What's new

Islam and science

After a study which lasted ten years, the famous French physician Maurice Bucaille adressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 and expressed the complete agreement of the Qur’an and established findings of modern science. He presented his study on the existence in the Qur’an of certain statements concerning physiology and reproduction. His reason for doing that was that "our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur’an could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times".

Decades later a noted embryologist Keith L. Moore and expert in his field, upon being presented with the statements made in the Qur’an regarding the stages of the formation of the embryo from the mixing of the male and female gametes up to the embryo’s full development remarked "It has been a pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur’an about Human Development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God or Allaah because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later." Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at several conferences. Several Canadian periodicals published many of Moore’s statements and in addition he presented three television programmes in which he highlighted the compatibility of modern science with what has been revealed in the Qur’an 1400 years ago. Consequently, he was asked: "Does this mean that you believe that the Qur’an is the word of God?" to which he replied "I find no difficulty in accepting this."

In fact Professor Moore was so amazed at the accuracy of the descriptions and the terminology used for the various stages of the development of the embryo that he modified his own textbook on the subject. He incorporated all the relevant Qur’anic passages and authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad into his book, The Developing Human: Clinically oriented embryology with Islamic additions, which was published by WB Saunders in 1987 and was a standard university textbook in the United States. The book now contains passages of the Qur’an and the Hadeeth (verified statements of the Prophet Muhammad) for every stage of development and Professor Moore has also adopted the classification used in the above two sources.

Consider also the statement of Tejatet Tejasen (Professor at the Dept. of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mei University, Thailand) after his study on the Qur’an passages dealing with embryology: "From my studies and what I have learnt at this conference I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Qur’an 1400 years ago must be true. That can be proved the scientific way". Also the statement of E. Marshal Johnson (Professor and Chairman, Dept. of Anatomy, Daniel Bough Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA) when he became aware of such statements in the Qur’an and investigated them: "The Qur’an describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages - the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science... If I was to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I do today and describing things, I could not describe the things that were described... I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place... so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved..."

Upon being presented with hadeeths (verified statements of the Prophet Muhammad) concerning dominant and recessive characteristics Joe Leigh Simpson (Professor of Obstretics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA) said: "... these Hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the’writer’... It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (Islam) but in fact religion (Islam) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches... There exist statements in the Qur’an shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the Qur’an having been derived from God".

Consider also the statement of T.V.N. Persaud (Professor and Head, Dept. of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Canada): "Muhammad was a very ordinary man, he couldn’t read, didn’t know how to write, in fact he was an illiterate... were talking about 1400 years ago, you have some illiterate person making profound statements that are amazingly accurate, of a scientific nature... I personally can’t see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements".
 
.
I personally can’t see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements

Compleltly lost scientific revelence there. Propaganda
 
.
The scientific acceptance of evolution is also just a belief. It's God is natural selection and a crazed looney, Darwin is the Prophet.

No scientist can argue natural selection as fact. That's why till date its called the theory of evolution rather than the fact of evolution.

In fact the theory of intelligent design is on much more firmer grounds and has gained a lot of acceptance and excitement within the scientific community. So thereby the scientists are now agreeing that though they can't call life the creation of God since God isn't a provable fact and is also a theory. The FACT is that life IS the creation of an intelligent design. A creation. If you don't want to call it God, that's fine. Maybe aliens did it.
 
.
there are countless examples of single celled organisims grwoing up into multiple,
theory of evolution has its evideneces too,its being further proved by new organisms found in very deep sea explorations
 
. .
The Koran says sperm come form the kidneys, that bones ar emad ebefore flesh, and tha tthe earth sits on Pillars with the sun living in a puddle of mud. The Koran is a book of faith not science.
 
.
Stop making bullshit up , Qur'an even supports evolution and an ayah clearly says that see how I have put up ths skies without any pillars ! Not the other way round , LOL lying redneck!
 
.
this thread was going on without me even knowing! I'm not going to join, but i would like to observe arguments here. oh yea, and gentlemen, let's try to keep this civil.
 
. .
I'm still trying to understand why the many of you here have to drag religion and science together.

Subconsciously everybody perceives the triumph of science and submit to science on a daily basis rather than religion. Only the craziest of the loonies - an extreme version of those relating religious books with science, stick to reading the holy books when they're sick. Everybody else goes to the doctor - who has studied a part of science.

So the honesty of our ever pure consciousness says that religion does not save lives nor cures diseases. We see science in action everyday. It helps us or goes against us - depending on how we use it. So instead of trying to keep religion away from science our insecurity - the very fear that we may not get what we have been promised, the faltering faith because obviously this thing called science is demonstrating some practical use to which every human must submit to on a day to day basis; we scamper to say our religion supports science and what not. Of Course considering any book can be interpreted in a thousand ways this is an easy job to do.

Science as systematic knowledge has been changing, rather evolving over time. What science claims today maybe proven false and the credit would continue to go to science. You guys will have a tough time to change sales pitch. Arabic scholars can make too much money relating science and religion ofcourse. :tongue:

I'm hoping in vain(going by the best attitude some of us can display here) that we can understand my argument that the Quran and by extension the religion of Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with science. You don't have to believe me - you can hear it from Abu Rayhan al-Biruni himself.

"[the Qur'an] does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science."

The roots of relating science and religion is insecurity in ones faith.
 
.
I am not sure how many of you guys have heard of this scholar called Dr.Zakir Naik. He is a convert from hinduism(yes he is indian, but one of those good ones ). Anywho he is a very respected islamic scholar and this is his work. Some FAQ's about islam



Well thunder This IS A great Site Thanks man keep it up
 
.
Yes we all have heard of him .. and As you said he is one of those good Indians who knows how to make money
 
.
I like that Zakir Niak because he is one of the few moderate preachers in public view.

Obviously, his arguments about Islam can be torn apart by any university graduate, but that's besides the point.

B_Pakistanti, that would make 2 good Indians: Musharraf and Zakir Naik ;)
 
.
I like that Zakir Niak because he is one of the few moderate preachers in public view.

I am not going to comment on your entire statement but this one sentence I thought I would comment on it. You wrote that Zakir Niak is a moderate preacher. Personally I have a problem with this statement. You are either a muslim or your not, you are not a moderate or an extremist.
I think the word moderate is being used today in the wrong way. I would just like someone to define for me what is the difference between a moderate Muslim and an extremist Muslim?
 
.
I am not going to comment on your entire statement but this one sentence I thought I would comment on it. You wrote that Zakir Niak is a moderate preacher. Personally I have a problem with this statement. You are either a muslim or your not, you are not a moderate or an extremist.
I think the word moderate is being used today in the wrong way. I would just like someone to define for me what is the difference between a moderate Muslim and an extremist Muslim?

Comeon Mujahideen. You know what the difference between moderate and extremist is very well. You are just covering your eyes and refusing to see the elephant in the room.

A moderate muslim is someone who is willing to acknowledge the existence and even the positive aspects of other faiths and ways of life. He is willing to live in a multi-cultural multi-religious society and try to integrate with it.

An extremist muslim wants islam to take over the world. He thinks that non-muslims don't deserve to live, and should be either converted or killed. He thinks that a society without islamic law is a society at war with Islam.
He thinks that islam, and islam alone, is the solution to all the problems of the world.

Both kinds of muslims exist. You know it, I know it. Trying to constantly prove that there are no extremist muslims is futile.

On the other hand, some argue that even a large number of the so-called moderate muslims secretly with for an all-islam-only-islam world.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom