From: faris@sarcasm.trl.OZ.AU (Aziz Faris)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Fear Allah...my last response
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:31:15 GMT
Reply-To: a.Faris@trl.oz.au
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne,Australia

In article <1992Nov3.115159.262@fmg.bt.co.uk>, ghbr@fmg.bt.co.uk (Hossein Bagherzadeh Rafsanjani) writes:
|> 
|> > The wonderful knowledge of Mr. Rafsanjani has come out again. I read that
|> > article before. I didn't want to respond but now I do. 
|> > Yes new knowledge HAS been made by the Quran. If there is any science that
|> > has developed as a result of religion it has to be that of human embryology.
|> > Ther is no doubt that the Islam (the Quran and Hadis) talk a great deal about
|> > the development of the embryo. It is not general statements, they are very
|> > explicit. In fact Ar-Razi once said that the manuscripts of the Greeks is
|> > faulty (concerning the development of the human in the body) because they
|> > contradict what is known in religious text. They are not general statements
|> > or of mystical meaning that have been stretched to suit the situation. They are
|> > very straightforward.
|> 
|> It is an old story Zafar.  Every time, a new scientific discovery
|> occurs, some over-zealot (and not necessarily well-informed and
|> purpose-serving) Muslims go about "proving" that Islam (Qor'an or
|> hadith) has already foreseen this discovery or talked about it.  We
|> have heard these things about almost everything - from the embryo to
|> the space travel.  But funny enough, all these claims come AFTER the
|> discovery takes place.
|> 
|> The problem is that these Muslims (including Zafar) miss the whole
|> point.  Religions are NOT about science and scientific knowledge.  No
|> (credible) religion has made such a claim.  Indeed, those who do
|> otherwise, do a disservice to their religion.  Because once you made
|> such a claim, then you should explain why
|> 
|> 	a) only a small and somehow trivial facts of this nature are
|> 	covered in such (usually voluminous) texts (Qor'an, hadith etc),
|> 
|> 	b) some facts are given WRONGLY in such texts.
|> 
|> An example of the second one is the (repeated) refernece in Qor'an to
|> "seven heavens, one above another" (sureh 67) which by all
|> pre-Cupernicus (sp?) interpretations of the Qor'an it was understood to mean
|> the severn layers of the sky obove the earth.  How could then these
|> people explain the implication of their claim - that the all-knowing
|> omniscient God/Qor'an/Mohammad have KNOWINGLY misguided their
|> followers for centuries about such simple facts?  (It is one thing,
|> not to talk about something, and so leave the people in the dark - but
|> it is another thing if you do the talk and give the facts wrong.)

|> 
|> -hossein

The irony of this discussion is that I was reading an article in Soc.religion.
Islam and the author claims that the big bang theory is even stated in the
Qur'an. He also stated that the Qur'an said that the planets revolve in a
circular orbit, however, Keplers laws indicate that they are elliptical.

The disappointing thing is that educated people will ignore all scientific
knowledge and claim it was predicted by a religious document. Those people
twist the language to make the facts fit with fiction.

A.Faris
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic