From: L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Islamic revolution
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:06:10 GMT
Organization: University of Bradford, UK
Originator: 90908502@muser

souissi@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Ridha Souissi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.093950.18878@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:
>>
>>Well Ridha, we have had the Koran quoted courtesy of Saddiqui.
>>
>
[deleted]
>One more thing
>is that it is very difficult to translate some words of the
>Qur'an which is in Arabic.

This is always a convenient excuse - the 'real' meaning was lost in
translation.  Maybe Arab physics students have great difficulty with
their relativity exams because translation into Arabic is too
difficult?  I don't think so.  Translation of clear and concise
writing is reasonably easy whereas translation of the vague and
obscure is difficult precisely because no one is really sure what
meaning was intended in the first place.

If the Koran contains something as precise as scientific fact then I
refuse to believe that it cannot be adequately translated.

>
>I recommend that you read the book suggested by Siddiqui
>"the bible, the qur'an and science" by Maurice Bucaille from
>the french academy of medecine.  Then we can continue the discussions.
>You can order a copy of the book from IBS phone: 317-839-8150.
>

Actually I have read this book.  It was a long time ago and I don't
have it with me now.  As far as I recall it did not answer any of the
questions I have posed so far in this thread.

The book is in two sections.  Section 1 contains a fairly reasonable
analysis of the Bible, showing many inconsistencies between the Bible
and modern science.  Well we all know that, no surprises.

Section 2 analyses the Koran's version of the Old Testament stories,
and seems, on the face of it, to present a good case showing the Koran
is consistent with modern science.  However, it was plain to me, that
this consistency was only possible by the vague phraseology of the
Koran.  Take the flood, for example, the bible is full of detail,
("forty days and forty nights", "pair of every animal", etc.), we all
know this is nonsense.  The Koran's description of the same event is
so obscure as to make possible an interpretation such as "A big river 
flooded for a few days and caused much damage".  Yes, no contradiction
but also not much fact.

The Koran might be consistent with modern science, but being
consistent due to its vagueness compared with other books of that
time, does not seem much of an achievement.

The book concludes by saying something like, the Koran must have had
divine inspiration because at the time it was written there were a lot
of (to us now) ridiculous ideas about the universe, and none of them
can be found in the Koran!  Arguing for the greatness of a book by
talking about what it does not contain seems absurd in the extreme.

The above is, of course, from memory so I may have missed some points.
In order to broaden the discussion to those without a copy of this
book or the Koran, then maybe one of our Muslim friends could quote
the appropriate passages from the book to defend Ridha's original 
assertion:
>Also there are scientific facts in the Qur'an that were not known
>and were discovered only in the past couple of centuries.
>How can these come from a "desert nomad"?

My question of a previous post still stands:
>My question to Ridha or anyone else who still believes that scientific 
>fact is contained in the Koran is how can you justify continuing to
>hold such a view in the face of such clear contradictory evidence?
>Surely it can only be blind faith, and surely a major religion such as
>Islam does not see blind faith as a virtue.

I am genuinely interested in what make people keep faith in what seems
to me very strange ideas, in the face of much evidence to the
contrary.


-- 

Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk