THE ULTIMATE PUBLIC DEBATE: DENIS GIRON VS. NADIR AHMED
Nadir Ahmed
Denis Giron Vs. Nadir Ahmed
Download the debate here: www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
On Sept 9,2003, Denis Giron and Nadir Ahmed engaged in a public
debate over paltalk on a topic which has been debated for over
5 years here on google. It was the final "showdown" between the
2 in which they started a few google posts back in January:
Alhumdulilah, "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" the Quran has been *proved* to
be the work of a greater power, and a human being could not
have been the source. I would encourage all the Muslims to
take the time to listen to the debate, and spread it around to their
Muslim and Non-Muslims friends. Inshallah, this debate will
be a very powerful tool in your dawaa efforts.
Download the debate here: www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
*And please write your review here on this google post.*
Download the debate here: www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
Why the need for a debate on the Quran and Modern Science?
Problem:
Websites on the Quran and Modern Science have been up
on the internet and have been viewed by millions of people.
I think its time to do an assessment as to how effective
these website have been over the past 5 years.
I think we need to be very brutally honest with ourselves
and ask the question:
"how successful has our websites on Islam and Science been?"
One way to judge success is by asking:
"how many people have walked away from one of these
websites, *CONVINCED* that the author of the Quran could
not have been a man, rather, a greater power had to have
been the source of the Quran?"
well, in my estimation, not a alot. In fact, I believe one
can make a pretty good case showing that these websites
have been for the most part, ineffective. I believe one
of the main reasons is because these websites do not address
the non muslims concerns; they do not addressthe non-muslims
objections, weather they be logical objections or emotional
objections.
Solution:
Therefore, I think it time we need to take a new approach to
this matter. We need to limit the places where the non-muslim
can run(intellectually).
Therefore, I think what is needed to supliment the many
websites on Quran and Science is the following debate in which
the Quran has been *PROVED* to be authored by greater source
than man by answering virtually all of the objections.
thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
Mohd Anisul Karim
I would like to make some comments on your very interesting debate
with Denis Giron.
The opening by brother Nadir went pretty well as he raised some of the
most common arguments presented by agnostics regarding the
scientific-hermenutic approach applied to the Quran. That includes
arguments ranging from the issue of mere mortals speaking such to
plagiarism. Although Denis' main contention, throughout the debate,
was "Is it possible for mere mortals to speak things as the author
spoke in the Quran" and according to him, it was a resounding yes.
Denis backed his claim by citing numerous passages from pre-Islamic
thinkers especially Aristotle. According to Denis, if the claim made
by thinkers like Aristotle has the remostest semblance to what the
Quran claims... then we have the possibility that mere mortals could
utter such without invoking a source greater than man. Nadir countered
this claim by asking Denis to see the evidence in a collective manner
rather than judging them individually. He listed 8 scientific claims
made by the Quran that couldn't have been possibly known to man at
that age and showed their unlikelihood, by estimating their
probabilities, to be claimed by a mere mortal. Denis provided a very
weak defense in countering this approach. He claimed that if we can
have a human explanation for one verse in the Quran... then we can
have it for all of them. Nadir conceded this previously and added that
this is possible only if we were to make the judgement for each verse
individually, which was not what Nadir had in mind. Denis also
responded to the probability argument (that I think I misunderstood;
if you're reading this Denis, you can correct me) raised by Nadir by
giving an analogy of all 69 people in the room wearing the exact same
clothes Denis and Nadir were wearing. By doing so, Denis gave a far
bigger number than Nadir did for his argument and thus supposedly
pointed out how probability methods can be abused. Although it is a
stretch of imagination to even consider all the 69 people Denis
mentioned to be wearing the same clothes as he is... thus I would ward
it off by its 'unrealistic'ness and thus cannot be compared with
Nadir's estimation which is done for 'real' verses supposedly made by
a man 1400 years ago.
Denis also brought up the issue of the so-called 'miracle of
reinterpretation' but Nadir denied the charge of reinterpreting
anything, claiming that he was simply pointing out the claims made by
the Quran, itself, in toto.. without 'retrofitting' anything from his
own side. The debate is a long one.. Denis made lots of good points
which, in a way, gave good oppurtunities for Nadir to tackle them.
However, some of Nadir's argument were effectively dealt by Denis. The
claim that Quran uses a word that renders the working bees as females
was effectively countered by Denis as he showed that this was the norm
in Semitic languages.
Nonetheless, the debate was a long one and an interesting one for
that! I recommend everyone to hear it. My assessment is terribly
brief.. so I hope more thorough assessments are given to provide a
more stable image of the debate.
Regards,
Ahmad
Nadir Ahmed
I just wanted to let everyone know that I finally got a dot com,
here is my new website:
I think the debate, was a "debate to end all debates" on the subject
of Quran and Modern Science, as I mentioned, for the last 5 years the
debate went on far too long here on google as well as else where, each
one of the skeptics, interjecting their false arguments which only
confused the matter. This debate stifled all of their false opinions
and arguments, and rendered the Quran as a true Miracle. I know that
it is a tough pill to swallow for those particular "born again"
Christians (and others) who have soo much contempt for Islam. So, we
should anticipate them to toss and turn with this one :)
thanks,
Nadir
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
Denis Giron
> Assala Moalaikum Nadir,
>
> I would like to make some comments on your very interesting debate
> with Denis Giron.
Pax Vobis Mohd...
Good to see you are visiting SRI again. Apologies for the delay... my
time on the net since returning from San Gennaro has been sparse, but
I promise I will most likely get to our other discussions (Trinity,
Qur'an) within the next four to five days...
For readers who are not aware of the context, this discussion is in
reference to a recent debate I had with Nadir Ahmed on the issue of
the Qur'an and science. Information on the debate and links to sites
with audio of the debate can be found here:
http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron/
A complete transcript may be forthcoming. In the mean time, let us
consider Mohd's thoughts on the debate:
Thanks for your comments. I think I fumbled my words in the debate
when I tried to put forth my clothes analogy, thus I'm sure many
missed it, so I will try to explain its relevance here. First,
however, we should consider exactly what Nadir said in his appeal for
consideration of the eight pieces of evidence collectively. I am
currently trying to work on a transcript, and the following is from
the little bit I have so far (it is Nadir's comments on viewing the
evidence collectively, as was stated in his 30 minute rebuttal):
[======BEGIN QUOTE======]
"Let me ask you this question: what do you think about the possibility
if I claim to be a prophet and I wrote a book and in that book I
started writing my beliefs and my views down. What do you think are
the possibilitis that I will write down something by accident that
will agree with a scientifically correct statement that people don't
know about now, but will be discovered tomorrow? And this is all done
by accident, and I had no intention of saying something scientific - I
was just describing my dog you could say. What do you think are the
chances of that happening? Let's make a probability here. [...] Let me
tell you the number I came up with: I came up with one over 500,000 -
actually I came up with one over five million, but I want to make
things easy for Denis here. Here is how I came up with that number
(one over 500,000). Think of all the people in the world who have
written something in their life today. How many people do you know
that are writing something - I don't care what it is, it could have
been an email to a girlfriend, a resume, a spy novel, a horror novel -
and in that book they wrote something that agreed with something that
only modern scientists agreed with later, and this was all done
unintentionally and by accident. I think that happens to one over
every 500,000 people - that is the number I've come up with. Let's
look at this last option: maybe it was a good guess. You know, a
person trying to guess in the year 600, in light of what these
probabilities are, the probabilities are astronomical as far as what
it could be. Let's go ahead and see [what it would be] if we said the
author of the Qur'an guessed at all this stuff. The probability of the
bee is 1/2, because a bee could be male or female, so it's one half.
But what about Iram? What if the author of the Qur'an guessed about
the city which archeologists only discovered later? Here's the
question I'm asking: let's say everyone just guess - I'm going to
guess about a city which no one knows about today but it exists -
archeologists will one day discovery this city and I'm going to try
and guess the name of that city. So what do you think are the
probabilities of me being successful and actually doing that? Well I
put it one over one thousand - I' sorry, one over ten thousand - that
is the probability of that guess. So basically, for all of the
scientific miracles, all eight, I made them one over ten-thousand
(with the acception of bee, bee is one half). So, if we were to
multiply this number, one over ten thousand by eight times we'd come
up with a number one over one with twenty-six zeros next to it - I'm
sorry, twenty eight zeros after that. That is the probability that the
author of the Qur'an made eight guesses and on every guess he got it
right. That's the probability of him doing that. So, I don't think
guesswork or coincidence - coincidence is really bad; you have to tack
on a one over 500,000 ratio for that. So when you do the math, no
matter how you do it, it just doesn't work. The chances of this being
guess work and coincidence (which is basically what Denis was alluding
to) the numbers are so ridiculously high no one would ever assume such
a thing."
[======END QUOTE======]
So, according to Nadir's calculations, the chances of a mere mortal
uttering all eight of the Qur'anic statements are 1 in 500,000, but
that was him being conservative - his actual count is 1 in 1 X 10^28,
or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Quickly, one might note that while it seems like a low probability, to
say the chances are 1 in 1 X 10^28 is to still admit that it's
possible. However, I won't go that route (as I'm sure many will find
it silly), so instead I will first explain my clothes analogy, and
then dispute Nadir's actual count.
First with regard to my clothes analogy, I noted that there were 69
people in the room. Now take one person (such as myself). It is fair
to say that I own nine pairs of socks (call them pair 1, pair 2, pair
3, et cetera). During the debate, I could have been wearing any one of
those pairs, or no socks at all, thus whatever I had on my feet, the
chances of me having precisely that (pair 1, or pair 7 or none at all)
were 1 in 10. Now, I also own at least nine shorts or pairs of pants
(or kilts, skirts, or whatever might go over a person's legs). The
chances of me wearing the particular leg-covering garment (or none at
all) were 1 in 10. The chances I would be wearing the particular
combination of pants and socks I had (exempli gratia: pants 3 and
socks 2, or pants 1 and no socks, or no pants and socks 8, et cetera)
were 1 in 100. Now, take into account that I own at least nine shirts
or sweaters, thus the chances that I would wear the precise
combination of shirts, pants and socks I was, were 1 in 1,000.
Now the same would be the case for Nadir, and anyone else in the room.
Suppose Nadir was wearing his pants 1, his shirt 7, and no socks, and
I was wearing my pants 3, no shirt, and my socks 2. The chances of us
wearing that precise combination were 1 in 1,000,000. In other words,
the chances that Nadir would be dressed the way he was at the same
time I was dressed the way I was (i.e. he wore a precise combination
of clothes and I wore a different precise combination of clothes) were
one in a million! For every person you add to the equation, the
chances of that precise combination of clothing arising gains another
three zeros. We had 69 people in the room, thus the chances of the
precise combination that arose actually arising were 1 in 1 X 10^207.
That's 1 in 1 with 207 zeros after it; i.e. 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
So, Nadir stated that the chances of a mere mortal uttering the eight
Qur'anic statements were 1 in 1 X 10^28. The chances of the 69 people
taking part in or listening live to the debate being dressed in the
precise way/combination that they were (and I assume we were all
dressed differently) was 1 in 1 X 10^207. Thus, by the calculations
presented by both participants in the debate, a mere mortal uttering
the eight Qur'anic statements was LESS MIRACULOUS (on the grounds that
it is far more probable) than the 69 people coming dressed in the
various ways that they did. This is why I said in the debate that I
don't like appeals to chance - everything is a statistical miracle.
Now that (I think) I have explained my clothing analogy more clearly,
I would like to comment on the numbers Nadir offered. First keep in
mind that Nadir covered eight different pieces of evidence from the
Qur'an, and they were (in no particular order): (1) the gender of bees
as per Soorat an-Nahl 16:68-69; (2) the barrier between seas as per
Soorat ar-Rahman 55:19-20; (3) the barrier between salty a fresh water
as per Soorat al-Furqaan 25:53; (4) the dark sea as per Soorat an-Noor
24:40; (5) the city of Iram as per Soorat al-Fajr 89:7-8; (6) the
"near land" as per Soorat ar-Room 30:3; (7) the sending down of iron
as per Soorat al-Hadeed 57:25; and (8) the issue of falak as per
Soorat al-Anbiyaa' 21:33.
Nadir came up with the probability as 1 in 1 X 10^28 by stating that
the gender of bees was 50/50, while the rest were each 1 in 10,000.
But from where did he get the count of 1 in 10,000? For example, start
with Iram; there Nadir said: "let's say everyone just guess - I'm
going to guess about a city which no one knows about today but it
exists - archeologists will one day discovery this city and I'm going
to try and guess the name of that city. So what do you think are the
probabilities of me being successful and actually doing that?" This is
a straw man argument, as no one argued that the author of the Qur'an
guessed a two syllable word as a city none knew about. First note that
here the text is being treated in a way that no other text in a
similar situation would be treated. For example, when I was an
undergraduate one of my history professors noted that it had recently
been discovered that the ancient Egyptians had some loose awareness of
people living in the area we now call China. Finding ancient Egyptian
writings that exhibit loose familiarity with China are not taken by
scholars as hints at a supernatural source of information, or a 1 in
10,000 lucky guess by the author; rather it is simply taken as
evidence that people at the time knew about China. So too with the
Qur'an, there is nothing amazing about a text that originated on the
Arabian peninsula exhibiting loose familiarity with a land that was
once on the Arabian peninsula; rather the text just becomes possible
evidence that some people at the time of its writing knew about this
place. The Qur'an itself (as per the previous verse, i.e. Soorat
al-Fajr 89:6, and the verses that follow) seems to be citing it as an
example - the implication is that the intended auidence was also
familiar with this place (irrespective of whether the later hadith
writers were in a state of confusion about it). In a nutshell, Nadir's
claim that the chances of mentioning Iram are 1 in 10,000 has not been
justified.
Then we have the "falak" of Soorat al-Anbiyaa' 21:33. Why are the
chances 1 in 10,000 for a man to believe that the sun and moon each
float in an orbit? I would think that it would be more interesting if
a person did not believe the sun and moon each floated in an orbit, as
it seems obvious that almost everyone believed the sun and moon
floated in an orbit (what they may have been orbiting differed from
person to person, but nonetheless almost everyone believed the sun and
moon floated in an orbit). Thus the numbers 1 in 10,000 seem woefully
overstated.
Then we have the "near land" of Soorat ar-Room. It seems very sensible
to speak of a "near land" (regardless if another meaning can be
derived from the words employed), thus I see no reason to accept the
claim that the chances of a person calling a nearby land the "near
land" were 1 in 10,000.
Then we have the issue of Soorat ar-Rahman and Soorat al-Furqaan
making reference to the phenomenon of the pycnocline (or halocline).
The verse in Soorat ar-Rahman about the barrier between the seas
states very clearly that the seas cannot transgress. However, the
pycnocline barrier between seas does not prevent transgression. This
was noted in the debate, and Nadir simply stated that what the Qur'an
means by "transgress" we do not know - but it is clear what the Qur'an
means: it means that the barrier prevents transgression. If you take
the example of the pycnocline/halocline barrier that arises between
the Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranian sea near the Gibralter sill
(which is the example that most often comes up in books and on dawa
websites that take a scientific-hermeneutic approach to this aya),
there is indeed transgression between the two, thus I don't think the
Qur'an is actually making a reference to this (either that, or it
would have to be incorrect in its description). Thus to say that the
chances of a mere mortal uttering this aya are 1 in 10,000 is wholly
unjustified.
An almost identical claim can be made about the the relevant aya in
Soorat al-Furqaan regarding the barrier between salty and fresh water.
The Qur'an describes the barrier as "waHijraan maHjooraan," which
implies that there is no passing, that this barrier is analogous to
stone (hence the relevant root) - the barrier is inviolable (which is
why I still think the verse might have been a reference to a land mass
or solid structure). Of course, the barrier that is created by a
pycnocline/halocline is not inviolable - there is mixing that takes
place (particularly vertical mixing in the case of fresh water pouring
into a salty body). So I'm not sure this verse is a reference to the
phenomenon of the pycnocline, thus I don't see on what grounds we
should assume the chances of uttering such a statement are 1 in
10,000.
For these reasons, his numbers should be significantly lower. In light
of all that is above, three points should be noted: (1) all eight
statements are possible [i.e. there is not a single statement among
the eight mentioned that could not have been uttered by a mere
mortal]; (2) collectively, Nadir has overstated his numbers; (3)
regardless of whether we use Nadir's overstated figures or a new
reduced count, the collective chance of all eight statements being
uttered by a mere mortal is at least as likely [actually more likely]
than 69 people in a room being dressed in the precise combination of
clothings that they are - that is to say that collectively it is
really not that miraculous at all.
> Denis also brought up the issue of the so-called 'miracle of
> reinterpretation' but Nadir denied the charge of reinterpreting
> anything, claiming that he was simply pointing out the claims
> made by the Quran, itself, in toto.. without 'retrofitting'
> anything from his own side.
The "miracle of reinterpretation" was relevant because Nadir wondered
aloud about the possibility that a person might "write down something
by accident that will agree with a scientifically correct statement
that people don't know about now, but will be discovered tomorrow".
Such is very possible, as with many texts (I have demonstrated such
with the Talmud, the Bible, and even the writings of Walt Whitman) one
can reinterpret a passage *AFTER* a scientific discovery has been made
in such a way that the text becomes harmonious with that discovery.
The possibility that retrofitting might be involved is reflected in
the fact that no one knew the Qur'an was (allegedly) making reference
to such things until after scientists made such discoveries.
Regardless, there is a great deal more than needs to be said.
Elsewhere in this thread Nadir has called the debate 'a "debate to end
all debates" on the subject
of Quran and Modern Science'. While I have the greatest respect for
Nadir, I must disagree with this statement. I think the debate rages
on, but our encounter made a good contribution to the growing corpus
of argumentation.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
Mohd Anisul Karim
Glad to be back. You made some interesting points that I would like to
respond to.
Regarding the probability issue, I think you misunderstood Nadir's
claim and did an unfair comparison. The analogy of 69 people wearing
the same precise combination of clothes (as you have outlined), no
matter how much probability is set against, is very likely. There is
nothing against this likelihood that will makes this event unlikely.
But in the case of a man 1400 years supposedly making claims that
coheres with modern science today has issues which make this event
'unlikely'. For instance, the fact that knowledge 1400 years ago
wasn't so advanced as it is today. This is one factor that makes this
event of mere mortals uttering such 'unlikely'. Another fact that
Arabs, specifically, at that time did not have labs or proper
education facilities that could, in some way, set their mind to work
out new possibilities which 'might' agree with the findings of modern
science today. An example of this is the prediction of satellites by
Arthur C. Clarke. Again, this factor works 'against' any such event of
mere mortals uttering such claims as made in the Quran. Another factor
that works against such event to be likely is the fact that so many
statements are made and phrases used in their appropriate contexts
that it is one stretch of imagination to claim such event as 'likely'
by someone living under the conditions of Jahiliyah.
Thus, there are instances that work 'against' such an event to occur.
Your analogy has nothing working 'against' when you estimate the
probability. There is absolutely nothing that is 'against' people
having nine pairs of socks and wearing sock 2 or 4 in any random
number. Which is why I think you abused probability estimations and
not Nadir. Nadir gave the statistics of one thing to occur, estimated
the likelihood of a nomad, all out of the blue, making statements that
has colossal coherence with modern science today. I gave you the
conditions that work 'against' such an event to be the works of mere
mortals. Adding 2 and 2, the argument is valid and is not an abuse of
probability estimations.
Now, about Iram. You say that its wholly possible for Arabs to know of
the Land that existed in the Arabian peninsula. Sure it is. But do you
have any idea how many fabled cities the Arabs talked of? Out of all
of the fabled cities being talked about... why did Muhammad choose the
city of Iram (Ubar)? How did he know that it was the actual city out
of the fabled cities talked about in Arabia?? So Nadir's argument is
not strawman but, with all due respect, yours.
Regarding the sun and moon in orbit, I don't think 'everyone' knew
about it as you claim. What they knew is that the sun goes under water
when the moon comes up to. A little more sensible people talk that
both the sun and moon go around the earth while the latter is static.
The Quran simply claims that both the Sun and Moon have their orbits
and they pursue the path assigned to them. If we take this claim as it
is, we can see that it is true. The Moon orbits the earth and the sun
orbits the galaxy. It is only after YOU choose to interpret the verse
as claiming orbit 'around the earth' that the verse becomes an error.
Thus Nadir's estimation of it is correct. I can imagine 10,000
mythical explanations for the sun, moon and earth. Out of all the
explanations, why did he choose this explanation, which happens to
cohere with modern science??
Regarding 30:3, the Arabic word used has a dual meaning... both of
which make PERFECT SENSE with the context (which is of the defeat of
Romans, if I am not wrong) and hence both of them are applicable. I
can imagine 10,000 words I could have used to describe the land (like
the 'city of peace' which is often used in the Quran to denote
Jerusalem) but the very fact that I have used a word - that wasn't
used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age, nor such a prophecy of the
defeat of Romans made - that has dual meaning and makes perfect sense
with the context is hardly likely to have been made by a mere mortal.
I have very less knowledge of the pycnocline... so I will avoid this
issue. Maybe I will study about this claim and give you my comments
sometime later. But nonetheless, the point that Nadir was trying to
make is the fact that if you were to take the evidence collectively, a
human explanation is challenged and we have to invoke a source greater
than man to rationally explain such a estimated figure.
Lastly, the argument of 'miracle of reinterpretation' is farce. I
think it primarily begs the question. Yor assumption and conclusion is
identical, i.e - the Quran is reinterpreted to fit science. Hence the
Quran really reinterpret to fit science. Thus, you have no argument at
all with this. Just my thoughts :)
Regards,
Ahmad
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis,
Pax Vobis Mohd...
Sorry for the delay in response. Occasionally posts submitted to SRI
are lost in some internet vacuum and do not make their way to the
moderators - unfortunately, I submitted a previous response to your
post, but my submission was apparently a victim of that vacuum.
For readers who do not know, this post is part of a discussion
regarding a debate that took place between Nadir Ahmed and myself on
the subject of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an.
Audio of the debate (and other things relevant to the debate) can be
found here:
http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron/
A transcript is forthcoming, and should be done within a week. With
that, I would like to get to Mohd's comments...
> Regarding the probability issue, I think you misunderstood Nadir's
> claim and did an unfair comparison. The analogy of 69 people wearing
> the same precise combination of clothes (as you have outlined), no
> matter how much probability is set against, is very likely.
With all due respect, how likely is it? True, some combination was
going to arise, I don't doubt that. However, the question was with
regards to the odds of that precise combination arising. For a
relevant example, suppose Nadir gave smaller numbers for the chances
of a mere mortal uttering the Qur'anic statements he called to
witness. Suppose Nadir said the chances of a mere mortal uttering
these phrases was 1 in 45. In response I pull out a deck of cards, and
pick one card at random. The card I pick turns out to be the three of
hearts. Now, of course I intended to pick a card, so some card was
going to come up, but what were the chances that this card precisely
would be the one to come up? The odds were 1 in 52. So, with the
clothing analogy, I am asking about the odds that the precise
combination of clothing that arose would arise. It turned out that the
odds of that PRECISE combination coming up (1 in 1 X 10^207) were less
than the numbers Nadir gave for the chances of a mere mortal uttering
the eight Qur'anic statements he called to witness (1 in 1 X 10^28).
The point is to show the silliness of these appeals to probability.
Everything is a statistical miracle.
> Now, about Iram. You say that its wholly possible for Arabs to know of
> the Land that existed in the Arabian peninsula. Sure it is. But do you
> have any idea how many fabled cities the Arabs talked of?
With all due respect Mohd, I have no idea whatsoever how many fabled
cities were talked of by the ancient Arabs. However, I was not
required to know such for this debate. The only question I had was: is
it possible for a mere mortal to demonstrate a loose familiarity with
a city from roughly the same area that he is from. The answer is yes,
it is possible, and even you alluded to such above. Citing the verse
as evidence in itself of being from a divine origin only works if we
conclude that there is no way (i.e. it is impossible) that a mere
mortal could have uttered such a statement. Of course, that's not the
case, thus the relevant Qur'anic verse is not proof in itself of being
the word of God (again, this does not mean it is NOT the word of God).
> Regarding the sun and moon in orbit, I don't think 'everyone' knew
> about it as you claim. What they knew is that the sun goes under water
> when the moon comes up to.
For the people who believed such, where did they believed the sun went
when it went under water? They believed it went under the earth (or
the land they were on), and came up the other side (because the sun
always rises from the East and sets in the West), hence they believed
that the sun swam or floated in a circular motion, which is
essentially what the Qur'an is saying. Keep in mind that I am NOT
saying that this means the author of the Qur'an believed the sun went
under the earth - I am simply noting that the belief that the sun and
moon each floated/swam in a circular motion was one which was held by
many people..
> The Quran simply claims that both the Sun and Moon have their orbits
> and they pursue the path assigned to them. If we take this claim as it
> is, we can see that it is true. The Moon orbits the earth and the sun
> orbits the galaxy. It is only after YOU choose to interpret the verse
> as claiming orbit 'around the earth' that the verse becomes an error.
Actually, not once in the debate or this thread have I claimed that
the verse was an error. I simply stated that the Qur'an states that
the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion, and that statement
in itself is not amazing in light of the fact that many people
believed the sun and moon each floated or swam in a circular motion.
The point was not that the Qur'an is in error, but rather only that it
is POSSIBLE for a mere mortal to state that the sun and moon
swim/float in a circular motion, thus the relevant Qur'anic verse is
not proof in itself of being the word of God.
> Regarding 30:3, the Arabic word used has a dual meaning... both of
> which make PERFECT SENSE with the context (which is of the defeat of
> Romans, if I am not wrong) and hence both of them are applicable. I
> can imagine 10,000 words I could have used to describe the land (like
> the 'city of peace' which is often used in the Quran to denote
> Jerusalem) but the very fact that I have used a word - that wasn't
> used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age, nor such a prophecy of the
> defeat of Romans made - that has dual meaning and makes perfect sense
> with the context is hardly likely to have been made by a mere mortal.
Okay, first of all, you positively asserted that the word used in
Soorat ar-Room 30:3 "wasn't used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age".
What is your evidence for this assertion?
Second, the question is as follows: is it possible for a mere mortal
to refer to a near land as the "near land"? The answer is yes. One of
the meanings of the words employed in the relevant Qur'anic verse is
"near land" (and no surprise, all the Qur'anic translations I have
consulted translate it along the lines of "near land"). So, to
fine-tune my question a bit, is it possible for a man who intends to
refer to a near land to employ a phrase which means (among other
things) "near land". Yes, it is very possible, thus the verse is not
proof in itself of being the word of God (though of course that does
not prove it is not the word of God). The fact that other meanings can
be derived from the relevant words does not change this fact. Many
words in many languages have multiple meanings - this does not mean
the one who utters these words intends all those meanings. I am
agnostic with regard to what the author of Soorat ar-Room intended by
the relevant words, but it is still the case that it is POSSIBLE for a
mere mortal to use a phrase that means "near land" to refer to a near
land.
Third, the issue of prophecy never came up in the debate. That is a
different subject. If you like, we can start a new thread and discuss
it there. The debate focused on whether a mere mortal could employ the
words which Nadir and others have correlated with a knowledge of
Jerusalem's altitude relative to sea level.
> I have very less knowledge of the pycnocline... so I will avoid this
> issue. Maybe I will study about this claim and give you my comments
> sometime later.
That is a good idea. Consider the following site in favor of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an on bodies of water:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm
They list a number of sources (text books on oceanography) in support
of their claims. You can start with those sources, or I can photocopy
the relevant pages and mail them off to you (if you're interrested).
> But nonetheless, the point that Nadir was trying to
> make is the fact that if you were to take the evidence collectively, a
> human explanation is challenged and we have to invoke a source greater
> than man to rationally explain such a estimated figure.
So we have returned to where we were before. To recap, Nadir offered
eight verses from the Qur'an, and for each one I explained why it is
possible for a mere mortal to have uttered those eight statements.
Then Nadir asked that I observe the evidence collectively and argued
that the chances of all eight statements being uttered by a mere
mortal were 1 in 1 X 10^28. I seriously questioned his numbers, and
continue to feel they were unjustified. Nonetheless, even if we went
with his numbers, we have to conclude that the eight Qur'anic verses
collectively were less miraculous (in terms of probabilities) than the
combination of clothings that arose amongst the audience listening to
our debate. So the probability issue falls away. Thus, we go back to
what I originally said, which is that if it is possible for a mere
mortal to utter any of the eight statements, then it is possible for a
mere mortal to utter all of the eight statements. The only question I
had in the debate was "is it possible," and the answer is yes. If I
were to recite shahaada and sincerely embrace Islam today, my opinion
on this matter would not change.
> Lastly, the argument of 'miracle of reinterpretation' is farce. I
> think it primarily begs the question. Yor assumption and conclusion is
> identical, i.e - the Quran is reinterpreted to fit science. Hence the
> Quran really reinterpret to fit science. Thus, you have no argument at
> all with this.
Uh, actually, the way it goes with many of these verses is that after
the discovery is made, the proponent of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach goes back and interprets the Qur'an in such a way as to have
it be a reference to that discovery. The picnocline issue is a fine
example of this. I'm not assuming that people are reinterpreting the
texts in light of new discoveries - that's actually what is going on!
There is certainly nothing amazing about people going back and making
their texts harmonious with recent discoveries via post-hoc
interpretation. I actually encourage such behavior (I wish more
Christians would employ interpretations of the Bible that bring the
text into harmony with science), but if you only realized that the
relevant verses were referring to such things after the discovery was
made, then you cannot claim the text was obviously a reference to
these things.
Mohd Anisul Karim
Glad to be back. You made some interesting points that I would like to
respond to.
Regarding the probability issue, I think you misunderstood Nadir's
claim and did an unfair comparison. The analogy of 69 people wearing
the same precise combination of clothes (as you have outlined), no
Now, about Iram. You say that its wholly possible for Arabs to know of
the Land that existed in the Arabian peninsula. Sure it is. But do you
have any idea how many fabled cities the Arabs talked of? Out of all
of the fabled cities being talked about... why did Muhammad choose the
city of Iram (Ubar)? How did he know that it was the actual city out
of the fabled cities talked about in Arabia?? So Nadir's argument is
not strawman but, with all due respect, yours.
Regarding the sun and moon in orbit, I don't think 'everyone' knew
about it as you claim. What they knew is that the sun goes under water
when the moon comes up to. A little more sensible people talk that
both the sun and moon go around the earth while the latter is static.
The Quran simply claims that both the Sun and Moon have their orbits
and they pursue the path assigned to them. If we take this claim as it
is, we can see that it is true. The Moon orbits the earth and the sun
orbits the galaxy. It is only after YOU choose to interpret the verse
as claiming orbit 'around the earth' that the verse becomes an error.
Thus Nadir's estimation of it is correct. I can imagine 10,000
mythical explanations for the sun, moon and earth. Out of all the
explanations, why did he choose this explanation, which happens to
cohere with modern science??
Regarding 30:3, the Arabic word used has a dual meaning... both of
which make PERFECT SENSE with the context (which is of the defeat of
Romans, if I am not wrong) and hence both of them are applicable. I
can imagine 10,000 words I could have used to describe the land (like
the 'city of peace' which is often used in the Quran to denote
Jerusalem) but the very fact that I have used a word - that wasn't
used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age, nor such a prophecy of the
defeat of Romans made - that has dual meaning and makes perfect sense
with the context is hardly likely to have been made by a mere mortal.
I have very less knowledge of the pycnocline... so I will avoid this
issue. Maybe I will study about this claim and give you my comments
sometime later. But nonetheless, the point that Nadir was trying to
make is the fact that if you were to take the evidence collectively, a
human explanation is challenged and we have to invoke a source greater
than man to rationally explain such a estimated figure.
Lastly, the argument of 'miracle of reinterpretation' is farce. I
think it primarily begs the question. Yor assumption and conclusion is
identical, i.e - the Quran is reinterpreted to fit science. Hence the
Quran really reinterpret to fit science. Thus, you have no argument at
Mohd Anisul Karim
> believ...@hotmail.com (Mohd Anisul Karim) wrote in message news:<7b81561a.03100...@posting.google.com>...
Hello Denis,
> > Regarding the probability issue, I think you misunderstood Nadir's
> > claim and did an unfair comparison. The analogy of 69 people wearing
> > the same precise combination of clothes (as you have outlined), no
> > matter how much probability is set against, is very likely.
>
> With all due respect, how likely is it? True, some combination was
> going to arise, I don't doubt that. However, the question was with
> regards to the odds of that precise combination arising. For a
> relevant example, suppose Nadir gave smaller numbers for the chances
> of a mere mortal uttering the Qur'anic statements he called to
> witness. Suppose Nadir said the chances of a mere mortal uttering
> these phrases was 1 in 45. In response I pull out a deck of cards, and
> pick one card at random. The card I pick turns out to be the three of
> hearts. Now, of course I intended to pick a card, so some card was
> going to come up, but what were the chances that this card precisely
> would be the one to come up? The odds were 1 in 52. So, with the
> clothing analogy, I am asking about the odds that the precise
> combination of clothing that arose would arise. It turned out that the
> odds of that PRECISE combination coming up (1 in 1 X 10^207) were less
> than the numbers Nadir gave for the chances of a mere mortal uttering
> the eight Qur'anic statements he called to witness (1 in 1 X 10^28).
> The point is to show the silliness of these appeals to probability.
> Everything is a statistical miracle.
Again, you abuse the probability estimations. You are pointing out
that no matter how much probability is set against something, it still
comes out. Hence your card analogy. Its 1 in 52 for the card to be
three of hearts, yet it still comes out. You are thinking in terms of
the 'likelihood' of something to occur. There is absolutely NOTHING
against the card being pulled out being three of hearts... nor is
there anything working against 69 people wearing the precise of
combination of clothes. If there is any event working against a
condition to occur, but nonetheless, the condition meets its
fulfilment... thats when something is termed as a 'miracle'. For
instance, there are 39 doctors in some hospital at city XYZ. All of
those 39 are specialists on different fields. There is a strike in the
city and it has been conjectured that all doctors flew abroad, since
that is the most 'likely' thing to occur on those circumstances (at
least, according to them). A child has some kidney failure and they
have to take him to the kidney specialist but it is highly unlikely,
some warn, for them to find any doctors in the firm. Yet they try
their luck, and go to the hospital. And the only doctor who didn't run
IS THE Kidney specialist himself. Now thats a miracle... since even
though events were working against such a thing to occur (in this
case, the kidney doctor, or any doctor for that matter, to be
present), it still did occur.
Now imagine the Quran having hordes of events (I can list them for you
if you like) working 'against' any mere mortal to utter statements
that wouldn't have had the slightest touch with science, let alone
coherent. Yet.. it still occurs. Now thats a miracle, not of
reinterpretation.. but of the Quran.
> > Now, about Iram. You say that its wholly possible for Arabs to know of
> > the Land that existed in the Arabian peninsula. Sure it is. But do you
> > have any idea how many fabled cities the Arabs talked of?
>
> With all due respect Mohd, I have no idea whatsoever how many fabled
> cities were talked of by the ancient Arabs. However, I was not
> required to know such for this debate. The only question I had was: is
> it possible for a mere mortal to demonstrate a loose familiarity with
> a city from roughly the same area that he is from. The answer is yes,
> it is possible, and even you alluded to such above.
But here arises the question Denis. Out of all the fabled city myths
circulating in Arabia.. why did a 'mere mortal' (if he were so) select
this particular city?? It sure is possible for him to select anyone
(no matter how unlikely the probabilities show) of the fabled cities..
but it is a stretch of imagination to claim the plausibility of such a
city existing in reality... that was due to be discovered at this era.
Thats a miracle.
> > Regarding the sun and moon in orbit, I don't think 'everyone' knew
> > about it as you claim. What they knew is that the sun goes under water
> > when the moon comes up to.
>
> For the people who believed such, where did they believed the sun went
> when it went under water? They believed it went under the earth (or
> the land they were on), and came up the other side (because the sun
> always rises from the East and sets in the West), hence they believed
> that the sun swam or floated in a circular motion, which is
> essentially what the Qur'an is saying.
Again, you are retrofitting the notion of the sun going under the
earth and then rising back from the East. I am sure the author of the
Quran wouldn't have hesitated to explain this supposed phenomenon in
greater detail... it sure would have buttressed the faith of the then
Muslims.
> > The Quran simply claims that both the Sun and Moon have their orbits
> > and they pursue the path assigned to them. If we take this claim as it
> > is, we can see that it is true. The Moon orbits the earth and the sun
> > orbits the galaxy. It is only after YOU choose to interpret the verse
> > as claiming orbit 'around the earth' that the verse becomes an error.
>
> Actually, not once in the debate or this thread have I claimed that
> the verse was an error.
I never said you did. What I pointed out was the fact that only AFTER
you choose to interpret the notion of sun-moon orbiting around the
earth into the verse, does the verse become an error. I don't know if
you positively claimed such... but nonetheless, lets read the verse as
it is.
> I simply stated that the Qur'an states that
> the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion, and that statement
> in itself is not amazing in light of the fact that many people
> believed the sun and moon each floated or swam in a circular motion.
> The point was not that the Qur'an is in error, but rather only that it
> is POSSIBLE for a mere mortal to state that the sun and moon
> swim/float in a circular motion, thus the relevant Qur'anic verse is
> not proof in itself of being the word of God.
Ancient men were more of the view that the sun migrated across the sky
by Apollo's chariots of fire. The view was also dominant in
pre-Islamic Arabia. For references and explanations, consult Abdullah
Yusuf Ali's translation of the Holy Qur'an, p. 1620-1621 [Appendix
XIII]. And exactly how hard would it be for mere mortals claiming the
sun went around the earth instead of just saying, the sun orbits. If
the heliostatic model of the universe were true, then this verse would
have been a blatant error. But we know that its not. Hence, the fact
that a bedouin from Arabia made an explicit claim of the sun and moon
being in an orbit is truly miraculous... since 1) he didn't claim the
orbit was around earth (as the 'mere mortals' would have had) and 2)
the view of the sun and moon's orbits were not dominant in Arabia.
> > Regarding 30:3, the Arabic word used has a dual meaning... both of
> > which make PERFECT SENSE with the context (which is of the defeat of
> > Romans, if I am not wrong) and hence both of them are applicable. I
> > can imagine 10,000 words I could have used to describe the land (like
> > the 'city of peace' which is often used in the Quran to denote
> > Jerusalem) but the very fact that I have used a word - that wasn't
> > used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age, nor such a prophecy of the
> > defeat of Romans made - that has dual meaning and makes perfect sense
> > with the context is hardly likely to have been made by a mere mortal.
>
> Okay, first of all, you positively asserted that the word used in
> Soorat ar-Room 30:3 "wasn't used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age".
> What is your evidence for this assertion?
I am open to evidence proving the contrary, if it exists.
> Second, the question is as follows: is it possible for a mere mortal
> to refer to a near land as the "near land"? The answer is yes.
But is it possible for the mere mortal to use a word that has both
'near' and 'deep' as its meaning and still make perfect (and accurate)
sense?? The answer is: highly unlikely.
> The only question I
> had in the debate was "is it possible," and the answer is yes.
The correct answer is: highly unlikely. Given the conditions working
against a particular event to take place but still the event takes
place, is something we should seriosuly consider. Even more serious
will be our consideration, if eight of these events happen even though
deliberate odds are set against it. Nadir has done just that. Pointed
eight statements (although there are more) present in a 1400 year old
text that are just too unlikely to have been thought of by the
primitive men that time.
> > Lastly, the argument of 'miracle of reinterpretation' is farce. I
> > think it primarily begs the question. Yor assumption and conclusion is
> > identical, i.e - the Quran is reinterpreted to fit science. Hence the
> > Quran really reinterpret to fit science. Thus, you have no argument at
> > all with this.
>
> Uh, actually, the way it goes with many of these verses is that after
> the discovery is made, the proponent of the scientific-hermeneutic
> approach goes back and interprets the Qur'an in such a way as to have
> it be a reference to that discovery.
So what is your conclusion by this?? What are your assumptions?? What
is the logical structure of this argument?? And whats the purpose of
this argument?? When we do our Math sums.. we keep the final answer
infront on us and then proceed to fit our calculation with the answer
given in the answer book. Thats how I practice Math, I guess. But this
only shows me that the calculation I did to reach the answer is
correct. In short, I proceeded with the calculation AFTER I have had
look at the answer and compared. There's nothing wrong with it.. is
there??
What it actually tells me is that my calculations are correct, since
it fits in with the correct answer, already specified. Hence by this
logic, our interpretations are correct since they fit in with the
actual facts, discovered today. Think about it...
Regards,
Ahmad
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Mohd...
I'll return to our other respective discussions (at Bismika Allaahuma)
soon.
For readers who wish to catch the context of this discussion, this
post is a response to an article submitted by Mohd to SRI on October
12, which has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7b81561a.0310110433.46ab40df%40posting.google.com
At the present moment we are discussing the issue of an appeal to
probabilities, and what constitutes a statistical miracle. This is
within the context of eight statements from the Qur'an called to
witness by Nadir Ahmed. According to the calculations offered by
Nadir, the chances of a mere mortal making all eight claims was
roughly 1 in 1 X 10^28. So we are presently comparing such with the
numbers found in other scenarios...
> Again, you abuse the probability estimations. You are pointing out
> that no matter how much probability is set against something, it still
> comes out. Hence your card analogy. Its 1 in 52 for the card to be
> three of hearts, yet it still comes out. You are thinking in terms of
> the 'likelihood' of something to occur. There is absolutely NOTHING
> against the card being pulled out being three of hearts...
Actually, there is something against the likelihood of that card
coming up, and that is the fact that 51 of the 52 cards are NOT the
three of hearts. Of course, to try and make this more clear, let me
consider the example you gave:
> For instance, there are 39 doctors in some hospital at city XYZ. All of
> those 39 are specialists on different fields. There is a strike in the
> city and it has been conjectured that all doctors flew abroad, since
> that is the most 'likely' thing to occur on those circumstances (at
> least, according to them). A child has some kidney failure and they
> have to take him to the kidney specialist but it is highly unlikely,
> some warn, for them to find any doctors in the firm. Yet they try
> their luck, and go to the hospital. And the only doctor who didn't run
> IS THE Kidney specialist himself.
I don't see how this is different from the card analogy - the only
difference is that a certain emotional element has been introduced,
thus personalizing it for the reader. For example, suppose I have a
deck of cards, take one out at random, put it face down on the table,
and then throw the rest out the window. A man then puts a gun to my
head and says that he will only spare me if the card on the table
turns out to be the ace of spades. A tense situation to be sure, but
the chances that the ace of spades comes up is still 1 in 52. With the
analogy you gave above, 38 of the 39 doctors left, and the chances
that the one that stayed behind would be the kidney specialist is
still 1 in 39, thus more likely (and hence less miraculous in any
statistical sense) than me pulling the ace of spades from a deck of
cards.
With that I would like to return to my original point that was meant
to be drawn from the clothes analogy: appeals to probability are weak,
because almost everything can be seen as a statistical miracle.
Now I would like to return to the specific examples...
> > With all due respect Mohd, I have no idea whatsoever how many fabled
> > cities were talked of by the ancient Arabs. However, I was not
> > required to know such for this debate. The only question I had was: is
> > it possible for a mere mortal to demonstrate a loose familiarity with
> > a city from roughly the same area that he is from. The answer is yes,
> > it is possible, and even you alluded to such above.
>
> But here arises the question Denis. Out of all the fabled city myths
> circulating in Arabia.. why did a 'mere mortal' (if he were so) select
> this particular city??
This (like so much of this form of apologia) boils down to an appeal
to personal incredulity. I have no idea why this city (Iram) was
chosen to be mentioned in the Qur'an, nor did that concern me. You
claim that it was a miracle, but this is simply a case of treating the
text differently from the way any other text would be treated. This is
no more miraculous than the Bible mentioning Sodom and Gamorrah, or
ancient Egyptian texts showing a loose familiarity with some kingdom
in what is now China.
> > For the people who believed such, where did they believed the sun went
> > when it went under water? They believed it went under the earth (or
> > the land they were on), and came up the other side (because the sun
> > always rises from the East and sets in the West), hence they believed
> > that the sun swam or floated in a circular motion, which is
> > essentially what the Qur'an is saying.
>
> Again, you are retrofitting the notion of the sun going under the
> earth and then rising back from the East.
I never claimed the Qur'an is stating such. What I was stating was
that these ancient people believed the sun and moon swam/floated in a
circular motion. The Qur'anic verse that Nadir called to witness only
states that the sun and moon move in a circular motion, and I was
simply noting that many people believed that. I am not claiming that
the other things they believed were also held by the author of the
Qur'an.
> > Actually, not once in the debate or this thread have I claimed that
> > the verse was an error.
>
> I never said you did.
Actually, it seemed to me like you did state such; you wrote: "It is
only after YOU choose to interpret the verse as claiming orbit 'around
the earth' that the verse becomes an error." I never claimed the
Qur'an means to imply the sun revolves around the earth. The point is
simple: the Qur'an states that the sun and moon float/swim in a
circular motion, and people certainly believed that before the Qur'an
was written. Now you want to give the author of the Qur'an credit for
what he/she/it didn't write, but that seems a bit extreme to me. The
issue here is that the Qur'an states that the sun and moon swim/float
in a circular motion, and that is not miraculous, as many people
believed that.
> the view of the sun and moon's orbits were not dominant in Arabia.
Huh? Are you telling me that the pre-Islamic Arabs did not believe the
sun and moon swam in a circular motion? What then, did they believe?
That the sun stood still? I'll be sure to check the appendix from
Yusuf Ali that you recommended...
> > Okay, first of all, you positively asserted that the word used in
> > Soorat ar-Room 30:3 "wasn't used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age".
> > What is your evidence for this assertion?
>
> I am open to evidence proving the contrary, if it exists.
But Mohd, you're the one who made the positive assertion. He who
asserts must prove.
> > Second, the question is as follows: is it possible for a mere mortal
> > to refer to a near land as the "near land"? The answer is yes.
>
> But is it possible for the mere mortal to use a word that has both
> 'near' and 'deep' as its meaning and still make perfect (and accurate)
> sense?? The answer is: highly unlikely.
Why is it highly unlikely? I can think of numerous texts that employ
words that can have multiple meanings, and all the meanings still
making sense (ESPECIALLY with Semitic languages - in my attempts at
demonstration via a scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Bible or
Talmud, I have done this with Hebrew quite a few times). In the end,
we have the Qur'an using a phrase that can mean "near land". I don't
consider it "highly unlikely" for a mere mortal to use a phrase that
can mean "near land" to refer to a near land (even if at a later date
people employ post-hoc exegesis in correlating other meanings of the
phrase with recent discoveries).
> When we do our Math sums.. we keep the final answer
> infront on us and then proceed to fit our calculation with the answer
> given in the answer book. Thats how I practice Math, I guess. But this
> only shows me that the calculation I did to reach the answer is
> correct. In short, I proceeded with the calculation AFTER I have had
> look at the answer and compared.
It is quite unjustified to put this form of apologia on the same level
as mathematics. The issue with the scientific-hermeneutic approach to
these religious texts (be they the Qur'an, certain ahaadeeth, the
Talmud, the Bible, or some other text) is that a claim is made that
the text is obviously referring to a recent discovery. But the reality
is that these interpretations of the text were often only offered
AFTER the discovery was made. There is nothing miraculous about being
able to correlate a text with science after the fact (this can be done
with any text - I have done it with the Bible, the Talmud, and even
the writings of Walt Whitman!). Mathematics is something much more
concrete, where most often you don't have to be told the answer in
advance, rather you can reach it yourself (assuming you properly
understand the relevant system being employed).
-Denis Giron
Nadir Ahmed
and not question it.
According to Denis's clothes analogy,
69 people in the room, thus the chances of the
precise combination that arose actually arising
were 1 in 1 X 10^207, which is mathematically
impossible, which means that we can not attribute
this phenomenom to chance or luck. Logically,
these events are NOT SUPPOSE TO HAPPEN, and can
NEVER HAPPEN!!!! And to make things worse, these
types of day to day events which have the odds, 1 X 10^207
happen every millisecond everywhere,and everyplace on our earth!!!
Therefore, we can not attribute our day to day events
( like people wearing clothe) as RANDOM events of nature!
Rather, there has to be some greater power who is governing
all these events which happen in our universe, only a greater
power can beat these odds: 1 X 10^207 everywhere, and
everyplace on our earth
Therefore, what happens in our universe can not be attributed
to chance
And this is exactly what we believe as Muslims, weather Denis
realizes it or not, but he proved the existence of God with his
example.
"Allah is the Creator of all things; He is the Guardian over all
things, and to Him belong the keys of the Heavens and the Earth."
(39:62-3)
So, therefore, this TYPE of daily probability miracle , anyone can do
only
with the help of of Allah(swt). But there are certain types of
probability
miracles which humans can NOT do. Like for example winning the lottery
50 times in a row straight. Or, guessing dozens scientific principles
of
advanced Chemistry, Physics.. etc without even having a single class
in the subject. Another example, is guessing how to perform open
heart surgery from the beginning to the end (including recovery) :-)
In addition to all of that, If a person was caught by the FBI or
US Department of Justice with dozens of different people's credit
card numbers,
and offered an excuse that it was all coincidence or guess work in a
court of law,
I dont think any sensible human would believe that. And if the
defendant
were to bring up Denis Giron's clothes analogy in his defense, I
really
dont think that will help his case either! :) The reason for this is
simply
because, the probabilty is to high for all numbers to be a coincidence
or
guess work.
Therefore, all humans can do certains TYPES probability miracles
easily, but there are certain TYPES of probability miracles they CAN
NOT do.
In regards to the case of Quran, there the author of the Quran
demonstrated the
TYPE of probability miracles human can NOT do!
And that was clearly demonstrated in the debate, which became clear
when we looked at the scientific evidences collectively.
Therefore,after examining the evidence, any person with common sense
would be able to clearly see that the author of the Quran has to be a
greater source than man.
thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.ExamineTheTruth.com
Mohd Anisul Karim
news:<7b81561a.03101...@posting.google.com>...
Hello Denis,
> > Again, you abuse the probability estimations. You are pointing out
> > that no matter how much probability is set against something, it still
> > comes out. Hence your card analogy. Its 1 in 52 for the card to be
> > three of hearts, yet it still comes out. You are thinking in terms of
> > the 'likelihood' of something to occur. There is absolutely NOTHING
> > against the card being pulled out being three of hearts...
>
> Actually, there is something against the likelihood of that card
> coming up, and that is the fact that 51 of the 52 cards are NOT the
> three of hearts.
That is simply the probability of the three of hearts appearing out of
the deck of 52 cards. There are no *conditions* for it to make its
appearance unlikely. Further.. if that three of hearts is being picked
up randomly more than 5 or 6 times (after being shuffled and
reshuffled, ofcourse)... then we can easily infer that the player is
either doing some trick or he's not. If the former is ruled out.. then
we have an example of extreme luck. Now imagine, that everytime he
picks up a card (even after being rigorously shuffled), its always
the three of hearts... then there must be some external force (maybe a
trick or anything for that matter) acting. Apply the same logic to Quran...
where numerous statements just happen to have a scientific exegesis.
Why is that?? How is it possible if the author did not intend such??
> Of course, to try and make this more clear, let me
> consider the example you gave:
>
> > For instance, there are 39 doctors in some hospital at city XYZ. All of
> > those 39 are specialists on different fields. There is a strike in the
> > city and it has been conjectured that all doctors flew abroad, since
> > that is the most 'likely' thing to occur on those circumstances (at
> > least, according to them). A child has some kidney failure and they
> > have to take him to the kidney specialist but it is highly unlikely,
> > some warn, for them to find any doctors in the firm. Yet they try
> > their luck, and go to the hospital. And the only doctor who didn't run
> > IS THE Kidney specialist himself.
>
> I don't see how this is different from the card analogy - the only
> difference is that a certain emotional element has been introduced,
> thus personalizing it for the reader. For example, suppose I have a
> deck of cards, take one out at random, put it face down on the table,
> and then throw the rest out the window. A man then puts a gun to my
> head and says that he will only spare me if the card on the table
> turns out to be the ace of spades. A tense situation to be sure, but
> the chances that the ace of spades comes up is still 1 in 52. With the
> analogy you gave above, 38 of the 39 doctors left, and the chances
> that the one that stayed behind would be the kidney specialist is
> still 1 in 39, thus more likely (and hence less miraculous in any
> statistical sense) than me pulling the ace of spades from a deck of
> cards.
Your comparative analogy does not apply, since it lacks any conditions
acting against it. My analogy of 39 doctors has a specific condition
(the strike, in this case) that makes their presence in the city
highly unlikely. More unlikely is the case of the kidney doctor being
there exactly at the time when he is desperately needed although he
wasn't supposed to be there, according to the probability. Now,
multiply the occurence of this situation more than 5 times.. i.e - in
a strike, if there ever was need of some specialist to be present..
out of the 38, only that specialist who is needed is always present by
some bizarre coincidence and the rest always leave. Even though the
conditions are working against such an event to occur... it still
occurs and thats how I define a miracle. Ofcourse, this is an
imaginary incident I concocted and so is the incident of you being
spared if the ace of spades comes up. In actual life.. this does not
usually happen unless an external force is at work *making* it happen.
> > But here arises the question Denis. Out of all the fabled city myths
> > circulating in Arabia.. why did a 'mere mortal' (if he were so) select
> > this particular city??
>
> This (like so much of this form of apologia) boils down to an appeal
> to personal incredulity. I have no idea why this city (Iram) was
> chosen to be mentioned in the Qur'an, nor did that concern me. You
> claim that it was a miracle, but this is simply a case of treating the
> text differently from the way any other text would be treated. This is
> no more miraculous than the Bible mentioning Sodom and Gamorrah, or
> ancient Egyptian texts showing a loose familiarity with some kingdom
> in what is now China.
This is not treating a text differently. Sodom and Gomorrah were
widely known as 'actual' cities during biblical times. Iram, OTOH, was
not. It was among the meshwork of many fabled cities the Arabs that
time had made up. So the question is.. why would the author of the
Quran, out of the meshwork of fables, choose a city that happens to
exist in reality?? I am not making any positive assertions here... so
this is not an appeal to personal incredulity.
> > > For the people who believed such, where did they believed the sun went
> > > when it went under water? They believed it went under the earth (or
> > > the land they were on), and came up the other side (because the sun
> > > always rises from the East and sets in the West), hence they believed
> > > that the sun swam or floated in a circular motion, which is
> > > essentially what the Qur'an is saying.
> >
> > Again, you are retrofitting the notion of the sun going under the
> > earth and then rising back from the East.
>
> I never claimed the Qur'an is stating such. What I was stating was
> that these ancient people believed the sun and moon swam/floated in a
> circular motion. The Qur'anic verse that Nadir called to witness only
> states that the sun and moon move in a circular motion, and I was
> simply noting that many people believed that. I am not claiming that
> the other things they believed were also held by the author of the
> Qur'an.
Again.. many people may have belived the sun to circle the earth and
the Quran does not say the sun circles the earth. It simply says that
both sun and moon have a circular motion... just leave it to that. For
the fact that Quran does not hold the geocentric position, refer to 96:3-4.
> > > Actually, not once in the debate or this thread have I claimed that
> > > the verse was an error.
> >
> > I never said you did.
>
> Actually, it seemed to me like you did state such; you wrote: "It is
> only after YOU choose to interpret the verse as claiming orbit 'around
> the earth' that the verse becomes an error."
Well... I never said you claimed the verse to be an error. I only
noted that after you choose to *interpret* the verse as claiming orbit
'around the earth' that the verse becomes an error.
> > the view of the sun and moon's orbits were not dominant in Arabia.
>
> Huh? Are you telling me that the pre-Islamic Arabs did not believe the
> sun and moon swam in a circular motion? What then, did they believe?
> That the sun stood still?
They generally believed in the Greek view of Apollo's chariots
dragging the sun along around the earth. This is the assumption held
by brother Yusuf Ali also. It can be further verified by tracing the
origin of the pre-Islamic Arabia's god Al-Lat which is supposedly held
to be the Greek goddess Leto who is the said to be the mother of
Apollo - the Sun-god in Greek myth. Refer to the First Encylopedia of
Islam, Vol. 1, p. 380.
> > > Okay, first of all, you positively asserted that the word used in
> > > Soorat ar-Room 30:3 "wasn't used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age".
> > > What is your evidence for this assertion?
> >
> > I am open to evidence proving the contrary, if it exists.
>
> But Mohd, you're the one who made the positive assertion. He who
> asserts must prove.
Hence I am open to further evidence proving the contrary. If there
exists no evidence, then my case is proven.
> > > Second, the question is as follows: is it possible for a mere mortal
> > > to refer to a near land as the "near land"? The answer is yes.
> >
> > But is it possible for the mere mortal to use a word that has both
> > 'near' and 'deep' as its meaning and still make perfect (and accurate)
> > sense?? The answer is: highly unlikely.
>
> Why is it highly unlikely? I can think of numerous texts that employ
> words that can have multiple meanings, and all the meanings still
> making sense (ESPECIALLY with Semitic languages - in my attempts at
> demonstration via a scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Bible or
> Talmud, I have done this with Hebrew quite a few times).
Give me an example from the Bible and Talmud. The only things that I
know that you have done is apply quasi-scientific approach to Job,
show that talmud and ecclesiates has the word for 'uproot' in case of
mountains, quote literalists (like Aviezer) to prove your case that
similar approaches can be done with Genesis to fit big bang model and
the case about expansion of the universe. None of them have been said
to make use of single word to imply double, triple or more meanings
that make perfect sense with the context.
> > When we do our Math sums.. we keep the final answer
> > infront on us and then proceed to fit our calculation with the answer
> > given in the answer book. Thats how I practice Math, I guess. But this
> > only shows me that the calculation I did to reach the answer is
> > correct. In short, I proceeded with the calculation AFTER I have had
> > look at the answer and compared.
>
> It is quite unjustified to put this form of apologia on the same level
> as mathematics. The issue with the scientific-hermeneutic approach to
> these religious texts (be they the Qur'an, certain ahaadeeth, the
> Talmud, the Bible, or some other text) is that a claim is made that
> the text is obviously referring to a recent discovery. But the reality
> is that these interpretations of the text were often only offered
> AFTER the discovery was made. There is nothing miraculous about being
> able to correlate a text with science after the fact (this can be done
> with any text - I have done it with the Bible, the Talmud, and even
> the writings of Walt Whitman!). Mathematics is something much more
> concrete, where most often you don't have to be told the answer in
> advance, rather you can reach it yourself (assuming you properly
> understand the relevant system being employed).
You're missing the point (not sure if you're avoiding it). The point
was that your 'miracle of reinterpretation' has no basis as such.
There is conceptually nothing wrong in correlating a text with a
recently made discovery and it can still be classified as miraculous.
The only difference, that I have observed, between the correlations
done with the Quran and other texts is the fact that in the Quran all
interpretations are equally applicable because they simply happen to
make perfect sense with the context. This is not the case with other
texts... where you have to 'choose' an interpretation as the correct
one and some don't make sense at all (like your exposition of Job). I
gave example of mathematics precisely to point out that fitting your
calculations to get a desired, but the accurate, answer is no more
problematic than correlating passages from the Quran with the
scientific discoveries today.
Regards,
Ahmad
Denis Giron
> for argument sake , I will agree with Denis Giron's logic,
> and not question it.
>
> According to Denis's clothes analogy,
> 69 people in the room, thus the chances of the
> precise combination that arose actually arising
> were 1 in 1 X 10^207, which is mathematically
> impossible, which means that we can not attribute
> this phenomenom to chance or luck. Logically,
> these events are NOT SUPPOSE TO HAPPEN, and can
> NEVER HAPPEN!!!!
With all due respect, Nadir has wholly missed the point, and has gone
on to reach a conclusion that seems to remove free will from the
world. The reality is that such things are possible, and they do
happen. In fact, if you say the chances are 1 in 1 X 10^207, then you
are admitting it is possible. True, the odds are against it, but it is
not impossible. If it is possible, then it can happen via perfectly
natural means.
I think appeals to probability are quite weak, as almost everything
can be construed as a statistical miracle. This does not mean that
every event is being guided by Allaah, as Nadir concluded. Rather it
means people might be overreacting with regard to probabilities. A
wonderful article titled "The Odds of That," from the New York Times,
August 11, 2002, touches on this in a loose sense, but is nonetheless
relevant - read it here:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/messages/42468.htm
> In addition to all of that, If a person was caught by the FBI or
> US Department of Justice with dozens of different people's credit
> card numbers, and offered an excuse that it was all coincidence or
> guess work in a court of law, I dont think any sensible human would
> believe that. And if the defendant were to bring up Denis Giron's
> clothes analogy in his defense, I really dont think that will help
> his case either!
Nadir brough a similar argument up in our debate on the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an. In the version that
came up in the debate, roughly speaking (id est, I'm paraphrasing
here), a man is put on trial. The prosecutor points out that the
victim was shot by a certain kind of gun, and the defendant owns that
same kind of gun. But the defendant argues that many people own that
model of gun. The prosecutor notes that the victim was shot in such
and such place at such and such time, and the defendant happened to be
in that area around that time. But the defendant argues that many
people were around that area at that time. And so on, and so forth,
the corroborating evidence mounts, and for each piece the defendant
offers another explanation.
Now, Nadir insinuates that this is equivalent to what *I* have done
with the Qur'an. Where one miracle is shown to me, and I say "that
could be something else," and another miracle is shown to me, and
again I explain how it is possible for a man to have uttered such.
Unfortunately, I think this sort of poisons the well. The reality is
the debate was nothing like a trial. Saying that a barrier of water is
a possible reference to the picnocline is nothing like being found
with a gun in the vicinity of a body shot by the same model.
Nadir took eight verses that people only recently started arguing were
scientific miracles. Which means that for 1400 years, none of the
countless Muslim scholars understood what the "clear Arabic" of the
Qur'an was saying in these instances. After offering this new
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the text, Nadir asks how it is
possible that a man could correlate eight different verses with
science discoveries after the discoveries were made if the text was
not actually referring to such. Of course, the question almost answers
itself: it is wholly possible for a person to observe a discovery, and
then go back and interpret the text as being harmonious with the
discovery.
> In regards to the case of Quran, there the author of the Quran
> demonstrated the TYPE of probability miracles human can NOT do!
>
> And that was clearly demonstrated in the debate, which became clear
> when we looked at the scientific evidences collectively.
> Therefore,after examining the evidence, any person with common sense
> would be able to clearly see that the author of the Quran has to be a
> greater source than man.
So we see that Nadir has essentially repeated what he said before.
However, what the actual case was with the debate was Nadir cited
eight different verses as miraculous. I noted how none of them were
particularly miraculous upon further reflection. So Nadir, almost
conceding that none of the verses individually were miraculous, asks
that we look at them together, as if looking at eight unmiraculous
verses will reveal something miraculous. There are natural
explanations for all eight verses, which itself offers a natural
explanation for the eight verses in toto. And yes, it is possible for
a mere mortal to correlate a text with science after the fact...
Denis Giron
> ...
This is a continuation of the discussion regarding the eight Qur'anic
statements that Nadir Ahmed correlated with science in our debate from
last month. The discussion is presently on the issue of the odds of
Nadir interpreting those eight Qur'anic statements in such a way that
makes them harmonious with science, as well as the issue of odds and
probabilities in general.
Some of the text of the post I am responding to will be snipped, thus,
for those who would like to read Mohd's post, it was archived by
google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7b81561a.0310250005.6439ba74%40posting.google.com
> > Actually, there is something against the likelihood of that card
> > coming up, and that is the fact that 51 of the 52 cards are NOT the
> > three of hearts.
>
> That is simply the probability of the three of hearts appearing out of
> the deck of 52 cards. There are no *conditions* for it to make its
> appearance unlikely.
Yes, there is: the condition that 51 of those 52 cards are NOT the
three of hearts. The conditions are set such that more than 98% of the
cards in the deck are not the one you're looking for.
> Further.. if that three of hearts is being picked
> up randomly more than 5 or 6 times (after being shuffled and
> reshuffled, ofcourse)... then we can easily infer that the player is
> either doing some trick or he's not. If the former is ruled out.. then
> we have an example of extreme luck. Now imagine, that everytime he
> picks up a card (even after being rigorously shuffled), its always
> the three of hearts... then there must be some external force (maybe a
> trick or anything for that matter) acting. Apply the same logic to Quran...
> where numerous statements just happen to have a scientific exegesis.
> Why is that?? How is it possible if the author did not intend such??
Sigh. This has been answered already. Is it possible for a man to
observe a scientific discovery, and then, after the fact, go back and
interpret his text in such a way that it is in harmony with that
discovery? Yes, it is very possible. Is if possible for a man to do
this with one verse? Yes. Two verses? Yes. A thousand verses? Yes.
When interpreting a text (especially a text written in a Semitic
language), there are no real conditions that keep one from looking at
a discovery, and then interpreting the text as being harmonious with
that discovery. As many have noted, it would be more interesting if
one could note that the text is referring to such *BEFORE* the
discovery is made. The odds are quite in favor of post-hoc
hermeneutics.
> Your comparative analogy does not apply, since it lacks any conditions
> acting against it. My analogy of 39 doctors has a specific condition
> (the strike, in this case) that makes their presence in the city
> highly unlikely.
Again, in your analogy, the strike caused all but one of the 38
doctors to leave. What are the odds that the one who did not leave is
the one you were looking for? 1 in 38.
> Even though the conditions are working against such an event
> to occur... it still occurs and thats how I define a miracle.
> Ofcourse, this is an imaginary incident I concocted and so is
> the incident of you being spared if the ace of spades comes up.
> In actual life.. this does not usually happen unless an external
> force is at work *making* it happen.
With all due respect Mohd, you have a loose definition of miracle
them. I would say, under your definition, miracles happen thousands of
times a day.
> This is not treating a text differently. Sodom and Gomorrah were
> widely known as 'actual' cities during biblical times.
Oh really? Can you cite a text written at the same time as Genesis
that mentions Sodom and Gamorrah? It seems the argument in favor of
the Qur'anic mention of Iram being a miracle rests on the fact that
(allegedly) we have no texts mentioning Iram that are contemporary
with the Qur'an. I personally have never seen any evidence that Sodom
and Gamorrah was known by any contemporary sources. So on what are you
basing your claim about what was widely known at the time?
> Again.. many people may have belived the sun to circle the earth and
> the Quran does not say the sun circles the earth. It simply says that
> both sun and moon have a circular motion... just leave it to that.
That is exactly what I want to do. I want only to focus on the part
about the sun and moon both floating/swimming in a circular motion.
So, the question again, is did people (mere mortals) before the Qur'an
believe the sun and moon floated/swam in a circular motion? The answer
is a resounding yes! Many people believed the sun and moon
floated/swam in a circular motion. Thus it is overwhelmingly possible
for a mere mortal to state that the sun and moon both swim/float in a
circular motion. For Nadir to state that the chances of a man
believing the sun and moon float/swim in a circular motion are 1 in
10,000 is wholly unjustified.
> > But Mohd, you're the one who made the positive assertion. He who
> > asserts must prove.
>
> Hence I am open to further evidence proving the contrary. If there
> exists no evidence, then my case is proven.
Uh, no. You positively asserted that the word used in Soorat ar-Room
30:3 "wasn't used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age". You're supposed
to present evidence to back up your assertion. If there is no evidence
either way, your assertion does not win by default. Rather it remains
unproven
> Give me an example from the Bible and Talmud. The only things that I
> know that you have done is apply quasi-scientific approach to Job,
Okay, with Job, taqpi'eni can mean "pull together" (and I correlated
that with the brining together of two things), or "solidify," and
David Bruce loosely correlated that with ossification. Regardless,
this takes us away from the scope of the discussion. We are focusing
on the Qur'anic verse, and the point is it calls a near land "the near
land". Is it possible for a mere mortal to call a near land "the near
land". Yes, and the fact that you can correlate other meanings with
other things does not change the fact that it is possible for a mere
mortal to refer to a near land by employing a phrase that can mean
"the near land".
> You're missing the point (not sure if you're avoiding it). The point
> was that your 'miracle of reinterpretation' has no basis as such.
It has great basis. These amazing verses were only discovered after
the fact. If it was analogous to a math problem, Muslims should have
been able to come to the correct answer from the outset (i.e. realize
this is what verse was saying before the discovery was made by Western
scientists). Anyone can correlate a text with science after the fact.
There is nothing miraculous about reinterpreting a text after the
discovery is made. The only miracle is the reinterpretation itself,
hence the miracle of reinterpretation.
Mohd Anisul Karim
I have checked some sources for the pycnocline zone between waters of
different density and the Quranic account appears to be accurate. What
is your objection??
Mohd Anisul Karim
Due to the confusion, I think, it will create and for the sake of
brevity, I will respond to your arguments without quoting you too much
here. Anyone who wants to verify your claims and assertions (although
they will be briefly outlined in this post, itself) in context can do
so from here:
1. Probability Problem:
Probability estimations are mathematical generalizations that attempt
to predict the likelihood and unlikelihood of events to occur based on
their odds. They assume one very important thing that I have been
trying to emphasize with my discussion with you. They negate the act
of any external force ("conditions") on events that would deliberately
"make them" occur and vice versa. In other words, these sort of
estimations are valid under a paradigm of 'pure chance'. In the case
of the Quran, there are so many "extreme" conditions acting against
the event that is being discussed here, to occur. We don't even expect
for the author, taking in account the conditions he lived in, to even
dream of such phenomenon that even the 21st century science has not
yet fully developed the idea of... like the case of superstring
theories. Even the exemplified explanation of the physical appearance
of a 0.2 mm embryo is something no "mere mortal" could have envisioned
without the means. At a time, when society and people accepted the
erroneous concepts of menstrual blood, curdled-like-cheese formation
of embryo, female developing from left hand-side and male from the
right... the author does not make mention of such things anywhere in
the Quran. These conditions make an event as to derive scientific
information from the Quran, highly unlikely. Yet, we still can. Thats
a miracle and my very point.
If semitic texts were so prone to re-interpretation for science as you
claim, then surely we must see *lots* jews and christians correlate
facts with their scriptures. We must see *major* christian and jewish
websites like it-is-truth.org that explicate science from their
scriptures. But currently, I know of no such semitic organization that
take this job seriously as the Muslims do. The Jews and Christians
*mainly* rely on the tool of prophecies to validate their scriptures.
This shows that your claim that such exegesis can be applied to any
texts especially semitic texts is false.
Nonetheless, to get back to my point, my analogy of doctors explicates
the scenario rather nicely. The odds of one doctor specialist, out of
38 different specialists, staying back is 1 in 38, no doubt. But the
condition (i.e - strike) makes it unlikely for any doctor to stay
back... let alone the doctor whom you most need at that moment. If
this event occurs several times, for instance, like strike happens and
you find out that everytime only the doctor specialist you need most
stays back... then surely some external force is at work. That is my
point.
2. The fabled city of Iram and the biblical cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah:
> Can you cite a text written at the same time as Genesis
> that mentions Sodom and Gamorrah?
The Ebla tablets which date back to 2300 B.C. Incidentally, those
tablets are also the ones which make mention of the City of Iram!
3. The circular motion of the Sun and Moon:
> That is exactly what I want to do. I want only to focus on the part
> about the sun and moon both floating/swimming in a circular motion.
> So, the question again, is did people (mere mortals) before the Qur'an
> believe the sun and moon floated/swam in a circular motion? The answer
> is a resounding yes!
Not exactly. Again, the ancient people explicitly believed the sun and
moon to revolve AROUND EARTH. A classic geocentric position. The
Quran, nowhere attaches this circular motion as around earth... so it
cannot be be correlated with the error of the "mere mortals". And as I
said before, the prevalent belief in Arabia at the time, as I have
shown, was probably the Greek myth of Apollo's chariots pulling the
sun around earth. How hard could it be for a "mere mortal" to state
that, and easily converting all the pagans in Mecca or attaching the
circular motion around earth?? Thus, to assert that this statement,
during that time, could have been made by a mere mortal is a bit of an
exaggeration.
4. The "near" and "deep" land:
> You positively asserted that the word used in Soorat ar-Room
> 30:3 "wasn't used by anyone in the pre-Islamic age". You're supposed
> to present evidence to back up your assertion.
If that is how you view my assertion, then I retract it. I am open to
evidence that would somehow show that the wording in Surah ar-Room has
been used many times by other Arabs in that context many a times. That
was my intention.. and as far I know, it wasn't used in that manner.
5. One Word - Multiple Meanings hypothesis:
> Okay, with Job, taqpi'eni can mean "pull together" (and I correlated
> that with the brining together of two things), or "solidify," and
> David Bruce loosely correlated that with ossification.
We can discuss this instance is detail if you want, because I am quite
sure that within the context the verse is in... one of the meanings
won't apply. Nonetheless, if doing these with scriptures were so easy
as you claim... we should expect to see such exegesis done with the
bible at numerous instances. We don't (or at least, I don't). Why?
6. Mathematics, Quran and Re-Interpretation:
> You're missing the point (not sure if you're avoiding it). The point
> was that your 'miracle of reinterpretation' has no basis as such.
> > It has great basis. These amazing verses were only discovered after
> > the fact.
So too, we come to understand the correct methods of calculations for
a sum or a problem, in mathematics, after having the answer shown to
us.
> > If it was analogous to a math problem, Muslims should have
> > been able to come to the correct answer from the outset (i.e. realize
> > this is what verse was saying before the discovery was made by Western
> > scientists).
That is a question for clarity and mindset and an entirely different
issue. It might be that Muslims understood the verses, they way we
understand them today... but could not correlate it with anything that
was prevalent during their time. Hence the advise from the great 10th
century commentator Al-Tabari: "It is our duty to keep silent when we
do not know". Regarding clarity, I really don't think thats a big
issue. You can have a well-valid number plate of a car even though it
may appear unclear. The issue is more about understanding and
correlating rather than re-interpreting. Thats all.
Regards,
Ahmad
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis,
Pax Vobis Mohd...
Sorry for the delay. I have been tied up with other things, thus the
time I spend on the net has been sparse (and I may have spread myself
a bit thin over various discussion forums).
> Probability estimations are mathematical generalizations that attempt
> to predict the likelihood and unlikelihood of events to occur based on
> their odds.
This is well understood, and as was already touched on, there are
plenty of every day events that can be construed as statistical
miracles. This is why I have argued that appeals to probability are
weak. Nonetheless, rather than asserting that the Qur'anic verses
being correlated with science are less likely than the examples I have
given (id est, various clothing analogies), please give your own
'mathematical generalizations'. Present numbers that establish the
likelihood or unlikelihood of those relevant verses, and back up your
numbers. If you're going to continually assert that the chances are
lower for the Qur'anic verses called to witness by Nadir being
correlated with science, yet not actually present actual numbers, how
can a discussion about probabilities continue? If no justifiable
numbers are presented, there is no objective way of really determining
whether what you and Nadir are saying is actually the case.
> We don't even expect for the author, taking in account the conditions
> he lived in, to even dream of such phenomenon that even the 21st
> century science has not yet fully developed the idea of... like the
> case of superstring theories.
With all due respect, Mohd, you know very well that the Qur'an says
absolutely nothing about string theory. If it actually did present
some information about string theory, would not have Muslims noted
this before string theory began to be developed in modern scientific
circles?
> Even the exemplified explanation of the physical appearance
> of a 0.2 mm embryo is something no "mere mortal" could have envisioned
> without the means.
Again Mohd, the Qur'an never makes any mention of a 0.2 mm embryo. So
to say that the Qur'an describes its appearance is rather unjustified.
> If semitic texts were so prone to re-interpretation for science as you
> claim, then surely we must see *lots* jews and christians correlate
> facts with their scriptures.
No, not lots, because Christians and Jews don't approach their texts
the same way people outside the Judeo-Christian paradigm do. There are
a number of factors behind this. First I would note Behnam Sadeghi's
wonderful article posted to SRI in November 1999, "Problems with Dawa
Methods." I would like to quote relevant portions, but before I do,
note that the complete piece can be read here:
Anyway, the portion I would like to note are the following:
[------ 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. [...] [I]t could at best be a way of
dealing with one's inferiority complex vis. a vis. the West, the goal
being to convince ONESELF, by citing famous non-Muslim Westerners,
that one's attachment to Islam is not so preposterous after all. [...]
Which is why I attribute the great popularity of Maurice Bucaille's
book among Muslims partly to the fact that his name is Maurice
Bucaille, and not Murad Bakri. So, here we have a book which at a
psychological level is doubly satisfying: it recruits the support of
Western science for Islam, and does so through the authorship of a
Westerner. That combination ensures a hit.
[------ END QUOTE ------]
I cite this because there are far more people trying to wrench
scientific interpretations of Hindu scriptures than there are people
doing such with the Bible. This could, in part, as Mr. Sadeghi alluded
to, be due to the fact that Jews and Christians are not as prone to
the sort of post-colonialist inferiority complex that some (but surely
not all!) Muslims and Hindus may be victims of. Because (a) science
today is dominated by the West, and (b) most people are generally not
aware that "Western Science" rests on a bade made up of contributions
from many cultures over many centuries, there is a misinformed belief
among many that modern science is firmly part of Judeo-Christian
culture.
So, first, not as many Jews and Christians try to find science in
their texts because they don't see it as being alien to their culture
- they believe their culture produced it.
Second, many of those Christians and Jews who do feel threatended by
science take an approach formulated by American fundamentalist
protestants, which is to deny science in favor of an interpretation of
scripture that contradicts what modern scientists are saying.
Third, those Christians (in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church,
and to a much higher degree in the Episcopalian scholarly circles) and
Jews who do correlate their text with science (i.e. reinterpret
scripture so as to fit with recent scientific discoveries) take an
approach that is somewhat opposite of those who take a
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an (or Hindu texts). They
don't reinterpret the text and then stand back amazed at the harmony,
wondering aloud how a mere mortal could not such things. Rather, they
reinterpret the text and simply note that their reinterpretation
allows for them to see their faith as being harmonious with science
(i.e. it is not a proof of scripture's divine origin, rather it is
simply a proof that scripture and science are not incompatible - such
an approach could be related to the first factor mentioned above).
Now of course, none of the above amounts to form a precise scientific
explanation of the differing psychologies between Jews, Christians,
Muslims and Hindus with regard to how they approach scripture and
science. Nonetheless, it touches on how there are a number of factors
that lead to these differences, and there are other factors I'm sure.
Nonetheless, despite all these factors (and whatever factors I have
failed to mention), there are people who do make such correlations.
Note Nathan Aviezer's "In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and
Science" and Gerald Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang," which
correlate the Bible with modern scientific discoveries in physics (the
big bang, decoupling, et cetera). Also of interest might be Rabbi
Dovid Brown (of Yeshiva University in New York), and his book
"Mysteries of the Creation," which correlates various other scientific
discoveries with passages in the Torah and Talmud. In a previous post
you called Aviezer a "literalist," when in reality he is quite far
from it. In fact, though he is Jewish, his approach to scripture bares
a number of similarities to the non-literalist approach of
Episcopalian theologians (case in point: Aviezer's argument that the
Hebrew word for day, "yom" (YWM), does not necessarily denote a
literal 24 hour day).
> The Jews and Christians *mainly* rely on the tool of prophecies to
> validate their scriptures. This shows that your claim that such
> exegesis can be applied to any texts especially semitic texts is
> false.
Uh actually Mohd, it does not show that. All it shows is that Jews and
Christians employ other methods to validate their scriptures. The fact
that such things can be wrenched from Semitic texts is hinted in the
fact that even I, a non-believer (i.e. a man who does not think the
Bible is the word of God), can spend fifteen minutes with the Talmud
or the TaNaKh, and wrench some post-hoc scientific statement from a
passage by noting the other possible meanings of the words employed.
> Nonetheless, to get back to my point, my analogy of doctors explicates
> the scenario rather nicely. The odds of one doctor specialist, out of
> 38 different specialists, staying back is 1 in 38, no doubt.
Right, so then it is more likely than a scenario where the chances are
1 in 52, or 1 in 39, et cetera. If we're going to claim one scenario
is more or less likely, we should have actual numbers to compare.
Otherwise, how can we objectively determine which scenario is more
likely?
> > Can you cite a text written at the same time as Genesis
> > that mentions Sodom and Gamorrah?
>
> The Ebla tablets which date back to 2300 B.C. Incidentally, those
> tablets are also the ones which make mention of the City of Iram!
Obviously I meant other than the Ebla tablets (as the Ebla tablets is
the crux of the Qur'anic argument, and they mention both Iram and
Soddom & Gamorrah). So, OTHER THAN THE EBLA TABLETS, can you cite a
text written at the same time as Genesis that mentions Sodom and
Gamorrah?
> > That is exactly what I want to do. I want only to focus on the part
> > about the sun and moon both floating/swimming in a circular motion.
> > So, the question again, is did people (mere mortals) before the Qur'an
> > believe the sun and moon floated/swam in a circular motion? The answer
> > is a resounding yes!
>
> Not exactly. Again, the ancient people explicitly believed the sun and
> moon to revolve AROUND EARTH.
Not exactly what? I stated that people believed the sun and moon
swam/floated in a circular motion. You're the one who keeps bringing
in what they move around. The Qur'an does not state what they go
around, thus we're focusing on whether or not it is amazing to say
that the sun and moon move in a circular motion. And the answer is
that it is not, as many people believed that "the sun and the moon
swim/float in a circular motion."
> A classic geocentric position. The Quran, nowhere attaches this
> circular motion as around earth... so it cannot be be correlated
> with the error of the "mere mortals".
I never claimed error, nor did I claim the Qur'an says the sun and
moon revolve around the earth. The issue here is that the Qur'an says
the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion. Now, the question
is: is it possible for a mere mortal to believe that "the sun and moon
swim/float in a circular motion"? The answer is YES, as many mere
mortals before the Qur'an believed that the sun and moon swam/floated
in a circular motion.
> How hard could it be for a "mere mortal" to state
> that, and easily converting all the pagans in Mecca or attaching the
> circular motion around earth?? Thus, to assert that this statement,
> during that time, could have been made by a mere mortal is a bit of an
> exaggeration.
What pagan did not believe that the sun and moon swam/floated in a
circular motion? You keep mentioning the chariots of Apollo. Did these
chariots not carry the sun and moon in a circular motion according to
these pagans? How many pagans believed this? It seems to me that the
vast majority of pre-Islamic peoples believed something analogous to
"the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion".
> > Okay, with Job, taqpi'eni can mean "pull together" (and I correlated
> > that with the brining together of two things), or "solidify," and
> > David Bruce loosely correlated that with ossification.
>
> We can discuss this instance is detail if you want, because I am quite
> sure that within the context the verse is in... one of the meanings
> won't apply.
Which meaning is that? The meaning I correlated with the bringing
together of two substances, or the one Bruce correlated with
ossification?
Finally, regarding mathematics, reinterpreting scripture so as to fit
with a recent discovery is not at all like mathematics. In
mathematics, you have methods to find the answer. If the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an were like that, then
people would be able to find the answer without being told what the
actual fact of the matter is.
Mohd Anisul Karim
I will, as done previously, categorise my responses to Denis. Anyone
who wishes to see what Denis wrote, in detail, can do so from here:
1. Probability issue
> Probability estimations are mathematical generalizations that attempt
> to predict the likelihood and unlikelihood of events to occur based on
> their odds.
> > This is well understood, and as was already touched on, there are
> > plenty of every day events that can be construed as statistical
> > miracles. This is why I have argued that appeals to probability are
> > weak. Nonetheless, rather than asserting that the Qur'anic verses
> > being correlated with science are less likely than the examples I have
> > given (id est, various clothing analogies), please give your own
> > 'mathematical generalizations'.
The mathematical generalization, in numbers, was already given by
Nadir. You gave your criticism against it by asserting that everything
is a statistical miracle and explained it by your cloth analogies. I
am simply defending Nadir's generalization by postulating the element
of 'conditions' or external forces. Your example of cloths was under
the paradigm of pure chance since there is absolutely NOTHING against
it from happening. Something will definitely take place... people WILL
wear a certain combination of socks, they WILL wear a certain
combination of trousers and they WILL have a certain combination of
shoes; the same goes for shirts and stuff. There WILL be an outcome,
no matter what and there is NOTHING that is acting against such an
outcome. But in the case of the Quran... there need not necessarily be
any outcome (i.e - the possibility of verses that speak of scientific
phenomenon that no 'mere mortal' coud have known during/before that
time) at all. And there are tons of conditions (like prevalent
knowledge, ignorant conditions, all-out-war atmosphere etc) acting
against such an outcome... that it is just too unlikely to occur.
2. String Theory
> > With all due respect, Mohd, you know very well that the Qur'an says
> > absolutely nothing about string theory.
With all due respect, it does speak of one of the claims of string
theory, i.e - the sky being 'woven'. I can provide quotes from
physicists like Brian Greene, Lee Smolin etc who use the exact same
word 'woven' to illustrate the notion of string theory. But the bottom
line is: the Quran does speak of it. String theory may not yet have
any experimental evidence, which is partly due to the fact that we
still don't have particle accelerators with energy high enough to
reach higher dimensions, but the potential for the outcome of evidence
supporting string theory is compelling. Nonetheless, I have to
emphasize here that all these are just assumptions, i.e - I am
*assuming* the author of the Quran had string theory in mind when he
used hubuk in the context of sama'a in 51:7. As always, I can be
wrong.
3. 0.2 mm embryo
> > Again Mohd, the Qur'an never makes any mention of a 0.2 mm embryo. So
> > to say that the Qur'an describes its appearance is rather unjustified.
Does the word 'alaqa' ring a bell? You have, with the virtue of modern
technology, illustrations of a 24 day old 0.2mm size of embryo that
resembles a leech - both in structure and function and on the other
hand, you have an Arab nomad living 1400 years ago employing an Arabic
word that has multiple meanings with one of the meanings meaning
'leech' and using it to denote the developing embryo. Coincidence?
Unlikely! Source greater than Man - likely!
4. Why Christians and Jews don't employ scientific methods to validate
their Scriptures like Muslims do?
> > I cite this because there are far more people trying to wrench
> > scientific interpretations of Hindu scriptures than there are people
> > doing such with the Bible.
Really? Before I address Mr. Sadeghi's cricisms, I would like to do
some searches in google to see if this claim is true. First, I tried
Veda and Science:
Vedic and Science:
Gita and Science:
Lets just say that they don't usually define 'science' the way Mr.
Sadeghi thinks they do. Now I tried Quran and Science:
It does have the answering-Islam team's website right at the top...
but it proves my point that no other semitic/non-semitic religious
belief system takes seriously any form of scientific verification for
their scripture than Muslims do for theirs.
> > This could, in part, as Mr. Sadeghi alluded
> > to, be due to the fact that Jews and Christians are not as prone to
> > the sort of post-colonialist inferiority complex that some (but surely
> > not all!) Muslims and Hindus may be victims of.
Similar criticism was also voiced by S. Nomanul Haq and others. In my
opinion, I don't it is "inferiority-complex" that is the problem. I,
certainly, don't see it that way nor am I in any way under some
"inferiority-complex". What I am under is verification. What I allude
to test a proposition, in emprical terms - in this case, the veracity
of the Quran so that I don't have to resort to 'blind faith'. Why
don't critics like Mr. Sadeghi aim their replies towards these
propositions instead of trying to frame the issue in a
quasi-psychological manner and explaining the problem. Not only do
these sort of criticism fall under the banner of ad hominems, but
they're also like having their cake and eating it too. The question
whether the name of the scientist is Maurice Bucaille or Murad Bakri
really doesn't matter... what I would ask Mr Sadeghi to do is address
the man's claims instead. Now, if you are asserting that Jews and
Christians are not victims of this so-called inferiority complex and
Muslims are - you have to back this assertion by empirical
demonstration (which I don't see how you can demonstrate, BTW) before
you can use this as a valid reason as to why Christians and Jews, by
and large, don't employ scientific methods to validate their
Scriptures like Muslims do. If you can't do that, I don't know what to
call this other than mere speculation.
> > Second, many of those Christians and Jews who do feel threatended by
> > science take an approach formulated by American fundamentalist
> > protestants, which is to deny science in favor of an interpretation of
> > scripture that contradicts what modern scientists are saying.
Right, I have to partially agree with this reason since the main
reason they deny science in favor of scripture is usually more subtle
than you might think... and it, to some extent, favours my position.
One famous christian creationist (Ray Bohlin) boldly asserts: "The
nature of the evolutionary process is contrary to the nature of God."
So they didn't just choose the interpretation that their scripture
gives over science for nothing... but because they know perfectly well
that their scripture, no matter how you twist and turn it, will not
take in the mainstream notions of evolution, big bang, old earth etc.
They know very well that their scripture is explicit in this matter.
Hence they avoid any attempts to reconcile such concepts with the
Bible... since the latter appears to give a different picture which
they would prefer to adhere to and justify it by their own 'science'.
You see... if that were the case with the Quran, I won't be surprised
if Muslims would do the same thing as ICR, AiG and other creationist
institutions are currently doing. But the case of the Quran seems to
be quite the opposite where we don't have to twist neither science nor
scriptire to justify our claims... but simply put, let the scientific
findings of the 21st century unfold from the Quran as they are.
> > Nonetheless, despite all these factors (and whatever factors I have
> > failed to mention), there are people who do make such correlations.
> > Note Nathan Aviezer's "In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and
> > Science" and Gerald Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang," which
> > correlate the Bible with modern scientific discoveries in physics (the
> > big bang, decoupling, et cetera). Also of interest might be Rabbi
> > Dovid Brown (of Yeshiva University in New York), and his book
> > "Mysteries of the Creation," which correlates various other scientific
> > discoveries with passages in the Torah and Talmud.
This comes under your third factor since the only useful thing that
both Aviezer and Schroeder did was show > > a proof that scripture and
science are not incompatible. Same goes for the Rabbi. What I intend
to do is show not only the compatibility but also that our scripture
(Quran) actually predates science in its discoveries.
> The Jews and Christians *mainly* rely on the tool of prophecies to
> validate their scriptures. This shows that your claim that such
> exegesis can be applied to any texts especially semitic texts is
> false.
> > Uh actually Mohd, it does not show that. All it shows is that Jews and
> > Christians employ other methods to validate their scriptures.
And why do they employ this particular method, widely, rather than a
scientific-hermeneutic approach... if semitic texts, as you claim, are
so prone to a scientific exegesis?? Surely there must be a good
reason....
5. Iram VS Sodom & Gomorrah:
> > Obviously I meant other than the Ebla tablets (as the Ebla tablets is
> > the crux of the Qur'anic argument, and they mention both Iram and
> > Soddom & Gamorrah). So, OTHER THAN THE EBLA TABLETS, can you cite a
> > text written at the same time as Genesis that mentions Sodom and
> > Gamorrah?
This is a good example of the so-called 'no true scotsman..' fallacy.
Nonetheless, why not Ebla Tablets?? Because they mention Iram?? So
what? Ebla Tablets were present during the time of Genesis from which
the author of Genesis could have had his information from? Yes, very
likely (it dates back to 2300 BC!!). Were they present during the time
of Muhammad, i.e - did anyone know about the presence of these tablets
where Muhammad could have had his information from?? Unlikely...
because, as far as I know, I don't think there is any evidence to
suggest such. I am open to evidence, though.. so mind you, that I am
not making any positive assertions.
5. Sun, Moon and Earth:
> > What pagan did not believe that the sun and moon swam/floated in a
> > circular motion? You keep mentioning the chariots of Apollo. Did these
> > chariots not carry the sun and moon in a circular motion according to
> > these pagans? How many pagans believed this? It seems to me that the
> > vast majority of pre-Islamic peoples believed something analogous to
> > "the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion".
Ok... you cite me ONE pre-Islamic text that claims the sun and moon
moving in a 'circular motion' WITHOUT attaching the notion that they
move around Earth. I am quite sure you won't find any since, as far as
I have read (and I can be blatantly wrong!), they usually make sure
they attach earth to be the pivotal center as they mention the motion
of sun and moon. That is what I called a classic geocentric position.
If the Quran had indeed been of that position, it would have had earth
to be the pivotal center of the motion of celestial bodies including
the sun in one of its 77000 verses. The notion, in the Quran, is quite
the opposite.. as I see it.
6. Double Meanings - Single Word:
> > Okay, with Job, taqpi'eni can mean "pull together" (and I correlated
> > that with the brining together of two things), or "solidify," and
> > David Bruce loosely correlated that with ossification.
>
> We can discuss this instance is detail if you want, because I am quite
> sure that within the context the verse is in... one of the meanings
> won't apply.
> > > Which meaning is that? The meaning I correlated with the bringing
> > > together of two substances, or the one Bruce correlated with
> > > ossification?
Ok, the Hebrew word taqpi'eni, according to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
means:
1) to thicken, condense, congeal, settle, become dense
a) (Qal) to be condensed
1) thickening (participle)
b) (Hiphil) to cause to curdle
I don't know from where you got the meaning 'pull together' which
would imply more than one substances being 'pulled together'. I also
have to question the validity of 'solidify' of David Bruce.... but it
does come close to 'thicken' and 'become dense', so I can grant that;
but not 'pull together'. So this is the meaning that won't apply. Now,
even if we grant 'solidify', it is still not something that ancient
men like Job couldn't have envisioned of. I am sure since time
immemorial, makind had had the notion of the male contribution
developing to a fully-formed baby. Obviously, there must be some
'solidification' since without that... how do you expect them to
belive that the male semen will turn into fully-formed flesh-and-bones
baby?? It would have been just obvious to them! Also, Aristotle and
Galen makes similar statements os such solidification in their works.
Aristotle, for instance, using the SAME milk-cheese analogy explains
the SAME 'solidifying' process:
"The action of the semen of the male in 'setting' the female's
secretion in the uterus is similar to that rennet upon milk. Rennet is
milk which contains vital heat, as semen does, and this integrates the
homogeneous substance and makes it 'set'. As nature of milk and the
menstrual fluid is one and the same, the action of the semen upon the
substance of the menstrual fluid is the same as that of rennet upon
milk. Thus when the 'setting' is effected, i.e., when the bulky
portion 'sets', the fluid portion comes off; and as the earthy portion
solidifies membranes form all round its outer surface" (Generation of
Animals, as translated by A.L.Peck, Heinemann, 1942 edition, p. 191,
739b)
7. 'Miracle of Re-Interpretation':
> > Finally, regarding mathematics, reinterpreting scripture so as to fit
> > with a recent discovery is not at all like mathematics.
Mathematics was just an example I gave to show the invalidity of your
claim of 'miracle of re-interpretation'. Re-interpreting a text AFTER
a scientific disocvery is neither miraculous nor non-miraculous. Its
just a common method that the christians of your third category often
use to show that there is no inconsistency between the scientific
discovery and the scripture since an alternative interpretation of it
that fits with the scientific data. That is different from what we are
doing. I am not choosing one interpretation and rejecting others. All
I am saying is that the language that the Quran has used makes it
possible for different 'sound' interpretations to equally apply as
being the primary message of the Quran. Apart from that, one of the
set number of interpretations has a scientific exegesis... which are
fairly explicit, I should say. We have discussed many in the
bismikaallahuma forum and I would be happy to raise interesting
examples here, if you want me to :).
Regards,
Ahmad
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis,
Pax Vobis Ahmad,
Apologies for the huge delay in response in this thread and others.
For those readers who are interested, this is a response to Mohd's
post from November 12, 2003, which has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7b81561a.0311121032.33a57692%40posting.google.com
> Anyone who wishes to see what Denis wrote, in detail, can do so
> from here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=bac0a2be.0311110859.6d777a10%40posting.google.com&rnum=14
Quickly, and I apologize if this comes off as a bit pompous (but it
may be useful for future reference), URLs to usenet posts archived by
google only need that which appears after "selm," thus the above can
be shortened to:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bac0a2be.0311110859.6d777a10%40posting.google.com
> > This is well understood, and as was already touched on, there are
> > plenty of every day events that can be construed as statistical
> > miracles. This is why I have argued that appeals to probability are
> > weak. Nonetheless, rather than asserting that the Qur'anic verses
> > being correlated with science are less likely than the examples I have
> > given (id est, various clothing analogies), please give your own
> > 'mathematical generalizations'.
>
> The mathematical generalization, in numbers, was already given by
> Nadir. You gave your criticism against it by asserting that everything
> is a statistical miracle and explained it by your cloth analogies.
With all due respect Mohd, while I indeed did rest a great deal on my
clothes analogy, I also called Nadir's numbers into question. No
justification for those numbers were given, rather they came off as
seemingly arbitrary. So, if we are going to actually debate which
event is more or less likely, the numbers being put forth for the
chances of a human being asserting the various Qur'anic statements
called to witness by Nadir have to be justified. If we can just
arbitrarily assert numbers, what stops us from topping one another
over and over again with increasingly rising numbers?
Imagine if I note Walt Whitman's statement about blades of grass being
the result of "the journey work of the stars" that can be correlated
with what scientists today tell us about stellar nucleosynthesis, and
then arbitrarily assert that the chances of him just saying such are 1
in 10^69. If I don't have to justify my numbers, what stops me from
just blurting out numbers for non-Qur'anic statements that are higher
than the numbers Nadir gave for the Qur'anic statements? And what
would stop Nadir from tweaking his numbers to make them higher, and
then stop me from offer a counter-tweak to top his figures yet again?
Furthermore, even if I were to let Nadir's numbers slide, the fact
still remains that they mean that, statistically speaking, the chances
of a man uttering those Qur'anic statements are MORE LIKELY than the
precise combination of clothes that arose (the mathematical
generalizations, as you called them, point to the clothes analogy
being less likely). You argued that some combination of clothes would
arise, but why that precise combination of clothes? So, on two fronts
the appeal to probabilities are weak: (1) the numbers are not
justified, and (2) the numbers are less impressive than a perfectly
natural event.
> > With all due respect, Mohd, you know very well that the Qur'an says
> > absolutely nothing about string theory.
>
> With all due respect, it does speak of one of the claims of string
> theory, i.e - the sky being 'woven'. I can provide quotes from
> physicists like Brian Greene, Lee Smolin etc who use the exact same
> word 'woven' to illustrate the notion of string theory. But the bottom
> line is: the Quran does speak of it.
Yes, please do offer the quotes from Green, Smolin, et cetera.
Regardless, the "heavens" are only "woven" (if I am not mistaken) in
the sense that ultimately all of matter (according to string theory)
breaks down to tiny 'strings'. As Greene himself writes:
"Matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are made from quarks and
electrons. According to string theory, all such particles are actually
tiny loops of vibrating string."
[Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimentsions,
and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory," (Vintage Books, 1999), p. 14,
Fig. 1.1]
Now, I found that in the Sunday, October 26, 2003, issue of The
Gazette (Montreal, Quebec) [p. B4], in a review of the recent Nova
special on string theory which Greene narrated, he is quoted as saying
that string theory proposes that "everything in the universe, from the
tiniest particle to the most distant star, is made from one kind of
ingredient: unimaginably small, vibrating strands of energy called
strings."
So EVERYTHING in the universed is made up of these strings. Now, the
word in the Qur'an that you are trying to correlate with string theory
is hubuk, which is the plural of hibaak. Indeed the root from which
the word comes (habaka) means to knit, weave, et cetera. However,
"hubuk" is best translated "paths" or "tracks" (and, no surprise,
every translation of the Qur'an employs that meaning). If we were to
treat "hubuk" in the sense that you're treating it, then we could find
"string theory" in various other places. Exempli gratia: every Arabic
astrologer (or astronomer) who spoke of "hubuk an-nujoom" (the paths
of the stars or heavenly bodies) can suddenly be taken as conveying an
amazing bit of information only recently stumbled upon by scientsists
dealing with string theory: stars or heavenly bodies are ultimately
made up of tiny vibrating strings. We could even make the appeal to
personal incredulity that proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an often make, and wonder aloud how some medieval
Arabic astrologer could utter a statement that could be correlated
with the "weavings" of the stars if he didn't intend to be conveying a
subtle nod in favor of string theory.
> > Again Mohd, the Qur'an never makes any mention of a 0.2 mm embryo. So
> > to say that the Qur'an describes its appearance is rather unjustified.
>
> Does the word 'alaqa' ring a bell? You have, with the virtue of modern
> technology, illustrations of a 24 day old 0.2mm size of embryo that
> resembles a leech - both in structure and function and on the other
> hand, you have an Arab nomad living 1400 years ago employing an Arabic
> word that has multiple meanings with one of the meanings meaning
> 'leech' and using it to denote the developing embryo. Coincidence?
> Unlikely! Source greater than Man - likely!
The issue is if the Qur'an actually states anything about a 0.2 mm
embryo. The reality is that it does not, rather certain Muslims have
only recently correlated it with such. The reality is that the word
"alaqa" is wholly vague (as are the other terms found in the
embryological statements in Soorat al-Moominoon). The proof of this is
that at certain points in Islamic history, a number of very competent
Muslims, who were quite familiar with the Qur'an (I would say even
more competent in understanding the Qur'an than, say, Keith Moore or
Mohd Anisul Karim, no offense), felt that the relevant ayaat were
saying the same thing that Galen was saying, yet centuries later
Muslims disagreed (and in the time in between there were various
understandings of what the verses were saying being put forth). The
interpretations applied to alaqa by proponents of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an are often quite
circular, where it is assumed that the various possible meanings were
intended, and then it is further assumed that these allegedly intended
meanings were further intended to be references to the things they are
presently being correlated with. No amount of gasping or making
appeals to personal incredulity can ever escape the fact that the key
premises of the exegesis are all assumed.
> It does have the answering-Islam team's website right at the top...
> but it proves my point that no other semitic/non-semitic religious
> belief system takes seriously any form of scientific verification for
> their scripture than Muslims do for theirs.
Or at least that there is not as much propagation of such on the net.
Though, maybe you are right, and the case is that such approaches are
more prevalent among Muslims than Hindus (and it is certainly more
prevalent among Muslims than Jews or Christians). However, (and this
is ironic) just recently I witnessed a Hindu student on capmus (i.e.
my undergraduate campus, which I still visit to use the library)
giving a speech that expressed deep amazement at some bizarre claim
that string theory now proves Hinduism true because of some bizarre
thing in the Nova special narrated by Green (a reference to branes and
a cyclical universe I think), and he even handed out a piece of paper
that had the following URL:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/743539.asp?cp1=1
A whole bunch of these students were very excited about the fact that
the site made a passing reference to Hinduism (honestly, it reminded
me of the way some Muslims are still excited about the National
Geographic's passing reference to the Qur'an in its 1978 article on
then Ebla tablets).
> Now, if you are asserting that Jews and
> Christians are not victims of this so-called inferiority complex and
> Muslims are - you have to back this assertion by empirical
> demonstration (which I don't see how you can demonstrate, BTW)
Agreed. I have no empirical evidence. It was based mostly on the way I
have seen many Jews and Christians behave in discussions with Muslims
regarding science. There are many instances where they try and
(wrongly) present science as being wholly a product of Western (and
therefore, Judeo-Christian) culture, with an implication that no
non-Judeo-Christian culture has ever produced anything of any
scientific value. This is also seen in the fact that many people in
this country actually believe the absurd assertion that 911 happened
because "Arabs" are so angry that Americans can build tall
buildings!!! I have seen quite a few less-than-bright individuals
argue that Muslims feel humiliated by the tall buildings of America,
hence the need to knock down the twin towers. Occasionally someone
will respond by noting that the talest structure in the world (the
petronas towers) is presently in a country with a Muslim majority, and
the follow up is usually disbelief. Anyway, my rant is taking me off
track here. The point is that my reason given was not a very
scientific one, I agree, but was offered as a possibility as I myself
have witnessed how many Jews and Christians here in the states seem to
think science originates solely with their culture. If you would like
me to retract this as one of the possible reasons Jews and Christians
are not as likely to take a scientific hermeneutic approach to their
scriptures as Muslims, I will agree, reluctantly.
> > Second, many of those Christians and Jews who do feel threatended by
> > science take an approach formulated by American fundamentalist
> > protestants, which is to deny science in favor of an interpretation of
> > scripture that contradicts what modern scientists are saying.
>
> Right, I have to partially agree with this reason since the main
> reason they deny science in favor of scripture is usually more subtle
> than you might think... and it, to some extent, favours my position.
> One famous christian creationist (Ray Bohlin) boldly asserts: "The
> nature of the evolutionary process is contrary to the nature of God."
> So they didn't just choose the interpretation that their scripture
> gives over science for nothing... but because they know perfectly well
> that their scripture, no matter how you twist and turn it, will not
> take in the mainstream notions of evolution, big bang, old earth etc.
Actually, I strongly disagree. The case is that their literalist
interpretations of a specific English translation of the text
conflicts with science. Note that fundamentalist evangelical
protestatns deny evolution and, worse yet, the big bang, while the
Catholic Church has accepted such theories since roughly the second
Vatican council. Thus, some Christians feel threatened by Big Bang
cosmology, while others felt it helped them properly understand
Genesis. It shows that this ultimately boils down to exegesis (and the
exegesis of non-liturgical churches unfortunately seems to be trapped
in the 16th century).
> You see... if that were the case with the Quran, I won't be surprised
> if Muslims would do the same thing as ICR, AiG and other creationist
> institutions are currently doing.
Muslims seem to be divided on various issues, or have been divided. A
modern example might be with regards to the theory of evolution. While
they are a minority, it seems that some Muslims feel the Qur'an
"confirms" the theory of evolution (even Maurice Bucaille, and to a
much lesser degree, Rashad Khalifa alluded to this). However, it seems
that on the other side, a rather large (and unfortunate) number of
Muslims deny this, and have sided with Harun Yahya, whose works
essentially rehash the arguments of the ICR with a mildly Islamic
slant (by the way, by 'evolution' I mean hereditary change over time
being the explanation for the variation among species, and am not
specifically referring to issues of abiogenesis that often come
hand-in-hand with various versions of the theory of evolution). In the
past there have been other topics Muslims have been split on (exempli
gratia: geocentricism vs heliocentricism), and ultimately we see that
it boils down to a matter of exegesis.
> This comes under your third factor since the only useful thing that
> both Aviezer and Schroeder did was show a proof that scripture and
> science are not incompatible. Same goes for the Rabbi. What I intend
> to do is show not only the compatibility but also that our scripture
> (Quran) actually predates science in its discoveries.
This only means that those who take a scientific-hermeneutic approach
to the Qur'an take it opne (rather unjustified) step further. It is
one thing to apply exegesis enlightened by recent discovery to a
religious text to bring it into harmony with science. It is completely
another to then stand back in amazement and wonder how the person who
wrote the text could have known such things. Christians (in small
numbers) are, unfortunately, starting to do such things. One example
might be the following post in SRC, where a Christian claims the Bible
makes statements that fit with science in a way that no ancient man
could:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=TWv7b.9843%24KX6.6404%40nwrdny03.gnilink.net
In this case he never backs up the claim, but I imagine that if he was
backed to a wall, he would resort to exegesis similar to that of
Aviezer. And, as you have experienced in other forums, some Christians
are starting to go the route of "progressive creationism," where the
Bible is correlated with science, and then the Christian stands back
and exclaims that this proves the Bible to be inerrant or of a divine
origin. One proponent of the approach is Hugh Ross, who tough (I
think) denies evolution, is in favor the Big Bang (and a local flood):
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/
> > Obviously I meant other than the Ebla tablets (as the Ebla tablets is
> > the crux of the Qur'anic argument, and they mention both Iram and
> > Soddom & Gamorrah). So, OTHER THAN THE EBLA TABLETS, can you cite a
> > text written at the same time as Genesis that mentions Sodom and
> > Gamorrah?
>
> This is a good example of the so-called 'no true scotsman..' fallacy.
> Nonetheless, why not Ebla Tablets?? Because they mention Iram?? So
> what? Ebla Tablets were present during the time of Genesis from which
> the author of Genesis could have had his information from? Yes, very
> likely (it dates back to 2300 BC!!). Were they present during the time
> of Muhammad, i.e - did anyone know about the presence of these tablets
> where Muhammad could have had his information from?? Unlikely...
Oh, wait, hold on a second. I forgot that the Ebla tablets date to the
third millennium BCE. That would make them nearly two thousand years
older than the book of Genesis (more like 1,500 years). Most scholars
date the writing of Genesis to the first millenium BCE. Exempli
gratia: consider the following:
"Genesis is the product of that long period of literary activity
commencing with the first commitment to writing of the legends of
Israel in the 9th cent. B.C.E., and extending approximately to the end
of the 6th cent. or, possibly, to the middle of the 5th cent. B.C.E."
[Solomon Landman, "Genesis," in The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia,
Vol. 4, (UJE co., 1948), p. 529]
More conservative (read: evangelical Christian) scholars try to date
it to the middle of the second millennium. No scholar worth his salt
would date it all the way back to 2300 BCE! So it seems the Ebla
tablets do not count as an example of a reference to Sodom and
Gamorrah at the time of Genesis, rather it post dates Genesis by many
centuries.
Now, there may be reasons to believe that people very close to the
advent of Islam spoke of Iram. A number of scholars today seem to
think Iram is a reference to Ubar. I wonder what their reasons are
(i.e. why not assume, as many medieval Muslims did, that Iram was a
reference to Damascus?). Nonetheless, a source that you are familiar
with...
http://www.ups.edu/faculty/velez/FL380/Ubar/Page2.htm
...states that in the sixth century Al-Hamdani spoke of Ubar. If Ubar
is Iram, then there were people speaking about it right before the
advent of Islam (i.e. the time frame between the Ebla tablets and
Genesis is much shorter than the time frame between Al-Hamdani and the
Qur'an).
Also, to a MUCH lesser degree, it might be worth noting that Josef
Horovitz, in his "Koranische Untersuchungen," (pp. 89-90) claims that
Iram was mentioned in pre-Islamic poetry. I submit that tentatively,
however, as I'm *VERY* unfamiliar with the controversy surrounding the
authenticity of pre-Islamic poetry (i.e. for all I know, it may have
been proven that ALL pre-Islamic poetry was forged - I do not know
what the scholarly consensus on this issue is). Admittedly, Horovitz
cites, among others, Imra al-Qais, who, if I am not mistaken, has been
the subject of rather harsh scrutiny, and thus today may not be cited
as a source of pre-Islamic poetry (but again, I'm not very familiar
with this subject, so if others could fill me in, what is the current
scholar consensus, if any, regarding Imra al-Qais and the other poets
cited by Horovitz?).
Regardless, ultimately there is nothing amazing about Genesis
mentioning Sodom and Gamorrah, or the Qur'an mentioning Iram, even if
there are no texts pre-dating these works that also mention such
cities. To argue other wise is to treat the text differently from the
way any real scholar would treat a text. As I noted in my debate with
Nadir, it was discovered that the certain ancient Egyptian
texts/inscriptions show a loose familiarity with China. This does not
prove the man who mentioned China was divinely inspired. On the
contrary it better serves as evidence that people around the
time/place the text was written/inscribed had familiarity with China.
The same would go for the Qur'an (or Genesis).
> Ok... you cite me ONE pre-Islamic text that claims the sun and moon
> moving in a 'circular motion' WITHOUT attaching the notion that they
> move around Earth. I am quite sure you won't find any since, as far as
> I have read (and I can be blatantly wrong!), they usually make sure
> they attach earth to be the pivotal center as they mention the motion
> of sun and moon.
Well, there is a Daoist (Taoist) text that scholars date to the third
century, written by the Daoist thinker Ko Hsuan (or Ko Yuan?) titled
Khing Kang King (or Chi'ng Chang Ching?), roughly "The Classic of
Purity". In it, there is a verse that reads: "The supreme way
(Tao/Dao) has no desires, yet by its power the Sun and Moon revolve in
their orbits." And there is no explicit mention of the sun and moon
revolving around the earth.
Regardless, I am shocked that you would want to give credit to a
source (be it the Qur'an or the "Classic of Purity") for what it DOES
NOT mention. If a text says simply "the sun and moon move/swim/float
in a circular motion," there is absolutely nothing amazing about that,
as the vast majority of the people on earth have believed that (yes,
most of them were geocentricists, but nonetheless the fact remains
that there is nothing amazing about stating that the sun and moon move
in a circular motion).
> Ok, the Hebrew word taqpi'eni, according to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
> means:
>
> 1) to thicken, condense, congeal, settle, become dense
> a) (Qal) to be condensed
>
> 1) thickening (participle)
> b) (Hiphil) to cause to curdle
>
> I don't know from where you got the meaning 'pull together' which
> would imply more than one substances being 'pulled together'. I also
> have to question the validity of 'solidify' of David Bruce....
With all due respect Mohd, citing Strong's Lexicon is quite poor, as
it is NOT a Hebrew dictionary. It would be like trying to determine
all the meanings of an Arabic word by looking in John Penrice's "A
Dictionary and Glossary of the Kor-an," or Hanna E Kassis' "A
Concordance of the Qur'an." The result would be that one would only
get a fraction of the possible meanings.
Strong's is simply a concordance, and I can, off the top of my head,
cite dozens of words where Strong's only gives a fraction of the
possible meanings. A better source would be at least Gesenius (which
always seems to give more meanings than what is found in Strong's), or
better yet Milon Ivrit-Anglit Shalem (which runs the gauntlette of
meanings from Biblical, to Rabbinic/Midrashic/Targumic/Talmudic, to
modern - there was one by Alcalay, which I prefer, but the one by
Avinoam is also quite good).
In Gesenius, it is conceded up front that one of the meanings of the
QFA root is "to contract oneself, to draw oneself together," and word
taqpee'eni is from the infinitive l'haqpee, which is the hiph'il (an
agentive verb that is causative) of that root. Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem
backs this up to a much larger degree with the Rabbinic meanings (i.e.
what the ancient Rabbis thought the possible meanings were). Even St.
Thomas stubled across one of these meanings, when he wrote that it
means "compactio massae corporeae in utero mulieris" (joining together
of the corporeal mass in the woman's uterus) [see E. Dhorme, A
Commentary on the Book of Job, translated from the French by Harold
Knight, (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967), p. 150]. And yes, St. Thomas
applied other forms of exegesis that did not square with science, but
the point remains that even he alluded to this meaning.
We can go on discussing the scientific-hermeneutic approach to
embryology in Job, but this might not be the place for it (maybe we
should take it to soc.religion.christian, or a related group). Suffice
to say, the topic has been dealt with...
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html#job
...and it is clear that if we use the methods empoyed in the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an (i.e. come up with new
forms of exegesis in light of what the current scientific literature
states, and wave off the fact that medival commentators on the text
thought it was saying the same thing as earlier Greek works
embryology), we can come up with a correlation.
> Re-interpreting a text AFTER
> a scientific disocvery is neither miraculous nor non-miraculous. Its
> just a common method that the christians of your third category often
> use to show that there is no inconsistency between the scientific
> discovery and the scripture since an alternative interpretation of it
> that fits with the scientific data.
Harmonizing a text with science is one thing (I actually find it quite
beautiful, and wish more evangelical Christians would fall into that
third category, as it would end a number of political problems in the
U.S.). The problem is when someone stands back and looks at the
reinterpretation, and exclaims amazement at how unlikely it is that
such an ancient source could be correlated with science. The issue of
moosi'oon in Soorat az-Zaariyaat is a great example of this, as we
have a concrete example -from a later Arabic text- of a person, who is
not divinely inspired and not familiar with the expansion of the
universe, writing a sentence that can be understood as stating that
the universe is expanding. The major crux of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach is to assume that the author could not
have written a sentence that so easily correlates with science if they
did not intend for it to be a reference to such. This assumption,
however, hints at a circularity to the approach.
Regardless, thanks for your very thought-provoking post. I look
forward to your next contribution to the thread.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
Mohd Anisul Karim
Thanks for the info on linking google archived sites. I will
categorise my responses as I have done before so anyone interested in
viewing Denis' comments in context, can do so from here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bac0a2be.0311210952.35379148%40posting.google.com
Hope I got that right :)
1. Probability Estimates:
> > With all due respect Mohd, while I indeed did rest a great deal on my
> > clothes analogy, I also called Nadir's numbers into question. No
> > justification for those numbers were given, rather they came off as
> > seemingly arbitrary.
You are still thinking this issue, in terms of theoretical probability
which will give you results in 'ideal conditions'.. assuming no
external conditions are acting on the event to occur. Nadir (I think)
has worked under what we call the subjective theory of probability
where estimations are based on how strongly we belive an event will
occur. The strength of the belief is determined by the number of
external conditions that effect the outcome of any event. And,
collectively speaking, we know that given Muhammad's time and age, it
is highly unlikely that these claims could have been uttered by mere
mortals.
> > Furthermore, even if I were to let Nadir's numbers slide, the fact
> > still remains that they mean that, statistically speaking, the chances
> > of a man uttering those Qur'anic statements are MORE LIKELY than the
> > precise combination of clothes that arose (the mathematical
> > generalizations, as you called them, point to the clothes analogy
> > being less likely). You argued that some combination of clothes would
> > arise, but why that precise combination of clothes?
Why not? Given that some combination of clothes is bound to arise,
there is no reason for us to term one combination precise and other
not precise, unless there is some 'latent' standard that you are using
to determine such 'preciseness'. The fact of the matter is.. in the
case of the estimations offered by Nadir, the claims made by the
author of the Quran need not have any scientific exegesis at all but
the estimations you gave for your cloth analogy, will always have a
certain combination of clothes which can be, arbitrarily, assigned as
'precise'.
2. Superstring Theory
> With all due respect, it does speak of one of the claims of string
> theory, i.e - the sky being 'woven'. I can provide quotes from
> physicists like Brian Greene, Lee Smolin etc who use the exact same
> word 'woven' to illustrate the notion of string theory. But the bottom
> line is: the Quran does speak of it.
> > Yes, please do offer the quotes from Green, Smolin, et cetera.
> > Regardless, the "heavens" are only "woven" (if I am not mistaken) in
> > the sense that ultimately all of matter (according to string theory)
> > breaks down to tiny 'strings'.
Right and Greene also discusses the 'raw precurors' of spacetime,
giving the analogy of woven fabric:
"An ordinary piece of fabric is the end-product of someone having
carefully woven together individual threads, the raw material of
common textiles. Similarly, we can ask ourselves whether there is a
raw precursor to the fabric of spacetime - a configuration of the
strings of the cosmic fabric in which they have not yet coalesced into
the organized form that we recognize as spacetime" [Brian R. Greene,
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest
for the Ultimate Theory, p. 378].
Lee Smolin is more explicit with this analogy. About string theory, he
writes:
"One way to talk about this is that space maybe 'woven' from a network
of loops, just as a piece of cloth is woven from a network of threads.
The analogy is fairly precise. The properties of the cloth are
explicable in terms of the kind of weave which is to say in terms of
how the threads are knotted and linked with one another. Similarly,
the geometry of the space we may weave from a large spin network is
determined only by how the loops link and intersect one another" [Lee
Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, p. 186].
Now, just because string theory supposedly forms the basis of all
matter, visible and invisible, does not mean that you can explicate it
with relation to just about anything. Sure, Greene gives the
illustration of apple but does he use this analogy of apple in every
one of his numerous descriptions of string theory?? No, because string
theory is and should be expressed in terms of either space or time and
he does just that! Thus your example of Arab astrologers speaking of
hubuk an-nujoom is farce, with all due respect... since the reference
he makes (is with regards to stars) is too specific to be correlated
with string theory, unless he, like Greene, wrote a book on it (i.e -
clearly indicating that he knew about it, in the first place)!
3. Alaqa
> > The issue is if the Qur'an actually states anything about a 0.2 mm
> > embryo. The reality is that it does not, rather certain Muslims have
> > only recently correlated it with such.
Your argument here is like claiming that the universe, in reality, is
not heliocentric but rather certain astronomers have only recently
claimed such!! Thus, it is a very poor argument Denis, with all due
respect. Just because some Muslims/astronomers correlated/claimed the
verses in the Quran/Universe with/as modern embryology/heliocentric,
does not mean that, in reality, it is not.
> > The
> > interpretations applied to alaqa by proponents of the
> > scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an are often quite
> > circular, where it is assumed that the various possible meanings were
> > intended, and then it is further assumed that these allegedly intended
> > meanings were further intended to be references to the things they are
> > presently being correlated with.
All we claim (or at least I claim) is that since all the possible
meanings of alaqa make perfect sense (and appear to be accurate with
the modern scientific data we have) with the context the verse, it is
highly likely that they were actually intended by the author. Thats
all. Another way of stating it would be that the meanings of alaqa
make so much sense with the modern day embryology that it is highly
unlikely for it to NOT have been the actual intention of the author.
Thus, it appears to me that the alleged circularity is your own
construct!
4. Scientific Verification
> > However, (and this
> > is ironic) just recently I witnessed a Hindu student on capmus (i.e.
> > my undergraduate campus, which I still visit to use the library)
> > giving a speech that expressed deep amazement at some bizarre claim
> > that string theory now proves Hinduism true because of some bizarre
> > thing in the Nova special narrated by Green (a reference to branes and
> > a cyclical universe I think), and he even handed out a piece of paper
> > that had the following URL:
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/743539.asp?cp1=1
Yes, I am acquainted with this new revival of the age-old theory that
bears rather striking resemblance to the Quasi Steady State Cosmology
(QSSC). Nonetheless I believe the main authorities in this field are
Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Some of their papers, which can be
found here,:
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/
are rather interesting as they predict collision of 2d branes (that go
onto form 1d strings in string theory) resulting in the big bang and
this collision occured some 13.7 billion years and periodically occurs
resulting in multiple big bangs over a course of trillions of years.
But this is not exactly what Hinduism's holy book - the Bhagavad Gita,
tells us. I looked up on a copy of Gita and did some research and the
relevant verse is as follows:
"abrahma-bhuvanal lokah
punar avartino 'rjuna
mam upetya tu kaunteya
punar janma na vidyate"
"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all
are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But
one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again."
[Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Chapter VIII, text 16 as translated by A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada]
So its not really the repeated birth and death of the universe, which
would provide support to the claim of the the cyclic universe belief
in Hinduism, but simply the repeated birth and death of the 'son of
kunti', which probably refers to all human beings collectively. The
exegesis provided by the Prabhupada should also be noted here:
"All kinds of yogis--karma, jnana, hatha, etc.--eventually have to
attain devotional perfection in bhakti-yoga, or Krsna consciousness,
before they can go to Krsna's transcendental abode and never return.
Those who attain the highest material planets or the planets of the
demigods are again subjected to repeated birth and death. As persons
on earth are elevated to higher planets, people in higher planets such
as Brahmaloka, Candraloka and Indraloka fall down to earth. The
practice of sacrifice called pancagni-vidya, recommended in the Katha
Upanisad, enables one to achieve Brahmaloka, but if, in Brahmaloka,
one does not cultivate Krsna consciousness, then he must return to
earth. Those who progress in Krsna consciousness in the higher planets
are gradually elevated to higher and higher planets and at the time of
universal devastation are transferred to the eternal spiritual
kingdom. When there is devastation of this material universe, Brahma
and his devotees, who are constantly engaged in Krsna consciousness,
are all transferred to the spiritual universe and to specific
spiritual planets according to their desires."
Thus, in other words, the 'universal devastation' or the Big Crunch
will happen only once and the repeated birth and death part applies
only to us. I also remember reading a similar line of thought is the
Vedanta Treatise by Arvind Parthasarathy who claims that unless we
know ourselves, we can never be freed from the chain of desires, and
thus, cannot reach higher perfection and be one with the Divine, which
is supposedly the 'ultimate goal of all humanity'. And unless all men
not know themselves fully, they will be repeatedly be born and die and
THIS is the cycle of repeated birth and death that the Gita verse is
referring to. It is the so-called 'Krishna Consciousness' that needs
to cultivated, in order to stop the cycle of repeated birth and death
and elevate to higher planets and eventually the 'eternal spiritual
kingdom'. The Hindu cosmology, I think, is based more on the
simultaneous expansion and contraction of the universe and I am
wondering whether this was confused with the repeated birth and death
of the universe. Further, the MSNBC article has quite a misleading
title (since the steinhardt's cyclic model doesn't really question the
Big Bang but, on the contrary, utilizes this very concept in his
collision of branes conjecture!). So I am not surprised of the
article's (baseless) correlation of the cyclic model idea with the
Hindu belief. These are just my brief thoughts on this.
Regarding the cyclic model of the universe, I can't really say
anything concrete on this matter since I am not an authority here but
in my amateur-ish opinion, the very foundations of this theory rests
on the absence of evidence of gravitational waves supposedly emitted
at 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. Thus, it, inevitably, has to
take the ex-silentio approach to prove its validity.
> Right, I have to partially agree with this reason since the main
> reason they deny science in favor of scripture is usually more subtle
> than you might think... and it, to some extent, favours my position.
> One famous christian creationist (Ray Bohlin) boldly asserts: "The
> nature of the evolutionary process is contrary to the nature of God."
> So they didn't just choose the interpretation that their scripture
> gives over science for nothing... but because they know perfectly well
> that their scripture, no matter how you twist and turn it, will not
> take in the mainstream notions of evolution, big bang, old earth etc.
> > Actually, I strongly disagree. The case is that their literalist
> > interpretations of a specific English translation of the text
> > conflicts with science. Note that fundamentalist evangelical
> > protestatns deny evolution and, worse yet, the big bang, while the
> > Catholic Church has accepted such theories since roughly the second
> > Vatican council. Thus, some Christians feel threatened by Big Bang
> > cosmology, while others felt it helped them properly understand
> > Genesis. It shows that this ultimately boils down to exegesis (and the
> > exegesis of non-liturgical churches unfortunately seems to be trapped
> > in the 16th century).
While many liberal catholics have accepted modern theories as
evolution and big bang, you can't deny the presence of yet a fairly
large number of catholics who deny them and attest creationism.
Ofcourse, we have the most important person in Catholicism, currently,
attesting evolution 'more than just a theory'. Right, its Pope John
Paul II. But the orthodox catholics clearly appear to reject that
notion such as G. Keane who even wrote a book entitled Creation
Rediscovered. Still others as the ICR founder Henry Morris, notes,
hail creationism over evolution:
"There have been many other leading evolutionary scientists in the
domain of Catholicism, and this description would certainly apply to
most of the scientists of the Pontifical Academy. On the other hand,
we need to recognize that there are many strong creationists, not only
among lay Catholics, but also among Catholic scientists as well. We
could mention Dr. Guy Berthault of France, for example, whose studies
on sedimentation have been profoundly significant in refuting
geological uniformitarianism. Two Italian creationists, Dr. Roberto
Fondi (paleontologist) and Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti (geneticist) have
published important scientific books and papers refuting evolution.
There are many others." ['Does the Pope believe in Evolution' -
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-096a.htm].
Also, in another article by the president of ICR Dr. John Morris, he
succintly puts the bottom line, in a rather powerful article:
"And this is the point. Evolutionary naturalism and Biblical theism
are opposite concepts. They cannot both be true. Both are religious
concepts about who we are—created by God and accountable to Him
for our actions, or evolved through natural processes and fully
autonomous in our decisions. Personal freedom is at stake in the
origins debate, and this is why the attacks against creation are so
vicious.
Perhaps today's Christian "quasi-creationists" can learn a lesson
here. It does no good to compromise evolution and creation. In
addition to being incompatible, such a compromise won't be acceptable
to one's evolutionary colleagues. Nor is it allowable in Scripture.
My warning to my scientifically-minded Christian brothers and sisters
is that compromise never works. Combining any form of long-age
evolution with Christianity will not satisfy evolutionists, nor will
it bring commendation from God or glory to Him.
Recent creation does have unanswered scientific questions. This is
true of all science. But creation thinking has many wonderful answers.
I appeal to all creationist scientists to pitch in and help solve the
remaining questions, compromising neither science nor Scripture."
[DOES IT HELP TO COMPROMISE WITH EVOLUTION? -
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-096b.htm].
So its not really exegesis, but the explicitness of the scripture that
is the main reason why most christians would prefer creationism,
justified by quasi-science, over evolution, no matter how much
scientific data supports the latter... it just cannot be gloved in
their Scriptures!
> You see... if that were the case with the Quran, I won't be surprised
> if Muslims would do the same thing as ICR, AiG and other creationist
> institutions are currently doing.
> > Muslims seem to be divided on various issues, or have been divided. A
> > modern example might be with regards to the theory of evolution. While
> > they are a minority, it seems that some Muslims feel the Qur'an
> > "confirms" the theory of evolution (even Maurice Bucaille, and to a
> > much lesser degree, Rashad Khalifa alluded to this). However, it seems
> > that on the other side, a rather large (and unfortunate) number of
> > Muslims deny this, and have sided with Harun Yahya, whose works
> > essentially rehash the arguments of the ICR with a mildly Islamic
> > slant (by the way, by 'evolution' I mean hereditary change over time
> >being the explanation for the variation among species, and am not
> > specifically referring to issues of abiogenesis that often come
> > hand-in-hand with various versions of the theory of evolution).
I have to agree with you here, with the case of Harun Yahya and his
cohorts. I also have to admit that I, myself, was deluded for a brief
period reading the works of HY and you can see some of my
'pro-creationist' posts in the evolution vs. creationism forum
[www.evcforum.net]. So I was a former creationist! But finally I came
to the conclusion that the only thing HY is good at is making
beautiful graphic illustrations and images! Anyways, the fact of the
matter is that the large majority of the Muslims, especially in the
third world countries, I am sorry to say, are woefully ignorant of
either evolution or creation and rely mainly on the (baseless)
claims/teachings of people (and organisations) like HY. But I don't
want to digress here from the main issue which is about exegesis
versus 'scriptural definitess'. Suffice it to say that learned
Muslims, by and large, have no problem with evolution, as the Quran,
itself, alludes to it in many verses! Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ahmad
Pervez, Dr. Abdul Wadood, Dr. Inayatullah Khan, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal,
Dr. Hamidullah etc are, to mention a few, endorse the theory of
evolution diametrically! They even have a number of books on their
name, my favourite being The Phenomena of Nature in the Quran and
Sunnah by Ghulam Ahmad Pervez where he derives each and every
evolutionary stage of organisms from the Quran.
Now, you might argue that this favours your position on the issue of
exegesis but I have to disagree; since whereas the Quran lends rather
strong credence for the evolutionary theory (and I can go in detail
with this, if you like), the Bible is rather explicit with it's
'creation ex nihilo' dogma, which is why the mainstream christians are
so active in promoting creationism as 'science' than mainstream
Muslims.
5. Iram of the Quran vs. Sodom & Gomorrah of the Bible
> > More conservative (read: evangelical Christian) scholars try to date
> > it to the middle of the second millennium. No scholar worth his salt
> > would date it all the way back to 2300 BCE! So it seems the Ebla
> > tablets do not count as an example of a reference to Sodom and
> > Gamorrah at the time of Genesis, rather it post dates Genesis by many
> > centuries.
You mean pre-dates Genesis? Right, conceded! But the very fact that
Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded and known as EXISTING cities during
and before the time of the author(s) of Genesis (and this is exactly
what is confirmed by these tablets!) makes its an invalid example to
be compared with Iram which was regarded and known as some far long
gone tribe and not a land. Regarding the pre-Islamic sources that cite
Iram; firstly, very little of Al-Hamdani's works survive to this day.
And he didn't live in the 6th century but in the 10th! Luckily, I was
able to get my hands on Nicholas Clapp's very informative book The
Road to Ubar - Finding the Atlantis of the Sands where he cites many
pre-Islamic poems that mention the Ad people of Iram (pp.54-55). He
also cites Al-Hamdani, in his eighth book of al-Ikhlil mentioning Iram
as "the city of Shaddad ibn Ad' and being the "first among the lost
treasures of Arabia" and also that it will be "unearthed by ants"
someday (p.61). Nonetheless, al-Hamdani was probably the first Muslim
to interpret Iram dhat al-imad as a land rather than just a tribe or a
tall man. I couldn't find Josef Horovitz's book, unfortunately, but I
want to ask you this: does Horovitz cite one pre-Islamic poet/author
who treats Iram as a land in itself rather than a tribe? I, too, am
not quite familiar with all the hype regarding pre-Islamic poetry but
this is what the Encyclopedia of Islam had to say about Iram:
"A tribe called Iram is mentioned several times in ancient poems (over
a dozen references are given by J. Horovitz, Koranische
Untersuchungen, Berlin 1926, 89f)". [Vol.III, p. 1270].
So I figure that even though Iram was mentioned in "ancient"
pre-Islamic poems, it was regarded as a tribe and not as a Land.
6. Sun and Moon orbits in the Quran:
> Ok... you cite me ONE pre-Islamic text that claims the sun and moon
> moving in a 'circular motion' WITHOUT attaching the notion that they
> move around Earth. I am quite sure you won't find any since, as far as
> I have read (and I can be blatantly wrong!), they usually make sure
> they attach earth to be the pivotal center as they mention the motion
> of sun and moon.
> > Well, there is a Daoist (Taoist) text that scholars date to the third
> > century, written by the Daoist thinker Ko Hsuan (or Ko Yuan?) titled
> > Khing Kang King (or Chi'ng Chang Ching?), roughly "The Classic of
> > Purity". In it, there is a verse that reads: "The supreme way
> > (Tao/Dao) has no desires, yet by its power the Sun and Moon revolve in
> > their orbits." And there is no explicit mention of the sun and moon
> > revolving around the earth.
Well, the text actually reads:
TAO HATH NO WILL TO WORK;
..........YET BY ITS WAY OF HEAVEN
THE MOON AND SUN REJOICE TO RUN
..........AMONG THE STARRY SEVEN.
Almost all sites have this translation. But I couldn't find your
translation of it anywhere! The verse, itself, then, hardly says
anything at all about the orbits of sun and moon... even though it
doesn't mention earth!
> > If a text says simply "the sun and moon move/swim/float
> > in a circular motion," there is absolutely nothing amazing about that,
> > as the vast majority of the people on earth have believed that (yes,
> > most of them were geocentricists, but nonetheless the fact remains
> > that there is nothing amazing about stating that the sun and moon move
> > in a circular motion).
I agree. There is nothing amazing in stating that the sun and moon
move in a circular motion without attaching the notion of the earth
being the pivotal center... but mention this more than a dozen times,
without attaching the notion of earth as its center in any of the
instances, is very amazing and rather interesting. Moreover, the very
absense of any verse in the Quran that may allude to geocentricism
further proves my point!
7. Job's embryology VS. Quranic embryology:
> > In Gesenius, it is conceded up front that one of the meanings of the
> > QFA root is "to contract oneself, to draw oneself together," and word
> > taqpee'eni is from the infinitive l'haqpee, which is the hiph'il (an
> > agentive verb that is causative) of that root.
So you're telling me that a word derived from the hiph'il of the QFA
root can have the same meaning as the QFA root itself? With all due
respect Denis, but I do remember you informing me (on various
occasions on bismikaallahuma forum) that the meaning of the root of a
particular word does not necessarily show that it is the meaning of
word itself. You did it in the case of dahaha and also made sure of
this, in the case of hubuk. I think you should apply this same
principle to taqpi'eni too... or is this an exception? I would also
like to know if the other Hebrew dictionaries you cited lists "pulled
together" as one of the meanings of taqpi'eni and not its root.
Further, phrases such as "to contract oneself, to draw oneself
together" hardly coincides with "pulled together". The former two
phrase is with regards to the actions of just one single substance
hence, "to contract ONEself, to draw ONEself together" but the latter
phrase implies more than one thing being "PULLED together". Even St.
Thomas' rendering, "joining together" is with regards to the so-called
"corporeal mass". I haven't the slightest clue what that means or what
it refers to! And the greek word used there is 'compactio' which, I
think, has something to with making things compact. This need not be
by "joining together" at all, then. It simply ends up alluding to the
meanings given in Gesenius and nothing more, am afraid!
8. 'Miracle of Re-Interpretation':
> > Harmonizing a text with science is one thing (I actually find it quite
> > beautiful, and wish more evangelical Christians would fall into that
> > third category, as it would end a number of political problems in the
> > U.S.). The problem is when someone stands back and looks at the
> > reinterpretation, and exclaims amazement at how unlikely it is that
> > such an ancient source could be correlated with science.
Let me explain what we (or at least I) try to do.. that is not exactly
what you think it is. We simply use all the possible meanings of a
particular Arabic word used in the Quran and then frame the verse. Now
if we do that and find that the verse obviously alludes to a piece of
discovery that was only discovered in modern times and couldn't have
been discovered without the means... is that re-interpreting the
text?? For one thing, I am not even sure what re-interpreting actually
means and the criterias used to distinguish between what is
re-interpreted and what is not! The issue is very unclear. But
nonetheless, there is absolutely nothing wrong for a Quranic verse (or
any verse from any ancient book, for that matter) to speak of
phenomenon that was just recently discovered by science!
Regards,
Mohd Anisul Karim
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis
Pax Vobis Mohd!
Thank you for another thought provoking post. For those who are
interested, you can find Mohd's post archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7b81561a.0312090842.1803c22c%40posting.google.com
It continues our discussion on the value of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an, and because large amounts of Mohd's original
text will be snipped, I recommend consulting the link above to better
determine the context of his statements. Despite the snipped material
and possible loss of context, I will offer short descriptions before
each section...
1. There is the issue of how probable it is that a mere mortal would
make the Qur'anic statements that Nadir Ahmed correlated with
scientific findings.
> You are still thinking this issue, in terms of theoretical probability
> which will give you results in 'ideal conditions'.. assuming no
> external conditions are acting on the event to occur. Nadir (I think)
> has worked under what we call the subjective theory of probability
> where estimations are based on how strongly we belive an event will
> occur. The strength of the belief is determined by the number of
> external conditions that effect the outcome of any event. And,
> collectively speaking, we know that given Muhammad's time and age, it
> is highly unlikely that these claims could have been uttered by mere
> mortals.
We keep going in circles here. If you're not going to present actual
justified numbers, then there is no objective way of actually knowing
if a mere mortal making the relevant Qur'anic statements is more or
less probable than some other event. You're just asserting that it is
unlikely without giving any way of objectively seeing if it is the
case. I say that the odds of the combinations of clothing that arose
in the audience the night of the debate are less probable than the
Qur'anic statements arising. You claim otherwise. Of course, if we
don't have any justified figures to examine, we can't be sure, can we?
It is like with a deck of cards. If at random I pull a card, and it is
the three of hearts, the odds of me pulling that specific card were 1
in 52. You may claim there were no factors working against me pulling
that card, but I would respond that one factor was the fact that 51 of
the 52 cards were NOT the three of hearts! Furthermore, if you were to
claim that the odds of a mere mortal making a given Qur'anic statement
were 1 in 50, that would mean that it was more likely/probable than me
pulling the three of hearts. You can go on and on about factors
working against someone making the hypothetical Qur'anic statement in
question, but if you're siding with the figure of 1 in 50 then the
numbers reveal that the card being pulled was less probable. And
again, if you're not going to give some justified numbers, there is no
way of knowing how probable the event was. Please don't expect me to
just take your word for it that it was "highly unlikely" that a mere
mortal would make the statements made in the Qur'an. You or Nadir
should present some actual figures (or, in Nadir's case, justification
for those figures), or there is simply no point continuing with this
discussion on how probable an event is.
2. There is the issue of whether the word "hubuk" in the Qur'an means
the author of the Qur'an had knowledge of string theory.
> Now, just because string theory supposedly forms the basis of all
> matter, visible and invisible, does not mean that you can explicate it
> with relation to just about anything. Sure, Greene gives the
> illustration of apple but does he use this analogy of apple in every
> one of his numerous descriptions of string theory??
The problem again is that you take a word - hubuk - that means paths,
or tracks, and because the root from which it is derived can mean "to
weave," you feel that the Qur'anic statement about the hubuk of the
heavens is an accurate allusion to string theory. So too, I have
already pointed out that according to string theory, all matter is
made up of tiny strings, thus speaking of hubuk an-nujoom could, along
the same lines, also be correlated with string theory. In the end, you
have never proven that this was the intention of the author of the
Qur'an. Even if a person employed hubuk with regard to the heavens and
simply meant it as "paths," your exegesis would apply just the same,
showing that it has no value in terms of telling us whether the text
actually conveys scientific knowledge.
> Thus your example of Arab astrologers speaking of
> hubuk an-nujoom is farce, with all due respect...
The point is that stars are, according to string theory, made up of
tiny little strings. Thus the phrase hubuk an-nujoom could, under your
exegesis, mean "weavings of the stars," and then true to the
scientific-hermeneutic approach we could ask rhetorical questions like
"why would a person use a word that can mean 'weaving' if he didn't
intend to reveal that the ultimate building blocks of the stars are
tiny strings?"
> since the reference
> he makes (is with regards to stars) is too specific to be correlated
> with string theory, unless he, like Greene, wrote a book on it (i.e -
> clearly indicating that he knew about it, in the first place)!
And why doesn't this rule apply to the author of the Qur'an as well?
Has the author of the Qur'an written a book clearly indicating that he
knew about string theory in the first place?
3. There is the issue of whether the text of Soorat al-Moominoon in
the Qur'an makes reference to a .2mm embryo.
> > The issue is if the Qur'an actually states anything about a 0.2 mm
> > embryo. The reality is that it does not, rather certain Muslims have
> > only recently correlated it with such.
>
> Your argument here is like claiming that the universe, in reality, is
> not heliocentric but rather certain astronomers have only recently
> claimed such!!
That's not like my argument at all. My argument is that you speak as
if the Qur'an mentions a 2mm embryo, when in reality it makes no
mention of such. You have to wrench that meaning from the text with
drawn out forms of exegesis. Of course, if I'm wrong, show me a verse
that mentions a "0.2 mm embryo". You've interpreted the text after the
fact in light of science. That's not amazing.
> All we claim (or at least I claim) is that since all the possible
> meanings of alaqa make perfect sense (and appear to be accurate with
> the modern scientific data we have) with the context the verse, it is
> highly likely that they were actually intended by the author.
You claim that, yet present no evidence that it is "highly likely".
The problem with the approach is the circularity of it all. You assume
that a meaning was intended, and then stand back and wonder how the
author could have intended that meaning if he were not divinely
inspired. Again, keep in mind that if a person did NOT intend the
meanings you presuppose the author of the Qur'an intended, your
exegesis would apply just the same, showing that the approach has no
real value in terms of offering insight into the author's intention.
4. There is the issue of Christian and Muslim approaches to their
scriptures in light of science, and whether this tells us anything
about the texts themselves.
> While many liberal catholics have accepted modern theories as
> evolution and big bang,
Okay, let's stop right there. That alone proves that one can go about
interpreting a text one way, or a rather different way. With the issue
of evolution, by your own admission, the divergent forms of exegesis
on this issue can be found among both Muslims and Christians. That was
my point - it boils down to exegesis. You want to argue that the
exegesis of Christians who accept evolution or Muslims who deny
evolution is faulty, but the truth of the matter is that hermeneutics
is pure anarchy. A text only comes alive when the reader is reading
it. Religious texts are, as Behnam Sadeghi noted, potentially
metaphorical. That fact alone opens the flood gates, as 'X' no longer
has to necessarily denote X, hence logic flies out the window in terms
of being a tool for guiding exegesis. If 'X' does not have to denote
X, then there is no way to say beyond all doubt that the text (be ith
the Bible or the Qur'an) 'explicitly affirms X'. You can see this by
comparing the way Episcopalian theologians interpret the Bible with
the way Southern Baptist theologians interpret the Bible. I would
argue that the scientific-hermeneutic (or an
anti-scientific-hermeneutic in the case of creationism) approach to
the Qur'an (or Bible) tells us more about the person performing the
exegesis than it does the text itself.
5. There is the issue of the city of Iram (apparently alluded to in
the Qur'an) being mentioned in the Elba tablets, which also mention
Sodom and Gamorrah (apparently alluded to in Genesis).
> You mean pre-dates Genesis? Right, conceded! But the very fact that
> Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded and known as EXISTING cities during
> and before the time of the author(s) of Genesis
Um, actually, Genesis refers to Sodom and Gamorrah in the past tense,
as cities destroyed before the text was written (it even gives a
legend that allegedly recounts the cities' destruction). I'm not so
sure these cities existed at the time Genesis was written (assuming
the Sodom and Gamorrah of the Ebla tablets are the same as the Sodom
and Gamorrah mentioned in Genesis).
As for Iram in the Qur'an, you recommended Nicholas Clapp's book, "The
Road To Ubar: Finding The Atlantis Of The Sands." I also recommend the
work, as well as Ranulph Fiennes' book, "Alantis Of The Sands: The
Search For The Lost City Of Ubar" (which humorously includes color
photographs of the author of the first book!). Both books relate that
their ability to correlate Iram with Ubar was based on a number of
pre-Islamic, Qur'anic, and post-Islamic stories (sometimes told by
Bedouin). The Qur'an isn't exactly very explicit on Iram, so if Ubar
is Iram as many scholars seem to think, then it is apparent that even
after the advent of Islam there existed accurate information about
Iram that was not found in the Qur'an. That gives us rather firm proof
that it is possible for a mere human being to make a vague reference
to Iram.
6. There is the issue of the claim in the Qur'an that the sun and moon
move in a circular motion, and whether this is amazing.
> > Well, there is a Daoist (Taoist) text that scholars date to the third
> > century, written by the Daoist thinker Ko Hsuan (or Ko Yuan?) titled
> > Khing Kang King (or Chi'ng Chang Ching?), roughly "The Classic of
> > Purity". In it, there is a verse that reads: "The supreme way
> > (Tao/Dao) has no desires, yet by its power the Sun and Moon revolve in
> > their orbits." And there is no explicit mention of the sun and moon
> > revolving around the earth.
>
> Well, the text actually reads:
>
> TAO HATH NO WILL TO WORK;
> ..........YET BY ITS WAY OF HEAVEN
> THE MOON AND SUN REJOICE TO RUN
> ..........AMONG THE STARRY SEVEN.
You're quoting a translation that has been set into rhyming verse. The
problem with rhyming translations is that they do not hold to the text
faithfully (rather the method is to hold to the general idea as long
as it rhymes). Try citing a translation that does not try to make it
rhyme (and I know of a couple).
> Almost all sites have this translation.
Well, on Google I only get one hit for that translation (from Aleister
Crowley):
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Classic+of+Purity%22+%22sun+and+moon%22+%22starry+seven%22
While with the same search engine, different non-rhyming translations
that have the sun and moon revolving number nearly a dozen:
Regardless, we have the sun and moon revolving (or in Crowley's
translation, moving), which means that the sun is not stationary. The
text does not explicitly state that the sun moves around the earth.
Should we award it the same points that you award the Qur'an for
stating that the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion? Even
without the text this is all silly, as the fact remains that there is
nothing amazing about stating that the sun and moon move in a circular
motion.
7. There is the issue of a scientific-hermeneutic approach to
embryology in Job so as to attempt to rival the scientific-approach to
embryology in Soorat al-Moominoon in the Qur'an.
> So you're telling me that a word derived from the hiph'il of the QFA
> root can have the same meaning as the QFA root itself? With all due
> respect Denis, but I do remember you informing me (on various
> occasions on bismikaallahuma forum) that the meaning of the root of a
> particular word does not necessarily show that it is the meaning of
> word itself. You did it in the case of daHaha and also made sure of
> this, in the case of hubuk.
What I argued was with regard to the claim...
http://answering-christianity.com/earth_in_islam.htm
...that when the Qur'an uses the term dahahaa (he spread it)
regarding the earth, it really means God made the earth egg shaped,
because apparently some word from the same root also means [ostritch]
egg. What I argued was that just because a noun shares the same root
with a verb does not mean the verb means the same thing as the noun.
With regard to the Qur'anic term hubuk, it is a different issue, and I
made sure not to deny that it could mean weaving. Different from the
word (apparently) meaning ostritch egg, hubuk/hibaak does stem from a
verb that has the meaning you applied to it. So I attacked the method
with daHahaa, but not hubuk.
The issue with the hif'il of a given root is a completely different
issue. Let me explain. The hif'il verb stem is related to the pa'al
verb stem roughly the same way in Arabic that the af'ala verb stem is
related to the fa'ala verb stem (I say roughly because Arabic verb
stems seem to be richer than Hebrew verb stems). So, suppose you
found, for example, the word anzala in the Qur'an or a hadith, and did
not know what it meant. Suppose further that you knew that nazala
meant to descend. Now, anzala is the NZL root in the af'ala stem, and
nazala is the NZL root in the fa'ala stem. If fa'ala means to do, then
af'ala roughly means to cause to do. So if nazala means descend, it
would be a safe bet to assume anzala means something along the lines
of causing to descend. Then if you look up anzala in an Arabic-English
dictionary, and the meanings given are "to reveal, to give a gift
[from God], to send down" - the last meaning would fit nicely with
what you assumed.
So too, the hif'il is the causative form of the pa'al (and the pi'el)
verb stem. So, if qafaa means to QFA, then hiqpee means to cause to
QFA. Now the only question becomes, what does QFA mean? As I have
already noted, one of the meanings is to draw together. Interestingly,
today I was looking in M'tsoodat Tsiyon, which is a Jewish commentary
on the Bible from the 1700s. In the portion on Job 10:10, taqpee'eni
is given the following explanation:
Ka'asher dabar tsilool yithafekh lihiyot 'av udabar goosh niqraa
haqfaah k'moo qafoo tahomot (Shemot 15).
"when a clear/pure thing changes to become dense and solid it is
called 'haqfaah' like when the depths were condensed/solidified ([see]
Exodus 15[:8])."
This is interesting because, first of all, the commentary sides with
the meaning David Bruce Taylor assumed the author of the text
intended, which was "to solidify". With regard to solidify, I'd like
to note that I looked up taqpee'eni (actually, the verb is hiqpee) in
a Hebrew dictionary (i.e. a dictionary Hebrew speakers would look in
when searching for the meaning of a word): Avraham Eben-Shoshan,
"HaMilon HeChadash (Qiryat Sefer, 1979), Vol. 6, p. 2375. Regarding
this word it first gave the meaning "hiqrish" - to freeze, then
"'ibah" - to thicken/condense, then for the biblical meaning it called
to witness Job 10:10 and defined it as "he'evir nozel l'matsav
mootsaq." I found this humorous in light of the vagueness of Hebrew.
Most speakers of Modern Israeli Hebrew would read the definition as
"the transfer of liquid to a solid state" - i.e. to solidify; but the
last two words, "matsav mootsaq," can even mean "firmly/strongly built
garrison" - thus you could also read the definition as "the transfer
of liquid to a firm place," which would mean the word conveys roughly
the same image as Soorat al-Moominoon 23:13 in the Qur'an. Of course,
I think the intention of the dictionary was the first translation I
gave.
Also, let me make one last point about other meanings before I get
back to the M'tsoodat Tsiyon commentary and its relevance to the
meaning "pull together". I looked in Reuven Avinoam Grossman's "Milon
Ivri-Anglish Shalem" (Dvir, 1965), p. 335 (no relation to another
dictionary of the same title by Reuven Al-Qalay), and for the Rabbinic
meaning of the hif'il of the verb, it gave "remove the foam" (and for
the pi'el it gave "skim"). This also works nicely with my exegesis of
the cheese analogy, where it is not made from the entire fluid, rather
there is run-off.
Anyway, getting back to M'tsoodat Tsiyon, the exegesis there also
works in favor of what I was saying about "pull together", as it
argues that taqpee'eni should be understood in the same way that the
verb root is understood in Exodus 15:8. In Exodus 15:8, the pa'al
(qal) stem is used, which according to Gesenius can mean "to draw
oneself together". As has already been noted, taqpee'eni is simply the
hif'il of the QFA root (thus the causative form of what is employed in
Exodus 15:8). Now the cited commentary interpreted the verb in Exodus
as meaning to become dense (or thick - 'av) and/or solid (or compact -
goosh). Many English translations of Exodus have the verb mean congeal
or freeze. However, as has been noted several times, it can also mean
draw together, and note that the Latin translation of Exodus 15 in the
Vulgata has "congregate" - to gather together (which in my mind makes
more sense in the verse). Thus in light of the meanings draw together,
gather together, one is very justified in employing the meaning "pull
together".
> Further, phrases such as "to contract oneself, to draw oneself
> together" hardly coincides with "pulled together".
If "draw oneself together" is a meaning, the causative of that is "to
cause [something else] to draw [itself] together" - i.e. to draw
together, to pull together - it works even better with join or gather
together, which various Latin texts concede as a possible meaning.
This is further drawn out by the fact that even St. Thomas Aquinas
stumbled over this meaning, which you commented on as follows:
> And the greek word used there is 'compactio' which, I
> think, has something to with making things compact. This need not be
> by "joining together" at all, then.
Quick note: it is Latin, not Greek. Compactio does in fact mean "join
together". For example, consider the following Latin dictionaries:
Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, "A New Latin Dictionary," (American
Book Company, 1907), p. 385.
D.P. Simpson, "Cassell's Latin Dictionary," (Macmillan, 1968), p. 121.
Feel free to look compactio up in any other Latin dictionary. I'd be
surprised if those that have compactio do not define it primarily as
"join together" (note that the second of the two dictionaries above
also gave the roughly analogous meaning "pull together"). Also, I
looked up the verb in Shlomoh Mandelqern, "Qonqordantsiyah L'TaNaKh"
[Solomon Mandelkern, "Concordance to the Bible"], (Shulsinger Bros.,
1955), which is a very authoritative source, and in Vol. II, p. 1035,
one will see that among the meanings for the verb we are discussing,
this work gives "contrahere" (to draw or bring tohether; to collect;
assemble) and "colligere" (to gather or collect together into a whole
or point, to assemble, draw of bring together). "Pull together" is a
very legitimate translation.
8. Finally in closing, we have further discussion on the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an in toto...
> Let me explain what we (or at least I) try to do.. that is not exactly
> what you think it is. We simply use all the possible meanings of a
> particular Arabic word used in the Quran and then frame the verse. Now
> if we do that and find that the verse obviously alludes to a piece of
> discovery that was only discovered in modern times and couldn't have
> been discovered without the means... is that re-interpreting the
> text??
Well, note that you did not actually demonstrate that the verse
"obviously alludes to a piece of discovery that was only discovered in
modern times". If it "obviously" referred to such, Muslims wouldn't
have had to wait fourteen centuries to realize that was what the
Qur'an was saying. If you have to wait fourteen centuries, and then
AFTER the discovery is made say "oh, that is what the Qur'an is saying
too," then you have a post-hoc reinterpretation on your hands - yes,
that is re-interpreting the text. If Muslims understood the verse one
way for centuries, and then you offer a rather different
interpretation post-hoc, that is what is called a reinterpretation.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis
Pax Vobis Mohd!
thank you for another thought provoking post. For those who are
interested, you can find Mohd's post archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7b81561a.0312090842.1803c22c%40posting.google.com
It continues our discussion on the value of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an, and because large amounts of Mohd's original
text will be snipped, I recommend consulting the link above to better
determine the context of this statements. Despite the snipped material
and possible loss of context, I will offer short descriptions before
each section...
1. There is the issue of how probable it is that a mere mortal would
make the Qur'anic statements that Nadir Ahmed correlated with
scientific findings.
> You are still thinking this issue, in terms of theoretical probability
> which will give you results in 'ideal conditions'.. assuming no
> external conditions are acting on the event to occur. Nadir (I think)
> has worked under what we call the subjective theory of probability
> where estimations are based on how strongly we belive an event will
> occur. The strength of the belief is determined by the number of
> external conditions that effect the outcome of any event. And,
> collectively speaking, we know that given Muhammad's time and age, it
> is highly unlikely that these claims could have been uttered by mere
> mortals.
We keep going in circles here. If you're not going to present actual
justified numbers, then there is no objective way of actually knowing
if a mere mortal making the relevant Qur'anic statements is more or
less probable than some other event. You're just asserting that it is
unlikely without giving any way of objectively seeing if it is the
case. I say that the odds of the combinations of clothing that arose
in the audience the night of the debate are less probable than the
Qur'anic statements arising. You claim otherwise. Of course, if we
don't have any justified figures to examine, we can't be sure, can we?
It is like with a deck of cards. If at random I pull a card, and it is
the ace of hearts, the odds of me pulling that specific card were 1 in
52. You may claim there were no factors working against me pulling
that card, but I would respond that one factor was the fact that 51 of
the 52 cards were NOT the ace of spades! Furthermore, if you want to
claim that the odds of a mere mortal making a given Qur'anic statement
are 1 in 50, that would mean that it is more likely/probable than me
pulling the ace of spades. You can go on and on about factors working
against someone making the hypothetical Qur'anic statement in
question, but if you're siding with the figure of 1 in 50 then the
numbers reveal that the card being pulled was less probable. And
again, if you're not going to give some justified numbers, there is no
way of knowing how probable the event was. Please don't expect me to
just take your word for it that it was "highly unlikely" that a mere
mortal would make the statements made in the Qur'an. You or Nadir
should present some actual figures (or, in Nadir's case, justification
for those figures), or there is simply no point continuing with this
discussion on how probable an event is.
2. There is the issue of whether the word "hubuk" in the Qur'an means
the author of the Qur'an had knowledge of string theory.
> Now, just because string theory supposedly forms the basis of all
> matter, visible and invisible, does not mean that you can explicate it
> with relation to just about anything. Sure, Greene gives the
> illustration of apple but does he use this analogy of apple in every
> one of his numerous descriptions of string theory??
The problem again is that you take a word - hubuk - that means paths,
or tracks, and because the root from which it is derived can mean "to
weave," you feel that the Qur'anic statement about the hubuk of the
heavens is an accurate allusion to string theory. So too, I have
already pointed out that according to string theory, all matter is
made up of tiny strings, thus speaking of hubuk an-nujoom could, along
the same lines, also be correlated with string theory. In the end, you
have never proven that this was the intention of the author of the
Qur'an. Even if a person employed hubuk with regard to the heavens and
simply meant it as "paths," your exegesis would apply just the same,
showing that it has no value in terms of telling us whether the text
actually conveys scientific knowledge.
> Thus your example of Arab astrologers speaking of
> hubuk an-nujoom is farce, with all due respect...
The point is that stars are, according to string theory, made up of
tiny little strings. Thus the phrase hubuk an-nujoom could, under your
exegesis, mean "weavings of the stars," and then true to the
scientific-hermeneutic approach we could ask rhetorical questions like
"why would a person use a word that can mean 'weaving' if he didn't
intend to reveal that the ultimate building blocks of the stars are
tiny strings?"
> since the reference
> he makes (is with regards to stars) is too specific to be correlated
> with string theory, unless he, like Greene, wrote a book on it (i.e -
> clearly indicating that he knew about it, in the first place)!
And why doesn't this rule apply to the author of the Qur'an as well?
Has the author of the Qur'an written a book clearly indicating that he
knew about string theory in the first place?
3. There is the of whether the text of Soorat al-Moominoon in the
Qur'an makes reference to a .2mm embryo.
> > The issue is if the Qur'an actually states anything about a 0.2 mm
> > embryo. The reality is that it does not, rather certain Muslims have
> > only recently correlated it with such.
>
> Your argument here is like claiming that the universe, in reality, is
> not heliocentric but rather certain astronomers have only recently
> claimed such!!
That's not like my argument at all. My argument is that you speak as
if the Qur'an mentions a 2mm embryo, when in reality it makes no
mention of such. You have to wrench that meaning from the text with
drawn out forms of exegesis. Of course, if I'm wrong, show me a verse
that mentions a "0.2 mm embryo". You've interpreted the text after the
fact in light of science. That's not amazing.
> All we claim (or at least I claim) is that since all the possible
> meanings of alaqa make perfect sense (and appear to be accurate with
> the modern scientific data we have) with the context the verse, it is
> highly likely that they were actually intended by the author.
You claim that, yet present no evidence that it is "highly likely".
The problem with the approach is the circularity of it all. You assume
that a meaning was intended, and then stand back and wonder how the
author could have intended that meaning if he were not divinely
inspired. Again, keep in mind that if a person did NOT intend the
meanings you presuppose the author of the Qur'an intended, your
exegesis would apply just the same, showing that the approach has no
real value in terms of offering insight into the author's intention.
4. There is the issue of Christian and Muslim approaches to their
scriptures in light of science, and whether this tells us anything
about the texts themselves.
> While many liberal catholics have accepted modern theories as
> evolution and big bang,
Okay, let's stop right there. That alone proves that one can go about
interpreting a text one way, or a rather different way. With the issue
of evolution, by your own admission the divergent forms of exegesis on
this issue can be found among both Muslims and Christians. That was my
point - it boils down to exegesis. You want to argue that the exegesis
of Christians who accept evolution or Muslims who deny evolution is
faulty, but the truth of the matter is that hermeneutics is pure
anarchy. A text only comes alive when the reader is reading it.
Religious texts are, as Behnam Sadeghi noted, potentially
metaphorical. That fact alone opens the flood gates, as 'X' no longer
has to necessarily denote X, hence logic flies out the window in terms
of being a tool for guiding exegesis. If 'X' does not have to denote
X, then there is no way to say beyond all doubt that the text (be ith
the Bible or the Qur'an) 'explicitly affirms X'. You can see this by
comparing the way Episcopalian theologians interpret the Bible with
the way Southern Baptist theologians interpret the Bible. I would
argue that the scientific-hermeneutic (or an
anti-scientific-hermeneutic) approach to the Qur'an (or Bible) tells
us more about the person performing the exegesis than it does the text
itself.
5. There is the issue of the city of Iram (apparently alluded to in
the Qur'an) being mentioned in the Elba tablets, which also mention
Sodom and Gamorrah (apparently alluded to in Genesis).
> You mean pre-dates Genesis? Right, conceded! But the very fact that
> Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded and known as EXISTING cities during
> and before the time of the author(s) of Genesis
Um, actually, Genesis refers to Sodom and Gamorrah in the past tense,
as cities destroyed before the text was written (it even gives a
legend that allegedly recounts the cities' destruction). I'm not sure
these cities existed at the time Genesis was written (assuming the
Sodom and Gamorrah of the Ebla tablets are the same as the Sodom and
Gamorrah mentioned in Genesis).
As for Iram in the Qur'an, you recommended Nicholas Clapp's book, "The
Road To Ubar: Finding The Atlantis Of The Sands." I also recommend the
work, as well as Ranulph Fiennes' book, "Alantis Of The Sands: The
Search For The Lost City Of Ubar" (which humorously includes color
photographs of the author of the first book!). Both books relate that
their ability to correlate Iram with Ubar was based on a number of
pre-Islamic, Qur'anic, and post-Islamic stories (sometimes told by
Bedouin). The Qur'an isn't exactly very explicit on Iram, so if Ubar
is Iram as many scholars seem to think, then it is apparent that even
after the advent of Islam there existed accurate information about
Iram that was not found in the Qur'an. That gives us rather firm proof
that it is possible for a mere human being to make a vague reference
to Iram.
6. There is the issue of the claim in the Qur'an that the sun and moon
move in a circular motion, and whether this is amazing.
> > Well, there is a Daoist (Taoist) text that scholars date to the third
> > century, written by the Daoist thinker Ko Hsuan (or Ko Yuan?) titled
> > Khing Kang King (or Chi'ng Chang Ching?), roughly "The Classic of
> > Purity". In it, there is a verse that reads: "The supreme way
> > (Tao/Dao) has no desires, yet by its power the Sun and Moon revolve in
> > their orbits." And there is no explicit mention of the sun and moon
> > revolving around the earth.
>
> Well, the text actually reads:
>
> TAO HATH NO WILL TO WORK;
> ..........YET BY ITS WAY OF HEAVEN
> THE MOON AND SUN REJOICE TO RUN
> ..........AMONG THE STARRY SEVEN.
You're quoting a translation that has been set into rhyming verse. The
problem with rhyming translations is that they do not hold to the text
faithfully (rather the method is to hold to the general idea as long
as it rhymes). Try citing a translation that does not try to make it
rhyme (and I know of a couple).
> Almost all sites have this translation.
Well, on Google I only get one hit for that translation (from Aleister
Crowley):
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Classic+of+Purity%22+%22sun+and+moon%22+%22starry+seven%22
While with the same search engine, different non-rhyming translations
that have the sun and moon revolving number nearly a dozen:
Regardless, we have the sun and moon revolving (or in Crowley's
translation, moving), which means that the sun is not stationary. The
text does not explicitly state that the sun moves around the earth.
Should we award it the same points that you award the Qur'an for
stating that the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion? Even
without the text this is all silly, as the fact remains that there is
nothing amazing about stating that the sun and moon move in a circular
motion.
7. There is the issue of a scientific-hermeneutic approach to
embryology in Job so as to attempt to rival the scientific-approach to
embryology in Soorat al-Moominoon in the Qur'an.
> So you're telling me that a word derived from the hiph'il of the QFA
> root can have the same meaning as the QFA root itself? With all due
> respect Denis, but I do remember you informing me (on various
> occasions on bismikaallahuma forum) that the meaning of the root of a
> particular word does not necessarily show that it is the meaning of
> word itself. You did it in the case of daHaha and also made sure of
> this, in the case of hubuk.
What I argued was with regard to the claim...
http://answering-christianity.com/earth_in_islam.htm
goosh). Many english translations of Exodus have the verb mean congeal
or freeze. However, as has been noted several times, it can also mean
draw together, and note that the Latin translation of Exodus 15 in the
Vulgata has "congregate" - to gather together (which in my mind makes
more sense in the verse). Thus in light of the meanings draw together,
gather together, one is very justified in employing the meaning "pull
together".
> Further, phrases such as "to contract oneself, to draw oneself
> together" hardly coincides with "pulled together".
If "draw oneself together" is a meaning, the causative of that is "to
cause [something else] to draw [itself] together" - i.e. to draw
together, to pull together - it works even better with join or gather
together, which various Latin texts concede as a possible meaning.
This is further drawn out by the fact that even St. Thomas Aquinas
stumbled over this meaning, which you commented on as follows:
> And the greek word used there is 'compactio' which, I
> think, has something to with making things compact. This need not be
> by "joining together" at all, then.
Quick note: it is Latin, not Greek. Compactio does in fact mean "join
together". For example, consider the following Latin dictionaries:
Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, "A New Latin Dictionary," (American
Book Company, 1907), p. 385.
D.P. Simpson, "Cassell's Latin Dictionary," (Macmillan, 1968), p. 121.
Feel free to look compactio up in any other Latin dictionary. I'd be
surprised if those that have compactio do not define it primarily as
"join together" (note that the second of the two dictionaries above
also gave the roughly analogous meaning "pull together").
> Let me explain what we (or at least I) try to do.. that is not exactly
> what you think it is. We simply use all the possible meanings of a
> particular Arabic word used in the Quran and then frame the verse. Now
> if we do that and find that the verse obviously alludes to a piece of
> discovery that was only discovered in modern times and couldn't have
> been discovered without the means... is that re-interpreting the
> text??
Well, because you did not actually demonstrate that the verse
"obviously alludes to a piece of discovery that was only discovered in
modern times". If it "obviously" referred to such, Muslims wouldn't
have had to wait fourteen centuries to realize that was what the
Qur'an was saying. If you have to wait fourteen centuries, and then
AFTER the discovery is made say "oh, that is what the Qur'an is saying
too," then you have a post-hoc reinterpretation on your hands. If
Mohd Anisul Karim
Assala Mo'alaikum Denis (I came to know that Pax Vobis actually means
'peace be upon you', hence the change from 'hello' to a salam!)
Since I will be quoting the basic gists of Denis' response, I
recommend readers to view Denis' original response for its full
context:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bac0a2be.0312131418.755ee13e%40posting.google.com
1. Probability:
> > We keep going in circles here. If you're not going to present actual
> > justified numbers, then there is no objective way of actually knowing
> > if a mere mortal making the relevant Qur'anic statements is more or
> > less probable than some other event. You're just asserting that it is
> > unlikely without giving any way of objectively seeing if it is the
> > case. I say that the odds of the combinations of clothing that arose
> > in the audience the night of the debate are less probable than the
> > Qur'anic statements arising. You claim otherwise. Of course, if we
> > don't have any justified figures to examine, we can't be sure, can we?
Again, those figures are simply an estimate.. not exact. If you want,
you can even have them decreased... its no problem. For instance, in
the case of Iram... Nadir assumed 10,000 as the sample space for the
probability of a person choosing Iram. We can decrease that sample
space to 500... which means that the total number of *other* fabled
cities, that are equally likely to have been chosen randomly, are 500.
So the probability of choosing anyone city, under theoretical
probability, is 1/500. But what is the probability for choosing the
city that:
1. is not a fable but an actual city, destroyed aeons back
2. is chosen, right on the first go.
This is where the subjective theory of probability comes into play.
People who are not acquainted with the theory, can go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_probability
It comes under the Bayesians theories of probability that determines
mainly "the degree of plausibility of statements, or to the degree of
belief of rational agents in the truth of statements".
Now, consider a student writing a test paper and he faces a question,
for which he does not know the correct answer, so decides to *guess*
the answer. There are 5 choices given... so, in theoretical terms, the
probability that he should anyone of them is 1/5. But what of the
probability of him choosing the answer, that is:
1. correct
2. chosen on the first go
In order to assess this, we need to first know of the IQ or
intelligence level (in terms of not only how smart he is but also of
his academic potential) of the student. If he is dumb (i.e - if his IQ
is low and he is not smart), the sample space of the probability of
him choosing the correct answer and that too, on the first go...
increases, making the occurence of such a situation - unlikely. But if
he's not dumb (i.e - if he has a high IQ and is smart), the sample
space decreases increasing the likelihood of him getting the answer
right on the very first go.
This is simply an example of how the subjective theory of probability
works. Now, to get back to our main contention... what is the
probability of the author of the Quran, assuming him to be a mere
mortal, to choose the correct city which exists in reality answer on
the very first go? If we assume the author to be Muhammad PBUH, then
the sample space him choosing an existing city.. is simply too much,
if we were to assess this on a range of 500 to 10,000... it would, at
least, be 1/5000. The justifications for this figure is as follows:
1. Muhammad PBUH was an unlettered man (which means that he couldn't
read [scientific works??] and write). (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 1, p. 97)
2. Muhammad PBUH lived in a place where the only *sciences* practised
were astrology, belief in superstitions, and poetry. (Al-Seerah
al-Nabawiyah by Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, p. 77 and Ibn al-Kalbi's Kitab
al-Asnam, p. 8)
3. The scientific development of the place, where Muhammad PBUH lived,
was extremely low. (Ammianus Marcellinus as translated by C. D. Yonge,
pp. 11-12)
4. Iram was regarded and known as simply a tribe during and before
Muhammad PBUH's time. (Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. III, p. 1270)
5. Iram was under a meshwork of many other fabled tribes during and
before Muhammad PBUH's time. (for references to these tribes, see The
Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, ed. Charles F. Horne,
Vol. V - Ancient Arabia)
Having said that, allow me to also concede that despite all the
probabilities to the contrary... it is still *very possible* for the
instance to take place, even if the author of the Quran was a mere
mortal who hardly had any education. But should instances of similar
nature take place *multiple* times, thats when things start to get a
wee bit fishy and thats exactly when we have to invoke a non-natural
cause. I will be constructing an argument, very soon, about this to
explicate further on these points.
2. Hubuk and string theory:
> > The problem again is that you take a word - hubuk - that means paths,
> > or tracks, and because the root from which it is derived can mean "to
> > weave," you feel that the Qur'anic statement about the hubuk of the
> > heavens is an accurate allusion to string theory. So too, I have
> > already pointed out that according to string theory, all matter is
> > made up of tiny strings, thus speaking of hubuk an-nujoom could, along
> > the same lines, also be correlated with string theory.
And so too, it has been demonstrated quite a number of times, that the
analogy of hubuk an-nujoom simply does not work. A better analogy
would be to show this from an actual old text that it is wholly
possible for mere mortals to use 'weaving' in the context of space.
Ironically, I, myself, have saved you from the trouble of doing this
(!!), as I will be explaining below.
> since the reference
> he makes (is with regards to stars) is too specific to be correlated
> with string theory, unless he, like Greene, wrote a book on it (i.e -
> clearly indicating that he knew about it, in the first place)!
> > And why doesn't this rule apply to the author of the Qur'an as well?
This rule doesn't apply to the Quran since the author has correctly
used weavings in the context of space.. not apple or stars!
Now, I was watching the latest Matrix movie (its a blast!) and loved
the soundtracks they used. I found out that the soundtracks were
actually orchestrated, literally, from the texts of the Hindu
Upanishads. One of the texts they used was from the Mundaka Upanishad
which, amazingly, read:
"In him the heaven, the earth, and the sky are woven, the mind also
with all the senses. Know him alone as the Self, and leave off other
words! He is the bridge of the Immortal." (Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.5)
I was taken aback for a moment, reading it. So, I conceded that it is
actually possible for a mere mortal to use the concept of weaving in
the context of sky. This does not really affect our actual argument...
where it is not the individual claims, that form the crux.. but a
collective analysis of the those claims, which shows that, unlike the
author of the Upanishad, it is highly unlikely for the author of the
Qur'an to NOT have intended the verses to mean as they are meant
today.
> Your argument here is like claiming that the universe, in reality, is
> not heliocentric but rather certain astronomers have only recently
> claimed such!!
> > That's not like my argument at all. My argument is that you speak as
> > if the Qur'an mentions a 2mm embryo, when in reality it makes no
> > mention of such. You have to wrench that meaning from the text with
> > drawn out forms of exegesis.
We don't wrench anything, to begin with. And how, in the world, can
you 'wrench' things from a text?? My argument is that if we use all
the set meanings of a word that forms a verse in the Quran, we come
across a claim that was only recently discovered by science and that
couldn't have been known during and before the time of Muhammad PBUH
(assuming him to be the supposed author of the Quran). Now the
argument was about alaqa... which refers to anything that 1) is
sticky, 2) is suspended 3) clings, 4)leech-like and to a much *LESSER*
extent, 5) is blood-clot-like. This term has been used in the Quran to
refer a developing embryo. This means that it describes the embryo as
'sticky' and 'blood-clot-like[1], 'suspended' and something that
clings[2], and leech-like [3]
------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Genbacev, O.D. et al. Trophoblast L-selectin mediated adhesion at
the maternal-fetal interface. Science, 299, pp. 405-408, (2002).
[2] The Developing Human, Moore et al (5th ed.), p. 66.
[3] Moore et al, opere citato, p. 73 and Before we are born (1989), p.
18.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if these descriptions of the embryo is exactly what modern
research tells us... then you can't really blame the Muslims about it!
> > You claim that, yet present no evidence that it is "highly likely".
> > The problem with the approach is the circularity of it all. You assume
> > that a meaning was intended, and then stand back and wonder how the
> > author could have intended that meaning if he were not divinely
> > inspired.
You assert a lot about this so-called circularity with the approach...
when no so such circularity exists. The argument is fairly simple...
there are a set of meanings of the Arabic words and all of the
meanings make perfect sense with the given context. Thus, if they were
not primarily intended by the author.. they wouldn't have made sense
at all. This is quite obvious! Does this, irrefutably, show that the
meanings were *actually* intended by the author? No, it doesn't. But
it sure does show the *high likelihood* of them being intended by the
author.
4. Exegesis
> > A text only comes alive when the reader is reading
> > it. Religious texts are, as Behnam Sadeghi noted, potentially
> > metaphorical. That fact alone opens the flood gates, as 'X' no longer
> > has to necessarily denote X, hence logic flies out the window in terms
> > of being a tool for guiding exegesis.
This maybe true when Christians interpret their Bible.. but hardly a
fact in the case of the Quran. The latter has specific textual theme
by which literal and non-literal exegesis can be clearly determined.
For instance, you can't really 'metaphorically' interpret the events
of embryology described in Surah al-Mu'minoon. At least, I haven't
seen anyone done it. So in the Quran, X means X. There is no reason
for us to twist X to mean something else.
5. Iram VS. Sodom & Gomorrah:
> You mean pre-dates Genesis? Right, conceded! But the very fact that
> Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded and known as EXISTING cities during
> and before the time of the author(s) of Genesis
> > Um, actually, Genesis refers to Sodom and Gamorrah in the past tense,
> > as cities destroyed before the text was written (it even gives a
> > legend that allegedly recounts the cities' destruction). I'm not so
> > sure these cities existed at the time Genesis was written (assuming
> > the Sodom and Gamorrah of the Ebla tablets are the same as the Sodom
> > and Gamorrah mentioned in Genesis).
I didn't say the cities existed during the time Genesis was written. I
only said that they were KNOWN and regarded as actual existing cities.
The cities are referred to in the past tense not only in Genesis but
also in the dead sea scrolls, which is another documents that mentions
that Sodom and Gomorrah.
> > The Qur'an isn't exactly very explicit on Iram, so if Ubar
> > is Iram as many scholars seem to think, then it is apparent that even
> > after the advent of Islam there existed accurate information about
> > Iram that was not found in the Qur'an. That gives us rather firm proof
> > that it is possible for a mere human being to make a vague reference
> > to Iram.
Again, the post-Islamic and pre-Islamic references to Iram mostly
treat Iram as a tribe rather than a 'city of pillars'. In fact, I
failed to find any reference to Iram as a land except from the works
of Al-Hamdani, who was probably one of the few men who took the
Quranic reference to Iram the way we take it today, i.e - as an
ancient city.
6. Sun and Moon orbits
> > Regardless, we have the sun and moon revolving (or in Crowley's
> > translation, moving), which means that the sun is not stationary. The
> > text does not explicitly state that the sun moves around the earth.
> > Should we award it the same points that you award the Qur'an for
> > stating that the sun and moon swim/float in a circular motion?
Well, for one thing... both of them are correct in stating the
revolution of the sun and moon. So I will concede once again, as I
have done for hubuk, that it is actually possible for a mere mortal to
speak of the orbits of the sun and moon without attaching the notion
of earth.
7. The Quranic account VS. Job's taqpi'eeni:
These are some of the meanings you listed of taqpi'eeni,
1. condensed/solidified
2. the transfer of liquid to a firm place
3. to cause [something else] to draw [itself] together
4. congregate
None of them signify the meaning 'to pull together' or 'to join
together'. I found out that the closest Hebrew word that would signify
these meanings are either the niphal of the root qavah or better yet,
the hiphil of the root chabar. Taqpi'eeni, as I have seen from your
citations, basically refers to something that grows in size, becoming
more stronger. It has nothing to do with two things being 'pulled
together'.
8. Lastly, some etymological issues...
> Let me explain what we (or at least I) try to do.. that is not exactly
> what you think it is. We simply use all the possible meanings of a
> particular Arabic word used in the Quran and then frame the verse. Now
> if we do that and find that the verse obviously alludes to a piece of
> discovery that was only discovered in modern times and couldn't have
> been discovered without the means... is that re-interpreting the
> text??
> > Well, note that you did not actually demonstrate that the verse
> > "obviously alludes to a piece of discovery that was only discovered in
> > modern times". If it "obviously" referred to such, Muslims wouldn't
> > have had to wait fourteen centuries to realize that was what the
> > Qur'an was saying.
Note that one of the key premises of this 'obviosness' is the usage of
all the possible meanings that can be given to a word that is used in
a verse. They didn't do that.. instead, they used the meaning that
THEY THOUGHT was the most obvious one. Ofcourse, I can be wrong here.
But one very good example is the case of Iram... when, literally,
hundreds of commentators identified this to be a tall man from Ad',
Al-Hamdani regarded it as a land. The key difference here is the
approach those hundred commentators took and the approach taken by
Al-Hamdani. The former implied a meaning that made sense to them as
being the most obvious one.. that wouldn't contradict the then
archaeology. The latter, as I see it, remained firm with what the most
obvious implication of the verse actually was. Nonetheless, the point
is... simply because the medieval Muslims did not think the meaning of
a particular ayah was that 'obvious', does not mean that it was not.
Period!
Regards,
Mohd Anisul Karim
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Mohd!
For those readers who are interested in gaining the full context of
the Mohd's article to which I am responding, Google has archived the
complete post here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7b81561a.0312290209.5575413f%40posting.google.com
> Assala Mo'alaikum Denis (I came to know that Pax Vobis actually means
> 'peace be upon you', hence the change from 'hello' to a salam!)
Yes, Pax Vobis is essentially the Latin equivalent to as-Salaamu
Alaykum ("Vobis" is even plural - Pax Tecum would correspond with
as-Salaamu Alayka). I once read that according to an old Catholic
tradition, this is how Jesus would greet his followers. It was not
clear, however, if the tradition held that he actually said this in
Latin, or if the Latin was merely a translation of his actual
statement (I assume the latter, as the former would be hard to believe
even for medieval Christians I would think). Either way, the tradition
no doubt has John 20:19 as its base. Anyway, on with the post...
(1) Regarding Probabilities...
> This is where the subjective theory of probability comes into play.
> People who are not acquainted with the theory, can go to:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_probability
>
> It comes under the Bayesians theories of probability that determines
> mainly "the degree of plausibility of statements, or to the degree of
> belief of rational agents in the truth of statements".
Quickly let me note that Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source to
lean on. From what I can see, the anonymous authors of the entries do
their research primarily on the net, which is not really research at
all. For one of their more embarrassing blunders, see their article on
the Temple Mount:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount
Scroll down to where it quotes a certain Muslim named, *giggle*,
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz. The name aside, the
irony is thick once you realize that they took Mr. Shabazz' quote from
the following August 2001 post to alt.religion.islam -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=155d9f52.0108141829.46014415%40posting.google.com
They did it without the author's permission. How do I know? Well,
because I'm the author of that post! "Abdul-Khinzeer" is a satirical
pseudonym I use to post to less serious newsgroups. Now even if
they're not familiar with my posting history, most Muslims will pick
up on the fact that the name is a joke (and the quote they used even
has a couple errors - blunders with the arabic).
However, imagine you were a non-Muslim, with no knowledge of Islam,
and you read that Wikipedia entry. Wouldn't you get the impression
that some Muslim scholar is agreeing with Wansbrough on the issue of
the israa' and miraaj? Whomever wrote that Wikipedia entry obviously
did a quick search of the net and then slapped that article together.
It really strikes a major blow to the reliability of the site overall
when you find out that their research includes lifting and rewording
paragraphs they find in unmoderated usenet groups, consisting of
subjects which they themselves don't understand fully.
That long attack on Wikipedia (just for future reference) behind us, I
would note that a good intro to Bayes' theorem on the net can be found
in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/
Now the subjectivist approach to probability doesn't mean that it is
okay to just give any 'subjective' numbers. You still have to justify
the figures you give (especially if there is a dispute with regard to
how likely or unlikely an event is). So, for example, if you're going
to just randomly say the chances of the author of the Qur'an making a
vague reference to Iram were 1 in 500, you do have to offer some
justification.
> Now, consider a student writing a test paper and he faces a question,
> for which he does not know the correct answer, so decides to *guess*
> the answer. There are 5 choices given... so, in theoretical terms, the
> probability that he should anyone of them is 1/5. But what of the
> probability of him choosing the answer, that is:
>
> 1. correct
> 2. chosen on the first go
Already there is a serious problem with the misleading nature of this
analogy. If we're going to use the analogy of a student, a situation
that has more in common with the scientific-hermeneutic approach to
the Qur'an would be as follows: There is a student who is handing in
his final paper. There are no restrictions on what he writes, save
that it should be at least ten pages. Other than that, he is free to
write whatever he wants, on any subject of his choice. After he hands
in his paper, we get the following grading procedure: the teacher sees
if he or she can comb through the student's paper and find statements
that he or she can correlate with some fact. So, for example, one
sentence makes vague reference to "cleaving molecules", and for that
he gets serious points in chemistry, as the verb "to cleave," on the
one hand, means to attach and this is taken as a reference to
molecular bonds, while the same verb, on the other hand, also means to
separate, which is taken as an exhibition of understanding the role
molecules play in cell division.
Now the question is not really "what are the odds of little Timmy
getting the answer right?" Rather the question becomes, "what are the
chances that one could reinterpret a statement in light of given
knowledge?" It is not unlikely at all for a person to be able to
correlate a text with recent knowledge. You may find the analogy
overly satirical, but do you think that if a student at the University
of Toronto in Keith Moore's class would get marked correct on a test
if, when asked to describe the first 28 days of embryonic development,
the student simply wrote "drop, seed, blood clot, cling, sticky,
leech, chewed"?
(2) Regarding Hubuk and string theory...
> And so too, it has been demonstrated quite a number of times, that the
> analogy of hubuk an-nujoom simply does not work.
With all due respect, I really think you're being duplicitous here. If
hubuk can be a reference to string theory when it is applied to the
heavens (and not taken simply as the more obvious meaning, paths),
then hubuk an-nujoom should also be a reference to string theory along
similar lines. The question I ask you (in the tone of the proponent of
the scientific-hermeneutic approach) is, why would a person use
"hubuk" if they didn't mean to imply that stars are a meshwork of tiny
"strings"?
Thank you, anyway, for the reference to the Upanishads. I doubt I
would have come across that. But then you make the following
statement:
> So, I conceded that it is
> actually possible for a mere mortal to use the concept of weaving in
> the context of sky. This does not really affect our actual argument...
> where it is not the individual claims, that form the crux.. but a
> collective analysis of the those claims, which shows that, unlike the
> author of the Upanishad, it is highly unlikely for the author of the
> Qur'an to NOT have intended the verses to mean as they are meant
> today.
I understand that you still want to debate the issue of all the
instances together, but quickly explain to me how, "unlike the author
of the of the Upanishad, it is highly unlikely for the author of the
Qur'an to NOT have intended the verses to mean," in this case, a
reference to string theory? Why is it highly unlikely? What is the
difference between weaving in the Qur'an and weaving in the
Upanishads? And do you think, even for a second, that the author of
the relevant Upanishad was familiar with string theory?
It seems to me that there is a perfectly sensible explanation: that
people can do post-hoc correlations, regardless of what the author
intended. We have seen this, for example, with the issue of
correlating the "heavens" with the atmosphere. You, yourself, have
admitted that this particular piece of exegesis doesn't fly. Well
then, isn't that a concrete example of Muslims confidently correlating
a Qur'anic verse with some modern scientific fact even though this
correlation does not reflect the author's intention?
(3) Regarding Iram VS. Sodom & Gomorrah...
> I didn't say the cities existed during the time Genesis was written. I
> only said that they were KNOWN and regarded as actual existing cities.
And Ahmad, how do you know that? Do you know of any contemporary
references? Or is your only reference a text (Ebla tablets) that is
more than a thousand years older?
> Again, the post-Islamic and pre-Islamic references to Iram mostly
> treat Iram as a tribe rather than a 'city of pillars'.
And again, if Ubar is in fact Iram, the fact that scholars were able
to find it, based a great deal on Bedouin tales, shows that there
continued to be accurate information about the city even after the
advent of Islam. The Qur'an isn't sufficient enough to connect Iram
with Ubar. So all those other pieces of evidences employed to find
Ubar means that there continued to be accurate information about Iram
that was not included in the Qur'an, and this extra-Qur'anic evidence
existed amongst people in the Arabian peninsula.
(4) Regarding Emrbyology in the Qur'an and Bible...
> We don't wrench anything, to begin with. And how, in the world, can
> you 'wrench' things from a text??
Easily: by taking a vague word and making it fit a rather in depth
subject. A prime example of this is taking a word that might have
meant leech, and concluding that it is stating that the emrbyo
resembles a leech at 24 days. The leap is huge.
> Now the
> argument was about alaqa... which refers to anything that 1) is
> sticky, 2) is suspended 3) clings, 4)leech-like and to a much *LESSER*
> extent, 5) is blood-clot-like. This term has been used in the Quran to
> refer a developing embryo. This means that it describes the embryo as
> 'sticky' and 'blood-clot-like[1], 'suspended' and something that
> clings[2], and leech-like [3]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] Genbacev, O.D. et al. Trophoblast L-selectin mediated adhesion at
> the maternal-fetal interface. Science, 299, pp. 405-408, (2002).
>
> [2] The Developing Human, Moore et al (5th ed.), p. 66.
>
> [3] Moore et al, opere citato, p. 73 and Before we are born (1989), p.
> 18.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's consider your sources here, as I have a lot to say. I
checked the first source, and found out the hard way that the year is
wrong. You failed to give a proper date. At the library I took out
every issue of "Science" (which is a weekly publication!) from 2002,
and combed through most of them before I realized that none of them
were in volume 299. Fortunately the volume number was right, and as I
combed through volume 299 (which covers January to March in the year
2003), I found the article in the January 17th, 2003 issue. No where
in the article did I find the words "sticky" or "blood clot". The
closest thing to "sticky" was the fact that the article is along the
subject of how the trophoblast adheres to the uterine wall. Would you
care to cite the precise passage you had in mind?
As for your second source, page 66 of Keith Moore and TVN Persaud,
"The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Emrbyology," 5th edition,
(WB Saudnders, 1993), does not describe the embryo as clinging. It
simply offers diagrams illustrating the "development of the secondary
chorionic villi". It is simply the same image that you find here:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img2-big.jpg
As for your third citation, you gave two sources. Let's start with the
3rd edition (1989) of Moore's "Before We Are Born: Basic Emrbyology
and Birth Defects" (without Persaud as co-author). On page 18 there is
no reference whatsoever to the embryo resembling a leech. As for page
73 of the 5th edition of Moore and Persaud's "The Developing Human,"
there too one finds no reference to the embryo resembling a leech.
However, unlike page 18 of "Before We Are Born," at least page 73 of
"The Developing Human" has something similar to the following image:
http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a-img1.jpg
Nothing even close appears on page 18 of "Before We Are Born." Now, I
say "similar" because in the figure on p. 73 of "The Developing
Human," the leech does not appear, as it does in the imaged linked to
above. Only the figure at the top of the image linked to above
appears, however in the image linked to above, the figure has been
edited, removing the yolk sac and connecting stalk, which appear in
Moore's textbook, so as to make it more similar to the leech with
which it is being compared.
In a nutshell, Mohd, all three of your citations are seriously flawed.
I mean this without intending any mean-spiritedness or abuse, but I
think you did not actually check any of these sources yourself, rather
you only pulled the citations off the net. If you'd like, I can send
you photocopies of each page you cited in the three references above.
That being said, there are other pages you *might* have been able to
lean on in your quest to find support for the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an in the more serious writings of Moore. Let's
move backwards and start with "Before We Are Born." In the edition you
noted, you might have called to witness the following passage:
"Growth of science was slow during the Middle Ages, and no
embryological investigations are known to us, but it is cited in the
Koran, or Qur'an, The Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are
produced from mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several
references are made to the creation of a human being from a droplet,
and it is also suggested that the resulting organism settles in the
woman like a seed, six days after its beginning. (The human blastocyst
begins to implant in the lining or endometrium of the uterus about six
days after fertilization.) Reference is also made to the leechlike
appearance of the early embryo. (The embryo of 22 to 24 days resembles
a leech, or bloodsucker.) The embryo is also said to resemble a
"chewed substance" like gum or wood."
[Keith L. Moore, "Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology and Birth
Defects," 3rd edition, (W.B. Saunders, 1989), p. 7]
Now the above was sandwhiched in between discussion on Galen in the
2nd century and Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. However, if you
check the fifth edition of Moore's "Before We Are Born" (this time
co-authored with Persaud), the entire passage above is missing. The
commentary on Galen that preceded it is still there, and the
commentary on da Vinci that followed it is still there, but the above
is gone. Put in its place is simply the following:
"Growth of science was slow during the middle ages (A.D. 1000-1400).
The composition and sequential development of the emrbyo in relation
to the planets and each month of pregnancy were described by
Constantinus Africanus during the 11th century."
[Keith L. Moore & TVN Persaud, "Before We Are Born: Basic Embryology
and Birth Defects," 5th edition, (W.B. Saunders, 1998), p. 8]
In the 3rd edition from 1989, that was the only passage I found in the
entire book that made any reference to a leech. In the 5th edition of
1998, the entire passage was excised (though discussion on Galen and
da Vinci remained, and the subject of Africanus seems to have been
considered more relevant!), and there is no other reference to a leech
that I could find in the entire book!
Evolution of Moore's dealings with the Qur'an can also be found with
the various editions of "The Developing Human". For example, the
excised paragraph noted above in "Before We Are Born," appears in the
3rd edition (1982) of "The Developing Human" (not co-authored with
Persaud) in roughly the same fashion on page 8, thought it includes a
sentence that reads: 'The Koran also states the sperm drop develops
"into a clot of congealed blood."' This is the only edition of either
text that even alludes to "blood clot" as being one of the possible
meanings (even in his infamous JIMA article which can be found all
over the net, Moore quietly excises this meaning when quoting Yusuf
Ali's translation of Soorat al-Moominoon, changing "clot of congealed
blood" to "leech-like structure").
As was the case with the 3rd edition of "Before We Are Born," the
relevant paragraph on the subject of the Qur'an was wedged between
discussion on Galen and da Vinci. In the 5th edition (1993) of "The
Developing Human" (co-authored with Persaud), the paragraph appears as
follows:
"Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high
points of embryological investigation undertaken during this time are
known to us. It is, however, cited in the Koran, or Qur'an, (seventh
century A.D.), The Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are
produced from mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several
references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa
(small drop). It is also stated that the resulting organism settles in
the womb like a seed, six days after its beginning. (The human
blastocyst begins to implant in the uterus about six days after
fertilization.) Reference is also made to the leechlike appearance of
the early embryo. (The four week embryo shown looks like a leech or
bloodsucker.) The embryo is also said to resemble a "chewed
substance." (The somites of older embryos somewhat resemble teethmarks
in a chewed substance.) For more information about embryological
references in the Koran, see Moore (1986) and Musallam (1990)."
[Keith L. Moore & TVN Persaud, "The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Emrbyology," 5th edition, (W.B. Saunders, 1993), p. 8]
This would seem to be the strongest passage in your favor, despite the
numerous problems with it. The citations noted at the end, are,
respectively, to Moore's JIMA article, and to Basim Musallam's article
"The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and Religious Thought," as
found in G.R. Dunstan, The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and
European Traditions, (University of Exeter, 1990). Now notice how
Moore gives his own commentary on each description, explaining how
this can be correlated with a given aspect of embryology. Keep this in
mind when we see how the paragraph evolves in the very next edition of
the textbook:
"Growth of science was slow during the medieval period, and few high
points of embryological investigation undertaken during this time are
known to us. However, it is cited in the Qur'an (seventh century
A.D.), the Holy Book of the Muslims, that human beings are produced
from mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several
references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa
(small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in
the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning. Reference is also
made to the leechlike appearance of the early embryo. Later, the
embryo is said to resemble a "chewed substance." For more information
about embryological references in the Qur'an, see Musallam (1990)."
[Keith L. Moore, TVN Persaud, "The Developing Human: Clinically
Oriented Embryology," 6th edition, (WB Saunders, 1998), p. 10]
This is very interesting, as Moore removes all of his own
correlations, and even removes any reference to his JIMA article! The
only source he recommends is the piece by Basim F. Musallam, who does
not support the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an on
emrbyology in any way. In fact, Musallam's position on the Qur'an's
statements on embryology, as expressed in the work Moore recommended,
is in stark contradistinction to the position held by many proponents
of the scientific-hermeneutic approach; consider the following:
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for
believers agreed substantially with Galen's scientific account. In De
Semine, for example, Galen spoke of four periods in the formation of
the embryo: (1) as seminal matter; (2) as a bloody form (still without
flesh, in which the primitive heart, liver, and brain are
ill-defined); (3) the fetus acquires flesh and solidity (the heart,
liver, and brain are well-defined, and the limbs begin formation); and
finally (4) all the organs attain their full perfection and the fetus
is quickened. 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: (as in Ibn
Sina's account of Galen): nutfa for the first, 'alaqa for the second,
"unformed" mudgha for the third, and "formed" mudgha for the fourth."
[Basim Musallam, "The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and Religious
Thought," in G.R. Dunstan, "The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic
and European Traditions," (University of Exeter, 1990), pp. 39-40]
So let's recap here. In "Before We Are Born," references to Qur'anic
embryology were edited down to nothing, and totally removed (even
though statements about Galen and da Vinci found in all the works
cited remained), and they were replaced by a short bit on Constantinus
Africanus. As the same paragraph in "The Developing Human" evolved,
Moore first removed any attempt to correlate the meaning "blood clot,"
then removed his attempts at actually trying to correlate the possible
meanings with aspects of embryonic development as well as the
recommendation to read his JIMA article, and ends off by recommending
those interested in learning more about Qur'anic embryology consult a
work that argues that the Qur'anic stages agree with the Galenic
stages!
One has to seriously wonder if Moore himself actually believes the
correlations that appeared in earlier editions of his textbooks. You
have access to the Wall Street Journal Article which quotes him as
stating that he hasn't dealt with the Qur'an for over a decade. That
seems to make it clear that he's not a Muslim. I would have to agree
strongly with the sentiments expressed by Imran Aijaz in this very
newsgroup (SRI) back 12/25/2001, when he wrote: "I find it remarkable
that a man would provide proof for the veracity of a religion to which
he does not convert to himself!"
> These are some of the meanings you listed of taqpi'eeni,
>
> 1. condensed/solidified
>
> 2. the transfer of liquid to a firm place
>
> 3. to cause [something else] to draw [itself] together
>
> 4. congregate
>
> None of them signify the meaning 'to pull together' or 'to join
> together'.
I think you should reread my post which you responded to...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bac0a2be.0312131418.755ee13e%40posting.google.com
...as there it was noted that a very authoritative concordance to the
Hebrew Bible (Qonqordantsiyah L'TaNaKh) gave the meanings "contrahere"
(to draw or bring tohether; to collect; assemble) and "colligere" (to
gather or collect together into a whole or point, to assemble, draw of
bring together). Furthemore "congregate" (this is the Latin I was
citing, not the English) means to bring together, assemble. Also it
was noted that even St. Thomas agreed that one of the meanings was
"compactio" which means precisely to join together. I cited two Latin
dictionaries to back this up:
Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, "A New Latin Dictionary," (American
Book Company, 1907), p. 385.
D.P. Simpson, "Cassell's Latin Dictionary," (Macmillan, 1968), p. 121.
The second one cited, Cassell's, gives *BOTH* meanings - pull together
and join together - for compactio. So yes, these are possible
meanings.
(5) Regarding the exegetical methodology...
> You assert a lot about this so-called circularity with the approach...
> when no so such circularity exists. The argument is fairly simple...
> there are a set of meanings of the Arabic words and all of the
> meanings make perfect sense with the given context. Thus, if they were
> not primarily intended by the author.. they wouldn't have made sense
> at all.
Of course your statement, that if these meanings were not primarily
intended by the author they wouldn't have made sense at all, does not
follow whatsoever. We've seen very real examples of evidence to the
contrary. You have come to agree that, for example, the author of the
Qur'an did not intend for the "heavens" to be a reference to the
atmosphere, but you once thought the verses made perfect sense to you
under that interpretation. You would no doubt continued to have
believed such if the Qur'an did not also state that the stars are in
the lowest heaven. Had those verses about stars in the lowest heaven
not been put in the Qur'an, would the intention of the author
regarding the heavens been different, or would only your approach to
the issue have been different?
Another example would be the issue of the expansion of the universe
and the Arabic translation of Isaiah 42:5 and 51:13, a subject you and
I have covered quite a bit. I have pulled together my arguments
regarding that into an article here:
http://geocities.com/denis_giron/zaariyaat-isaiah.html
Now, the ABS translation of Isaiah can be correlated with the
expansion of the universe in the same way Soorat az-Zaariyaat is. Yet,
you yourself believe that the men who wrote the sentences found in the
ABS translation did not have the expansion of the universe in mind,
even though the relevant sentences can be understood as having the
heavens "expanding" (present tense).
To tie this in with embryology, one of the possible meanings of
"alaqa" is blood clot. So even if the author of the Qur'an only meant
blood clot by "alaqa," all your exegesis applies just the same. So too
this can be said of taqpee'eni in Job. I have shown that it can have
the meanings "to pull/join together" (which I correlated with the
meeting of the semen and oocyte), "solidify" (which David Bruce
correlated with ossification), to transfer of liquid to a firm place
(which I correlated with a similar verse in Soorat al-Moominoon), and
all these meanings make perfect sense, regardless of whether the
author intended all of them, or intended none of them but instead
just intended to copy the Aristotelian cheese analogy verbatim.
I could give other examples, like "hubuk an-nujoom" or the quote you
gave from the Upanishads making perfect sense as rough references to
string theory, even if the authors of such statements did not intend
such. For an example outside of science, see this post from me about
Christoph Luxenberg's approach to the Qur'an:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bac0a2be.0310301442.6d1cf3ca%40posting.google.com
In the last four paragraphs I discuss how the Syriac meanings
Luxenberg (and Dr. Heger) inserts into the text of given verses can
make perfect sense even if the author did not intend those meanings.
In fact, even in the sentences of modern Muslims employing the
relevant Qur'anic terms, we can often insert the Syriac meaning for a
word and the sentence still makes perfect sense. So, regardless of
whether this has to do with science or some other subject, clearly it
does not follow whatsoever that if the author did not intend these
meanings, they would not make sense.
> For instance, you can't really 'metaphorically' interpret the events
> of embryology described in Surah al-Mu'minoon. At least, I haven't
> seen anyone done it. So in the Quran, X means X.
This is a laughable comment Mohd, and I was shocked to read it. The
embryology polemic is, contrary to what you claim here, precisely an
example of metaphorical interpretation. A great example is mudgha,
which can mean bite sized morsel, lump, or something bitten or chewed.
Proponents of the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an latch
on to the meaning "chewed". However, are they saying that the Qur'an
tells us the embryo has been chewed? No, absolutely not; rather they
present it as describing the embryo as having the appearance of
something chewed. It is not literally chewed; rather the word "chew"
is meant to conjure up an image of something that looks chewed (so
claim the proponents of this approach anyway). That would be an
example of a METAPHOR. The argument is precisely that embryonic
development is described metaphorically - or do you wish to argue that
the embryo is literally a blood clot, literally a leech, or literally
chewed?
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org/home.htm
Christoph Heger
Nice to meet you again! Unfortunately my message, though having been
sent days ago, didn't show up. I try it again.
> In the last four paragraphs I discuss how the Syriac meanings
> Luxenberg (and Dr. Heger) inserts into the text of given verses can
> make perfect sense even if the author did not intend those meanings.
I am fairly flattered to be named in the same rank as such an eminent
scholar like Dr. Luxenberg.
However let me give you an example which might clarify the
significance of Luxenberg's reproach (which for brevity might be
termed "insertion of Syriac meanings", though it is more complicated).
Perhaps the relation between Dutch and German may serve as an
analogue:
In the middle ages neither modern German nor modern Dutch had been
developped. What people spoke in the various parts of the then "Roman
Empire" or its greater part the German kingdom, comprising modern
Germany, modern Netherlands and some additional parts of today's
Europe were various varieties of a language for which I don't have a
name at the moment.
A prince of this empire who in modern German is called Johann II. Herr
von Egmond (*ca. 1385, +04.01.1451) and in modern Dutch Jan II. Heer
van Egmond ruled over large parts of today's Netherlands and adjacent
parts of today's Germany. He has always had the nickname "Jan met de
Bellen" in the Dutch parts as well as in the German parts of his
principality, the languages of which in those times were not so
different as they have become in the meantime.
If you try to read this "Jan met de Bellen" with German eyes as
"Johann mit den Bellen", you would have the problem that in German
there is no noun "Bellen", only the verb "bellen" meaning the barking
of a dog. In Dutch, however, there is no problem, it means "with the
bells" (because he sometimes had appeared with a necklace of silvern
bells), and exactly in this sense the nickname was understood in those
times in the later German parts of Jan's principality, too. It was
only later that also those parts of Germany which had had the noun
"Bellen" for (English) "bells" lost it under the influence of later
Standard German.
You see the analogue? Luxenberg pointed out a goodly number of places
in the Koran which are not understandable in Arabic (as "mit den
Bellen" is in German), but render good sense as soon as you realize
the Syriac background (as "met de bellen" in Dutch). François de
Blois's critique is indeed not to be taken seriously, to say the
least.
As Luxenberg told me, he prepares the publication of a second book.
After in his first book he had referred only to the Cairo standard
edition of the Koran, he pretends now to be able for the first time to
present documentary evidence from old manuscripts.
There is no idea of "even if the author [of the Koran; Ch.H.] did not
intend those meanings". By the way, do you actually believe in a
single author of the Koran? Even the young Taha Husain, as early as in
1926, knew that the Koran contains pre-Muhammadan metric poetry - or
to say it more clearly: strophic poetry.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
M.S.M. Saifullah
> There is no idea of "even if the author [of the Koran; Ch.H.] did not
> intend those meanings". By the way, do you actually believe in a
> single author of the Koran? Even the young Taha Husain, as early as in
> 1926, knew that the Koran contains pre-Muhammadan metric poetry - or
> to say it more clearly: strophic poetry.
As far as the likes of Taha Husayn and Margoliouth is concerned, their
position has been refuted by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. For more
information please see:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/poetry.html
Wassalam
Saifullah
Yusuf B Gursey
news:<23a0d3d0.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> Hello Denis,
> > In the last four paragraphs I discuss how the Syriac meanings
> > Luxenberg (and Dr. Heger) inserts into the text of given verses can
> > make perfect sense even if the author did not intend those meanings.
>
>
>
> You see the analogue? Luxenberg pointed out a goodly number of places
your case is a proper name, and yes, many OT and NT proper names
in the Qur'an don't make sense in arabic, but are Hebrew (via Aramaic),
though they may be partially arabized (as in your case the name is made
partially to conform to German).
> in the Koran which are not understandable in Arabic (as "mit den
> Bellen" is in German), but render good sense as soon as you realize
using data from other languages to elucidate the meanings of certain
words (usually rare) in arabic (for example) is regularly done,
and there is nothing wrong with it, provided one justifies the sense
in the target language as well.
F. de Blois himself has done that in his articles.
Luxenberg takes a leap from that and falls grossly into error and
incoherence (his theory of a "mixed language").
> the Syriac background (as "met de bellen" in Dutch). Fran㎜is de
> Blois's critique is indeed not to be taken seriously, to say the
> least.
are you able to back up your sarcasm with a specific critique of
the review? (rhetorical question) frankly, you have never fully
defended an argument of Luxenberg's either.
it's not the only review dismissing Luxenberg either, as there are
other reviews that have reached similar conclusions. in fact, the
negative reviews come form those who know linguistics (not just
the languages involved).
if you wish you can ask why Luxenberg has been rejected in a forum
like sci.lang .
there are a lot of people here making statements about arabic, the
history of arabic or history in general without getting feedback
from proffessionals or people with the required background. in
this forum everything is taken to be within a polemic about islam
and is evaluated as such, everybody's objectivity is questioned.
moderation rules concerning "relevance to Islam make it even more
dififcult to go into such details.
the post didn't touch upon Denis Giron's "philosophical" point either.
coherence of a reconstruction isn't enough to make it correct.
if a reconstruct someone's statement "the neighbor's kid is sick"
as "the neighbor's young goat is sick" it is coherent, but it
does not neccessarily reflect the intentions of the person who
uttered it.
>
> There is no idea of "even if the author [of the Koran; Ch.H.] did not
> intend those meanings". By the way, do you actually believe in a
> single author of the Koran? Even the young Taha Husain, as early as in
> 1926, knew that the Koran contains pre-Muhammadan metric poetry - or
> to say it more clearly: strophic poetry.
the Qur'an very probably did make use of previous material (strophic or
not). copyright rules were not in effect at the time :)
Christoph Heger
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> in his message
news:<Pine.HPX.4.58L.0...@club.eng.cam.ac.uk>... didn't
get the point.
His polemics on the said site deals with the thesis of Taha Husain,
Margoliouth and others that the so called Old Arabic poetry is more or
less a later fake.
My point was a totally different one: Taha Husain didn't dubitate that
there was pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. On the contrary, early as in 1926
he recognized that the Koran contains such pre-Muhammadan metric
poetry (though he thought the transmitted poetry is widely distorted
or even later forged). Or as I would like to add: pre-Muhammadan
(Christian) strophic poetry.
Saifullah's above displayed site doesn't deal at all with this item -
presumably because it has been totally unknown to him.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis
Pax Tecum Dr. Heger!
Always a pleasure. For those who wish to see Dr. Heger's post to gain
the proper context, the full article has been archived by Google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=23a0d3d0.0401121410.5ed5fd3d%40posting.google.com
> I am fairly flattered to be named in the same rank as such an eminent
> scholar like Dr. Luxenberg.
Well, it was because I was discussing the approach to the Qur'an in
general, and your furqaan argument (or whose argument is this?
Luling's? Puin's? I recall you mentioning it once, but I forget the
answer) bares some methodological resemblance to the approach
Luxenberg takes to the Qur'an, if I am not mistaken.
As for Luxenberg specifically, I must concede that I am not fully
familiarized with his book (mainly because I'm not fluent in German,
so you can imagine me sitting there with a dictionary, slowly prodding
through the book, and missing points here and there and failing to
gain a grasp of key premises), which is why for the most part I have
remained silent. I look forward to the alleged forthcoming English
translation of Luxenberg's book, as well as his second book.
I was able to understand your bells analogy. However, while I
appreciate your attempt to elucidate Luxenberg's methodology, I'm not
100% sure how relevant it is to my own argument, no offense. As for
how understandable a given statement in the Qur'an is, I'm sure you
would agree that most Arabic speaking Muslims at least *believe* they
understand a given verse. Now, supposing this understanding rests on
artificial meanings that were forced upon the relevant words, does
that tell us when those meanings were forced upon those words or what
the author's actualy intention was? I would think not.
Wouldn't you agree that the forced meanings/definitions shows that the
understanding Muslims have of the relevant words has evolved? If so,
how do we know what point in this alleged evolution the author(s) of
the Qur'an was at? In other words, if it is in fact the case that the
Muslim understanding of various Qur'anic passages has undergone an
evolution (as you and I believe), that does not tell us where the
author(s) of the Qur'an fall(s) along that path. My argument was
simply that the methodology seems to be that the Syriac reading
applied to the text (by proponents of such a methodology) makes sense,
and I added that the fact that it makes sense does not mean that was
the meaning intended by the author.
I think it is at least possible that the author had another meaning,
one different from the Syriac meaning, in mind when he wrote/uttered
the relevant sentence (regardless of whether this meaning intended by
the author reflects the meanings modern Muslims currently believe are
being put forth). So I was using this as an analogy for the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an. I was trying to argue
that a consistent interpretation does not mean the interpretation
reflects the author's intention (assuming the Syriac-origins approach
or the scientific-hermeneutic approach put forth consistent
interpretations or reworkings of the Qur'anic text).
> There is no idea of "even if the author [of the Koran; Ch.H.] did not
> intend those meanings". By the way, do you actually believe in a
> single author of the Koran? Even the young Taha Husain, as early as in
> 1926, knew that the Koran contains pre-Muhammadan metric poetry - or
> to say it more clearly: strophic poetry.
I'm sure you recall that I have pushed my own "multiple hands"
hypothesis for the Qur'an in this forum a couple times. Being that the
Qur'an repeats a number stories in variant form, I firmly believe that
one can plausibly adduce that the text is a collection of variant
traditions from a plurality of sources (to roughly reword the remark
Cook and Crone made in passing). I've never familiarized myself with
Taha Hussayn's arguments, though I have been meaning to. Of course, as
a person who has studied logic, I know that every abduction is
deductively invalid.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
Christoph Heger
> Pax Tecum Dr. Heger!
Pax vobiscum, domine Dionysie!
> Well, it was because I was discussing the approach to the Qur'an in
> general, and your furqaan argument (or whose argument is this?
> Luling's? Puin's?
That "furqān" originally is "deliverance", "salvation" and so on is no
news. Already Abraham Geiger knew it. Arthur Jeffery in his "Foreign
Vocabulary..." gave a summary of the state of knowledge in 1938. It
was Guenter Lueling who recognized that also in surah 25:1 it has this
meaning (or more precisely "price of redemption") - which before has
not been recognized, because people were mislead by the conventional,
but erroneous understanding of "nadhīr" as "warner". You can see
Lueling's argument in his book "A Challenge to Islam for Reformation
...", Delhi (Motilal Banarsidass Publishers) 2003.
> I recall you mentioning it once, but I forget the
> answer) bares some methodological resemblance to the approach
> Luxenberg takes to the Qur'an, if I am not mistaken.
Insofar, yes. There is agreement between Lueling and Luxenberg to some
extent, but there is also disagreement (Koran originally in vernacular
Arabic koine or in a new strongly Syriac influenced Arabic,
genuineness of Old Arabic poetry etc.), a disagreement which is
aggravated because both don't like each other.
> As for Luxenberg specifically, I must concede that I am not fully
> familiarized with his book (mainly because I'm not fluent in German,
> ... I look forward to the alleged forthcoming English
> translation of Luxenberg's book, as well as his second book.
As I have heard from Luxenberg, the English translation is finished to
the greatest part. So I hope this translation as well as his second
book (in German) will appear this year.
> I was able to understand your bells analogy. However, while I
> appreciate your attempt to elucidate Luxenberg's methodology, I'm not
> 100% sure how relevant it is to my own argument, no offense. As for
> how understandable a given statement in the Qur'an is,
I will give you an example: The word "kauthar" in surah 108 always has
given much headache to the commentators, so that they invented no less
than (if I remember correctly) 37 ideas what it might mean. Usually
they connected it with Arabic "kathīr", "much, many" - in the same
manner as in my analogy a later Standard German speaking person would
understand "Jan met de bellen", as if prince John of Egmond had
anything to do with the barking (German "bellen" vs. Dutch and
dialectical German "bellen" = English "bells") of dogs. Luxenberg's
explanation of "kauthar" as an originally Syriac word, meaning "(the
virtue) of perseverance", is much more convincing than these 37
transmitted attempts.
> I'm sure you would agree that most Arabic speaking Muslims at least
> *believe* they understand a given verse.
No, I don't think so. Most Arabic speaking Muslims are fairly weak in
Classical Arabic and especially at a loss vis ą vis the language of
the Koran. They only believe that their scholars understand the
Koranic texts and that they can trust them.
> Now, supposing this understanding rests on artificial meanings that
> were forced upon the relevant words, does that tell us when those
> meanings were forced upon those words or what the author's actualy
> intention was? I would think not.
I am afraid I didn't get your point exactly. Which words have been
considered as needing an explanation can be seen in the commentaries
by Tabari and others. And we can check whether this explanation is
intrinsically correct or at least coherent and whether it fits the
context at least as good as an explanation which allows for a Syriac
or other background.
> Wouldn't you agree that the forced meanings/definitions shows that the
> understanding Muslims have of the relevant words has evolved?
Surely, it evolved, as Islam evolved, till it became "orthodox".
> If so, how do we know what point in this alleged evolution the author(s) of
> the Qur'an was at?
We have to look how it fits to the context. It always has been
remarked that the train of thought in the Koran is uncredibly leaping,
the text often seems to need complicated comments to have any sense at
all. If these shortcomings get diminished by a hypothesized meaning of
a word, it stands the test. It is the well-known circulus
hermeneuticus, no circulus viciosus.
> In other words, if it is in fact the case that the Muslim understanding of
> various Qur'anic passages has undergone an evolution (as you and I
> believe), that does not tell us where the author(s) of the Qur'an fall(s)
> along that path.
This was also the idea of Jeffery and others who deliberated whether
Muhammad himself could have used "furqān", shifting its originally
meaning to the later Islamic one. Well, possibly! Luxenberg's,
Lueling's (and my) interest however is not in the first place what a
Muhammad or whosoever might have done with the texts he used, but what
these texts originally have been.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
M.S.M. Saifullah
> His polemics on the said site deals with the thesis of Taha Husain,
> Margoliouth and others that the so called Old Arabic poetry is more or
> less a later fake.
Well, that is not a polemic. We are dealing with facts. The fact is that
Taha Hussein's stand was refuted on this issue by Muslims and non-Muslims.
> My point was a totally different one: Taha Husain didn't dubitate that
> there was pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. On the contrary, early as in 1926
On the contrary, Taha Hussein casted the doubt that about the existence of
pre-Islamic poetry and suggested that it was a post-Islamic forgery.
> he recognized that the Koran contains such pre-Muhammadan metric
> poetry (though he thought the transmitted poetry is widely distorted
> or even later forged). Or as I would like to add: pre-Muhammadan
That is according to Heger's fantasies.
Regards
Saifullah
Denis Giron
Et Pax Vobis Dr. Heger!
> > Well, it was because I was discussing the approach to the Qur'an in
> > general, and your furqaan argument (or whose argument is this?
> > Luling's? Puin's?
>
> That "furqân" originally is "deliverance", "salvation" and so on is no
> news.
I did not mean this for the issue of the Aramaic furqaan. I know the
meaning of the Aramaic furqaan has been known for centuries (one could
infer its meaning easily from a Targum to B'reshit). I meant
specifically the argument you put forth that the opening passage of
Soorat al-Furqaan is best understood when taking the furqaan to have
the same meaning as the Aramaic furqaan.
> This was also the idea of Jeffery and others who deliberated whether
> Muhammad himself could have used "furqân", shifting its originally
> meaning to the later Islamic one. Well, possibly! Luxenberg's,
> Lueling's (and my) interest however is not in the first place what a
> Muhammad or whosoever might have done with the texts he used, but what
> these texts originally have been.
Now I am at a loss. I was under the impression that the argument was
that the new reading of the text in light of related (or mildly
related) Syriac words helps to serve as evidence for adducing that
they were originally part of pre-Islamic Christian hymns. If one
accepts, however, that the author(s) of the Qur'an did not necessarily
intend, for example, for furqaan to mean deliverance/salvation, how
does that square with the argument? Is there actual manuscript
evidence of the relevant Christian hymn, or is its existence adduced
based on the coherence of the Syriac reading of the text? I thought
the latter was the case. Regardless, I think we are moving away from
my original argument (in response to Mr. Karim).
My argument has simply been that the coherence of a reading does not
reflect the author's intention. I did not mean to necessarily call
into question the veracity of the adduced conclusions drawn out by the
Syriac origins approach, but I was using it as an analogy to show that
coherence of a reading does not go hand in hand with the intention of
the author. You seem to agree with me to a mild degree above when you
concede to the possibility that the author of the Qur'an may have
intended a different meaning for furqaan. The whole point of the
argument was to call into question the assumed premise of a proponent
of the scientific-hermeneutic approach (Mohd Anisul Karim), who argued
precisely that consistency of the reading gives insight into the
intentions of the author (i.e. the reading would not make sense if
that was not the reading the author intended).
-Denis Giron
Christoph Heger
Concerning Taha Husain's position towards pre-Islamic poetry I had
pointed to the apparently not so known fact that
> > he recognized that the Koran contains such pre-Muhammadan metric
> > poetry (though he thought the transmitted poetry is widely distorted
> > or even later forged). Or as I would like to add: pre-Muhammadan
>
> That is according to Heger's fantasies.
Saifullah obviously is at a loss. He should at least realize that I
didn't speak of my, but of Taha Husain's "fantasies". His "fantasies"
of pre-Islamic poetry in the Koran, however, have been substantiated
in the meantime.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
Christoph Heger
> > That "furqān" originally is "deliverance", "salvation" and so on is no
> > news.
>
> I did not mean this for the issue of the Aramaic furqaan. I know the
> meaning of the Aramaic furqaan has been known for centuries (one could
> infer its meaning easily from a Targum to B'reshit).
Right! Nevertheless Rabbi (?) Abraham Geiger, at least to my
knowledge, was the first to remind the scholarly community of this
origin of the Koranic "furqān".
> I meant specifically the argument you put forth that the opening
> passage of Soorat al-Furqaan is best understood when taking the
> furqaan to have the same meaning as the Aramaic furqaan.
Yes, Guenter Lueling realized it, when he realized that also the word
"nadhīr" is not to be understood, as Muslim tradition made as believe,
viz. as "warner".
> > ... Well, possibly! Luxenberg's, Lueling's (and my) interest however
> > is not in the first place what a Muhammad or whosoever might have done
> > with the texts he used, but what these texts originally have been.
>
> Now I am at a loss.
Oh, I seem to have expressed insufficiently what I meant.
> I was under the impression that the argument was that the new
> reading of the text in light of related (or mildly related) Syriac
> words helps to serve as evidence for adducing that they were
> originally part of pre-Islamic Christian hymns.
Guenter Lueling actually does not refer to a Syriac origin of "nadhīr"
(though Luxenberg is presumably right that Arabic words of the form
"fa`īl" regularly are of Syriac origin, namely Syriac participles
passive). However we surely find in surah 25 relics of a pre-Islamic
Christian hymn. Other parts of this hymn as it was tentatively
reconstructed by Guenter Lueling are to be seen in the files section
of the Yahoo! Group "ArabicApologetics", i.e. on
> If one accepts, however, that the author(s) of the Qur'an did not
> necessarily intend, for example, for furqaan to mean deliverance/salvation,
> how does that square with the argument?
We are now in the field of speculation. At least I can point to a poem
transmitted in Ibn Hishām's sīra, which depicts Muhammad as
*explicating* the revelation. So it can well be that Muhammad (or
later persons) have used the already existing text in a peculiar
arabicizing meaning.
> Is there actual manuscript evidence of the relevant Christian hymn,
> or is its existence adduced based on the coherence of the Syriac
> reading of the text? I thought the latter was the case.
Yes, Guenter Lueling inferred the existence of such Christian hymns
from the coherence of the pertinent Koranic texts in his reading (and
the incoherence of it in the traditional reading).
In the meantime M.Ignatius on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Talking-about-Islam/message/7878
in his message 7878 to the Yahoo! Group "Talking about Islam" made an
interesting comment:
»If one were to undertake a study of "finding" this verse in extra-
Qur'anic Christian literature, I would suggest studying the Anaphorae
of the Syriac churches (Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of
the East). It sounds very similar to a portion of the Divine Liturgy
spoken right before the concecration.
The following is from the Divine Liturgy of St. James, author of a
New Testament Epistle and first bishop of Jerusalem:
"He who had come and achieved the entire plan of salvation for us, on
the night when he was delivered for the life and redemption of the
world."
There are similar passages thoughout the Anaphora, especially the
responce of the thurifier after the proclamation of the reading of
the Gospel (if not the proclamation itself). Currently, there are 79
Anaphorae in use in the Syriac Orthodox Church today; thoughout
history, every locale used its own Anaphora, so I wouldn't be
surprised if the Qur'an preserves a portion of the Mekkan Anaphora.
I'm not saying this as definitive, but it would be an interesting
study nonetheless.«
Unfortunately we are far away from a complete knowledge of Syriac
literature in all centuries.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
John Berg
There seems to be agreement on the internal evidence of multiple sources for
the multiple compilers of the Qur'an. The logical analysis of the evidence
presented requires, a, a significant collection of documents from the period
550-650 AD, b, the construction of a timeline on which the documents and the
included words can be placed for comparison. A major point reflects the
existence of an early Arabic vernacular but no written form and thus the use
of the then common Aramaic, c. an analysis of the meanings of the words in
the Qur'an and contemporary documents using their position in time. (We
already have on message in s.r.i. saying that words may have a different
meaning when appearing in the Qur'an.) Compounding this problem is the
possibility of many pieces and fragments (the fundus) in this early period
We have a particular case to deal with in period between the first
revelation and the last. Were there any fragments extent, would we find
words with different meanings in the first two years of the fundus compared
to the last two years of of this 22 year period? Would the compilers be
aware of parts of the Fundus being transported to distant locations by the
owners of the fragments?
However, I remind myself and the reader that valid reading of the Qur'an is
not as history but as a reinforcer of faith. Thus over time compilers and
recensionists may have added material to correct errors (heresies) or to
affirm correctness by providing details to make the contents more
believable. The evidence suggests this occured mainly in the period 800-
1000 AD.
In summary, the solution requires a large corpus of documentary evidence or
the admission that such a collection is unlikely.
An unofficial rule: Every Ph.D. has an equal and opposite Ph.D.
--
John Berg
john...@mchsi.com
"Denis Giron" <denis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Altway
"John Berg" <john...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:eoEPb.117807$8H.277803@attbi_s03...
> Finally, a responsive message to C. Heger.
> There seems to be agreement on the internal evidence of multiple sources
for
the multiple compilers of the Qur'an.
Comment:-
There is no such agreement unless you choose the set of those who agree.
As these are generally non-muslims their views are irrelevant to Muslims and
to Islam.
Hamid S. Aziz