General thoughts on the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an
Denis Giron
Currently Mohd Anisul Karim and I are taking part in a discussion
regarding a debate I had with Nadir Ahmed (the subject of which was
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an). The still-evolving
thread has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=dd10d076.03091...@posting.google.com
I wanted to create a separate post where I offered general thoughts on
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an. For those who do
not know, this is the approach that attempts to employ exegesis that
correlates Qur'anic verses with recent (and sometimes not-so-recent)
scientific discoveries, with the intention of demonstrating a divine
origin for the Qur'an. It is also called "the scientific miracles
polemic" by some.
There have been previous general criticisms of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach (both on and off SRI; by both Muslims
and non-Muslims), such as the following:
Behnam Sadeghi's November 22, 1999 SRI post "Problems with Dawa
Methods"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SOL.4.10.9911210450080.5985-100000%40qbert.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
Imran Aijaz' article "Evidentialist Apologetics in Islam"
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/aplgtcs.htm#science
Andy Bannister's article "Can 'Modern Science' be found in the
Qur'an?"
http://answering-islam.org/Andy/fallacies.html
And there are criticisms of specific examples of the polemic (exempli
gratia: Big Bang, embryology, et cetera), which are numerous, and
include (but are not limited to) the following:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/bigbang.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdfe7cc1.0304161216.f5bd75%40posting.google.com
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/10_myths_about_Quran.htm
Of course, whether it be the examinations of specific examples, or the
examination of the approach in general, the result is generally the
same. As Ziauddin Sardar put it, "Sadly, none of this has been
enough." [See Sardar, "Waiting for rain: Fundamentalists have hijacked
Islamic science," in New Scientist Magazine, December 15, 2001, p.
51]. Now, this does not mean that I think that this post will,
therefore, close the book on the debate. However, I do think that a
general framework of response should be constructed (and this has
already been done for the most part by Aijaz and Bannister). Adding to
the evolving framework, I would like to submit a couple brief thoughts
here.
(1) AMOUNT OF SCIENTIFIC EXEGESIS FOR OTHER TEXTS
Numerous critics of the approach have argued that such things can be
done with any religious scripture, particularly those written in
semitic languages. In response to this criticism, Mohd Anisul Karim
wondered aloud why we do not see more examples, then, of this being
done by Jews and Christians with the Bible. I gave possible general
reasons in the thread listed above, but I would like to submit another
possible reason here. In this I will be focusing on the issue of such
correlations being particularly possible with religious texts written
in Semitic languages.
First, note that there are indeed Jews and Christians who attempt take
a scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Bible (examples that come to
mind are Rabbi Dovid Brown or Hugh Ross, the latter being a man whom
William Lane Craig onced referred to as "evangelicalism's most
important scientific apologist"). Nonetheless, the approach is much
less prevalent among Jews and Christians than it is among Muslims. I
would suspect that one possible reason is due to language. If it is
true that scientific correlations can be more easily wrenched from
texts written in semitic languages (due to their seemingly more
three-dimensional nature), one must ask how many Jews, Christians and
Muslims speak the relevant languages.
Of the various sources I have checked, it is generally agreed that
roughly a fifth of the global Muslim ummah is fluent in Arabic. This
would put the number of Arabic-speaking Muslims at over 200 million.
The number of Hebrew speaking persons (be they Jew, Christian, or
otherwise), does not come anywhere close. Keep in mind that there is
only one country that has Hebrew as its official language, that being
the modern state of Israel. There are less than 12 million Jews world
wide, and roughly half speak Hebrew. So, the number of Hebrew speaking
Jews hovers around six million.
As for Hebrew speaking Christians, they are actually out-numbered by
Hebrew-speaking Muslims! For example, of the six million Israeli
citizens, about 19.9% are Arabs (i.e. these are Israeli Arabs and do
not iclude Palestinians who do not have Israeli citizenship). Of those
Israeli Arabs, the vast majority of them are Muslim. Israeli citizens
are nearly 15% Muslim and about 2% Christian. This would mean that in
Israel alone there are close to 900,000 Hebrew speaking Muslims
(versus only 120,000 Hebrew speaking Christians). Add in the thousands
(if not tens of thousands) of Palestinians who have worked for years
in Israel and thus also speak Hebrew fluently (who are also
predominantly Muslim), combined with the fact that Hebrew speaking
Christians outside of Israel/Palestine are almost non-existent (they
are restricted to a few thousand scholars scattered across
universities around the world), and we see that it is indeed true that
Hebrew-speaking Muslims vastly outnumber Hebrew-speaking Christians.
So, what we realize is that Muslims who speak Arabic number over 200
million, while Jews and Christians who speak Hebrew number at well
under 7 million. I would imagine that for a person to seriously
support the scientific-hermeneutic approach to a given religious text,
they would have to be both a believer and a speaker of the original
language of the text. Thus, even if the ratio of Arabic-speaking
Muslims who champion the approach was equal (percentage wise) to the
ratio of Hebrew-speaking Jews and Christians who take a similar
approach to their text, we would still have to conclude that for every
Rabbi Brown there are nearly 30 Shaykh Zindaanees. That alone would
explain the disparate numbers.
(2) ASSUMING ONE'S OWN CONCLUSION
The chief problem with the approach is one that has been touched on by
Aijaz and others: that being that there is a real circularity to the
approach. This is particularly apparent with regard to the intent of
the author. In light of a recent discovery, the Qur'an is
reinterpreted. It is pointed out that specific words in the relevant
passage can have other meanings. When these meanings can be loosely
correlated with scientific discoveries, it is assumed that this was
the author's intention. The problem is that the point was to prove
that the author of the Qur'an was referring to such and such
scientific theory, but this is "proven" by first assuming that a
specific meaning was intended, and then further assuming that this
meaning was intended to be a reference to the relevant theory. In
other words, in assuming the inentions and meta-intentions of the
author, the proponent of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the
Qur'an assumes that the author was referring to the relevant discovery
- which is precisely what they were supposed to be proving in the
first place!
There are many examples, such as the belief that "hubuk" in Soorat
az-Zaariyaat 51:7 is a reference to string theory, as the word comes
from a root that means to knit/weave. Of course, this can done with
many texts. For example, in the Bible (Isaiah 40:22) there is a
reference to "chug ha-arets". Now, in both ancient and modern Hebrew,
this was a reference to the horizon. Nonetheless, "chug" can mean
sphere or orb, and "ha-arets" means "the earth". Imagine if the Qur'an
used a phrase that *COULD* be translated "sphere of the earth" - it
would be cited as proof that the text speaks of a round earth (an even
worse example is the claim that "daHahaa" in Soora 79:30 means the
earth is shaped like an egg!). Of course, the problem is still the
same: we are *ASSUMING* this was the intended meaning, and then
further assuming that the intention of this meaning was to convey this
image.
For another example, consider a passage I found in Saint Hilary of
Poiters' "De Trinitate" (a fourth century Christian work). In De
Trinitate 1:4, St. Hilary is referring to what various people believe
and have believed regarding God and creation. Regarding one cohort he
writes: "Some asserted that there was no God at all and venerated only
that nature which came into existence through accidental movements or
collisions." Thus what we see is that avowed Atheists in the fourth
century were claiming that nature has come about either by accident or
collisions. The former (accidents) could be correlated with certain
aspects of things coming about "uncaused" according to some proponents
of Quantum Mechanics, and the latter can very easily be correlated
with the belief held by many string theorists that the Big Bang was
set off by a collision of multidimensional "branes". Can one imagine
how exicited proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach would
be if the Qur'an said that nature came about as the result of a
"collision"? We would be told that this is an "obvious" reference to a
fact that modern physicists are only today starting to realize.
However, an example that is closer to the exegesis applied to the
Qur'an may be needed to drive this point home. So I would like to
discuss the claim that Soorat az-Zaariyaat 51:47 mentions the
expansion of the universe. What I write here was touched on in a post
on the subject from last July:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bac0a2be.0307250946.288b71d0%40posting.google.com
Everything in this polemic rests on the word moosi'oon, which is an
active participle from a word that can mean (among other things)
"expand". So, the proponent of the scientific-hermeneutic approach who
claims that this verse in the Qur'an states that the universe is
expanding first assumes the author itended the meaning expand (why not
the meaning "rich/enrich," especially if the Qur'an is its own
interpreter?). It is never proven that the author intended the meaning
"expanding," rather this is assumed. However, the champion of this
polemic exclaims that it is nearly impossible for a man to write or
utter a statement in Arabic that can mean the heavens are expanding
(which correlates with science easily) if that was not his intention.
In other words, rather than proving intention, the proponent of the
approach simply makes an appeal to personal incredulity.
However, in an Arabic translation of the Bible from the early 19th
century (i.e. before scientists discovered that the universe was
expanding), sentences were written in Arabic that can just as easily
be interpreted as stating that the heavens are expanding. For
examples, see the ABS translation of Isaiah 42:5 and Isaiah 51:13
here:
http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/pdf/2395isa2.pdf
So, we see indisputable proof that it is possible for a person who is
not divinely insprired and not aware that the universe is expanding to
write a sentence in Arabic that can be correlated with the expansion
of the universe the same way that proponents of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach do with the verse from Soorat
az-Zaariyaat. This strikes a major blow to the claim that the sentence
would not correlate with science so well if the author did not intend
it to, and thus it further serves as a general refutation of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach in toto.
This is because, as was noted above, the intention of the author is
assumed, not proven. Proponents of the approach try to escape this
fact by arguing that only sentences that were intended to be a
reference to the relevant scientific discoveries can be correlated
with such. The argument is circular, and analogies have been put forth
(like my embryology analogy) that show the worthlessness of the
approach (i.e. the exegesis would apply just the same even if the
author DID NOT intend that meaning). However, now we have a concrete
example, not just an analogy.
So, appeals to personal incredulity after performing post-hoc
interpretations are not enough. Nor, for that matter, is pointing out
that the absolute intention of the author is lost to us - a black box.
If you can correlate a statement with science after the discovery has
been made, it only means you can harmonize that part of the text with
science. It does not mean that the author of the text intended it to
be a reference to the discovery.
These are my brief thoughts - I'm curious what others think.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Altway
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bac0a2be.03120...@posting.google.com...
> Currently Mohd Anisul Karim and I are taking part in a discussion
regarding a debate I had with Nadir Ahmed (the subject of which was
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an). The still-evolving
thread has been archived by Google here:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=dd10d076.0309151405.2c961fca@posting
..google.com
> I wanted to create a separate post where I offered general thoughts on
the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an.
Comment:-
The Debate does not seem to have been zipped and it would take
more than an hour to download. Not many people would undertake this,
mainly because this kind of debate is not seen as having much importance.
It has been pointed out several times before that:-
(1) Firstly, as has been pointed out before, it is a purely intellectual and
logical
debate where people can define their terms any way they like and select
premises any way they like to reach "conclusion" which are already in their
assumptions and support their prejudices. The debate makes no difference to
these.
(2) Religion is more about insight, perception, inspiration, values,
application rather than bare impersonal facts.
(3) The Quran speaks of Knowledge as that of which people become aware. The
expectation that this knowledge should be described in the Quran in modern
scientific language is utterly absurd. How would people in the past have
understood it if it were? It is, therefore, a question of reinterpreting
the knowledge contained in the Quran in modern terminology. This will be
done according to the knowledge, understanding, motives and insight of the
person doing the interpretation. This will be accepted or rejected according
to the understanding, perception, prejudices, and motives of the reader.
(4) The above applies also in general to various western "scholars" of the
Quran who state that various parts of the Quran are incomprehensible to
them. This may well be so to their Western or modern ears. But instead of
then trying to find out from someone who comprehends they proceed to
speculate and invent their own rationalisations in order, perhaps, to excuse
or hide their inability to comprehend.
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
Aurangzeb Haque
> (1) Firstly, as has been pointed out before, it is a purely intellectual and
> logical
> debate where people can define their terms any way they like and select
> premises any way they like to reach "conclusion" which are already in their
> assumptions and support their prejudices. The debate makes no difference to
> these.
>
> (3) The Quran speaks of Knowledge as that of which people become aware. The
> expectation that this knowledge should be described in the Quran in modern
> scientific language is utterly absurd....
Just to add my bit to the above, here is an excerpt from Chittick in
his keynote address at a conference at Islamabad (www.kalam.org for
details). It is very intersting reading in its entirety, especially
coming from William Chittick.
========
Now let me tell you about a strange event that happened as I was
trying to decide how I might be able to bring home the significance of
the intellectual tradition for people who live in modern times. I was
sitting in my garden in Mt. Sinai, New York, gazing on the early
August flowers. All at once an old man appeared in a place where
there is no gate, and he began walking toward me. I was surprised, to
say the least. Then, however, I looked closely at his face and saw a
luminosity that could not be mistaken. I immediately recognized that
he had to be an apparition from what the intellectual tradition calls
“the world of imagination.”[vi]
The old man came straight up to me and said to me in Arabic, “My
name is Ibn Yaqzan, and I believe that I may be able to help you with
your difficulty.” Without giving me a chance to reply, he began
speaking. Afterwards, I wondered at the name, Ibn Yaqzan, “The
Son of the Awake.” ....
He told me that he had thoroughly surveyed the modern world, and that
he was truly astonished by what he had seen. Back in his times, when
Islamic civilization was vibrantly alive, he had never imagined that
things would come to this. Science and learning have clearly reached
an incredible fever pitch. But, what is really astonishing is not the
ready availability of an enormous amount of information. Rather, what
is totally mind-boggling is the fact that people have no idea that all
this information and learning is useless. It is completely irrelevant
to the purpose of human life. Their understanding of their real
situation has decreased in inverse proportion to the amount of
information that they gather. The more “facts” people
know, the less they understand about themselves and the world around
them.
Ibn Yaqzan was appalled at the loss of any sense of what knowledge is
for. People think that they should gain knowledge so that they can
control their social and natural surroundings and make their physical
lives more comfortable. But, he pointed out, the “quest for
knowledge” that the Prophet made incumbent upon all believers is
not a quest for information or a “better life.” Rather,
it is a quest to understand the Koran and the Hadith, and then, on the
basis of this understanding, it is a quest for self-knowledge,
self-awareness, and the understanding of God’s signs (ayat) in
the universe and the soul. It is a search for wisdom and mastery of
oneself, not for control and manipulation of the world and society.
Ibn Yaqzan was struck by the misuse of words like
“scientist” and “intellectual.” He saw that
people use the word “scientist” to designate experts in a
knowledge that is supposed to be uniquely true and reliable. In fact,
however, scientific knowledge is simply a means to understand
appearances so that they can be manipulated to achieve the desires of
human egos. He said that what people call “science” today
is almost identical to what in his times was called
“sorcery.” Certainly, the goal is exactly the same: To
control God’s creation for short-sighted and egoistic goals, if
not for demonic ends, by recourse to means that escape ordinary human
comprehension.
Then there is the word “intellectual.” In his time, an
intellectual was someone who knew God, the world, and the human soul
on the basis of verification, not imitation. An intellectual was
someone who claimed to know only what he had verified for himself.
Otherwise, he admitted his ignorance or the fact that he was simply
quoting someone else’s opinion. In modern times, however, all
those to whom that word “intellectual” is applied have
received practically all their knowledge by imitation, not
verification. They take what they call “facts” from
others, without verifying their truth. Then they build their own
theories and practices on the basis of the facts, producing an endless
proliferation of new theories and new facts that go back to no
foundation in reality. The experts in the modern scientific and
critical disciplines, whether or not they are considered
intellectuals, do not know things as they are, but only in terms of
the consensus of their colleagues, mathematical constructs,
theoretical fantasies, and ideological presuppositions.
====
Aurangzeb Haque
Zuiko Azumazi
"Aurangzeb Haque" <rl...@brain.net.pk> wrote in message
news:6955d88b.03120...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Rather, it is a quest to understand the Koran and the Hadith, and then, on
the
Question:-
Is it true that the 'academic' study of Hadith is considered as an Islamic
science or not? Don't Islamic jurists spend considerable time learning this
science? How do you "understand" without learning or an adequate
'body-of-knowledge? What is the function of becoming an Islamic jurist if
it can it be said that it is altruistically "on the basis of this
understanding, it is a quest for self-knowledge, self-awareness" solely?
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot
explain to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves.
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com