meaning to faith and to consolidate issues of faith.

If I provide a book that was written 1400 years ago, but has some facts about science that we discovered in 2010, I am sure it would mean a lot to an unbiased person. And when I tell them that it is God's revelation, it would be believable because it has this proof.

On the contrary, if my book has nothing of the sort, at best, it would be another Harry Potter.

I seriously think Islam has a lot that needs to be revived in the name of 'Islamic Science.' If we do not do this, it is like ignoring that Egyptology or microbiology requires to be a specific disciplines in the academic curriculum.

Islamic Science may not be an -ology. But it is still big enough to be a subject (of religion?).

"If you are in college, I hope you take up science."

Well, I love science and my education is in one of the many fields of science. But unfortunately not cosmology; I find cosmology extremely fascinating.

"If I provide a book that was written 1400 years ago, but has some facts about science that we discovered in 2010, I am sure it would mean a lot to an unbiased person. And when I tell them that it is God's revelation, it would be believable because it has this proof.

On the contrary, if my book has nothing of the sort, at best, it would be another Harry Potter."

Hmm...may I ask what procedure you are going to deduce to "prove" that there was science in the Qur'an? The point of my post was that the language of religious texts (including that of the Qur'an) is not anywhere precise to make any claims about the presence of science in the 21st century. This is the reason adherents of all reasons find science in their respective holy books. So is there an objective way of testing it out? I doubt it - and this is the reason I think it is a waste of time (not much different than astrology). [also, remember, to include not only positive instances of science in the Qur'an but also disconfirming evidences - such as the claim that some humans lived a life of hundreds of years in the past. Otherwise, your study will be suffering for "confirmation bias"].

Hi Guys,

That's an interesting discussion indeed. I would just like to add few points here.

Being a muslim, I love Quran and deeply respect it. But with all due respect, I've found Quran's verses vague and can be molded (interpreted) in different ways.

No Muslim scholar said earth is round. No Muslims scholar supported Galilio when he declared that. Only once it has been proven, we went into Quran and came up with a verse, which can be interpreted that way, which is, day follow the night and night follow the day (or something like that). Now how can u get the idea that world is round from this verse? (I saw Zakir Naik quoting this verse to prove scientific validity/compliance of Q uran).

I'm pretty sure, once evolution theory is widely proven, we will come up with a verse(s) from quran proving that. We do it to keep Quran relevant. Infact I know some Muslims who don't object theory of evolution as it doesn't go against there interpretation of Quran.

Apologies for being bit blunt. Many people found my views blasphemous. But the truth has to be told.

By the way, there is an interesting article on dawn.com ( -content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/nadeem-f-paracha-science-ends-here-060) which worth looking.

Peace

3a8082e126