From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Islam and Science (was Re: Islam & Rushdie -- Icarus.)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:57:56 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science


In article <1992Sep28.153957.8109@news.nd.edu>, milind@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph) writes:

> In one of the posts related to current discussion (and also some time
> back) you recommended "The Bible, The Quran and Science", by Maurice
> Bucaille.  Do you agree with his methodology and his interpretations?
> My opinion on this issue is clear.  I believe it is silly to use the
> alleged consistency between Quran and the currently accepted scientific
> facts/theories to advance the proposition that the Quran is 
> miraculous in nature.  

Well, there are certain things which I consider silly too, but
diplomacy prevents me from pointing them out with such labels...

> Big Bang and Astronomy
> ----------------------
> One of your attempts to illustrate this consistency went like this:
> 
> >But in Islam, this was not necessary because the Qur'an
> >mentions the Big Bang theory and is consistent with it.
> 
> The first part of this claim is: "the Quran mentions the Big Bang theory".
> You dropped/modified  this strong claim and stuck with the second
> part which is: "the Quran is consistent with the Big Bang theory".
> I assume you stand by only with the second part, which you repeated
> in other posts.  

Yes.

> I assume the consistency refers only to the expansion
> of universe.  I quoted a verse from the Quran which Bucaille interprets
> to imply the expanding universe.  Is this a fair representation of 
> your position?  Do other references which you have access to, say
> something different? 

Yes, Bucaille's is not the only study of this material.  You seem to
be suffering from the illusion that Maurice Bucaille's work is the
authoritative statement on Islam and science.  The ultimate source is
the Qur'an.  I quote from the Holy Qur'an:

From Sura Al Anbiya, 21:

   30.  Do no the Unbelievers see
	That the heavens and the earth
	Were joined together (as one
	Unit of Creation), before
	We clove them asunder?
	We made them from water
	Every living thing.  Will they
	Not then believe?

It doesn't too much insight to understand the consistency of the above
with the Big Bang theory.  You seem to be obsessed with Bucaille.  I can
only recommend that you refer to the Qur'an itself and see for
yourself.  If you are as knowledgeable in science as you like to
convey, then you'll see things for yourself and you won't need Bucaille.

> I quoted a verse from the Quran which says the Heavens were smoke in
> the beginning, which Bucaille interprets to mean the primary
> nebula.  Do you agree with this?  According to currently accepted
> theory of planet formation, there were two stages.
> In the first stage stars synthesized He, Si, S, C and Fe nuclei 
> during the thermonuclear fusion phase, and then during the explosive
> supernova phase, rest of the nuclei were synthesized.  The Sun
> and the planets were formed from the gravitational collapse of a
> gaseous cloud which contained the remnants of a supernova 
> explosion.  Assuming that Bucaille's interpretation is valid, smoke
> seems to refer only to the planetary formation phase, because the
> smoke and the earth are mentioned in the same sentence.  Does this
> interpretation mean that the first phase did not occur? 

Again, you really need to start looking beyond Bucaille.

> If the criterion of the consistency between the Quran and the Big 
> Bang theory is the expansion of universe, then the Quran is also
> consistent with the Steady State theory.  However, it may not be
> consistent with the oscillating universe theory unless an arbitrary
> condition is imposed: that the description refers only to one 
> cycle during the lifetime of our solar system, which happens to
> be in the expansion phase of the universe.
> 
> The eventual fate of the universe is an open question.  It could be
> expansion forever or the Big Crunch.  Assuming Bucaille's analysis
> is correct, can we conclude that the Big Crunch is ruled out?

No, not at all.  Here are some references which almost definitely
indicate strong support of the Big Crunch theory.  This is taken from
work on a book in preparation by Dr. J.U. Ahmed who is a nuclear
physicist.  Please do look beyond Bucaille if you are really
interested in this material.  Sura Naml 87-88, Jumar 68, Tur 7-10, Ar
Rahma 37-38, Waqiah 1-6, Haqq, Maarij 8-9, Mujammi 14 and 18, Muddasir
8-9, Mursalat 7-10, Naba 17-20, Takwir 1-3, Infitar 1-4, Inshiqqat
1-4, Ahkaf 1-3.

From these, the following becomes obvious:

- the sky will be cleft asunder, its color will appear as that of
molten brass, and it will appear like a red ointment

- the stars will be scattered, will lose their lustre, will be dim,
and will fall

- the earth will be shaken to depths, it will be flattened, it will
swoon, the earth and the mountains and firmament will be in violent
commotion

- the mountains will be crumbled to atoms, become dust scattered
around, will become like wool, will be a heap of sands poured out and
throwing down they will vanish like a mirage, they will fly hither and
thither, they will pass away as the clouds pass away, they will
crumble to powder.

- the oceans will burst

- the graves will be turned upside down

If you would care to read up on modern scientific theories on the Big
Crunch, you will find that all this is not only consistent with it,
but even the colors are what are expected.

> I hope you now see the danger of Bucaille type of analysis and
> interpretation.

I hope you see the danger of thinking Bucaille is the ultimate word on
the Qur'an and science.

> >Similiarly, there are other other truths in the Quran about
> >natural phenomenon, such as the orbits of stars and planets which 
> >science has only recently discovered.
> 
> Here is Bucaille's analysis about planets.
> 
> ****
> 
> Pages 163-164:
> 
> It is difficult to say whether these (Poster's note: these refers
> to planets) are referred to in the Quran with the same exact meaning
> that is given to the heavenly bodies in the present day. ....
> The Quran would seem to designate these by the word kaukab (plural
> kawakib) without stating their number.
> 
> Sura 24 Verse 35
> 
> "God is the light of the heavens and the earth.  The similitude of
> His light is as if there were a niche and within it a luminary.
> The luminary is in a glass.  The glass is as if it were a planet
> glittering like a pearl."
> 
> Here the subject is the projection of light onto a body that 
> reflects it (glass) and gives the glitter of a pearl, like a 
> planet that is lit by the sun.  This is the only explanatory
> detail referring to this word to be found in the Quran.
> 
> ****
> 
> Here is Bucaille's analysis about orbits of the Sun and the Moon.
> 
> ****
> 
> Pages 165-168:
> 
> Sura 21, Verse 33
> 
> "(God) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the 
> moon.  Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
> 
> Sura 36, Verse 40
> 
> "The sun must not catch up the moon, not does the night outstrip
> the day.  Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion."
> 
> [Poster's note:
> 
> Bucaille mentions a negative fact: the Sun moves in an orbit, but
> no indication is given as to what this orbit might be in relation
> to the earth.  He then says that the concept of geocentrism which
> was prevalent at that time is not mentioned any place in the
> Quran.]
> 
> The Arabic word falak has here been translated by the word 'orbit';
> many French translators of the Quran attach to it the meaning of a
> sphere.   ......
> 
> Today, the concept is widely spread that the moon is a satellite
> of the Earth around which it revolves in periods of twenty-nine
> days. ......
> 
> [The after some explanatory material Bucaille concludes that
> the Quran refers to the Sun's revolution around the galactic
> center.]

Dr. J.U. Ahmed's book also will deal with this topic in considerably
more detail than Bucaille's book.  I am not free to quote from the
material yet, but hope I will be once it is published.

> ****
> 
> The next question is: who is the target audience for this type of
> analysis?  It may be to reinforce the belief of believers and convince
> non-believers.  If it is for believers it is superfluous;
> because they already KNOW that God's message is pure and perfect in
> every possible way.  So I assume it is for the non-believers. 

Truth does not need a target audience.

> Evolution
> ---------
> 
> You seem to have no difficulty in asserting that the Quran is consistent
> with the implication of the Big Bang theory.  However, you seem to be
> unsure about the "Darwinist" theory of evolution.  
> 
> >The Qur'an tells us that we were created in steps, implying some kind
> >of evolution, but not necessarily Darwinian evolution.
> 
> Does this mean "Darwinian evolution" is not consistent with your
> interpretation of the Quran?

No.  When did I say that?

> >Well, Darwinism is pretty specific in listing the steps that took
> >place, but there is a lack of evidence for some of these steps.  The
> >Islamic perspective is that there were steps in creation, but this
> >does not necessarily imply Darwinian evolution.
> 
> Your reasoning seems to be: the "Darwinist" theory of evolution is
> still in dispute and is still being debated.  You further say that
> the "Darwinist" theory lists some specific "steps" for which the
> evidence is missing.
> 
> I explained biological evolution as I understand it, which I think 
> is a fair representation of the consensus in the scientific 
> community.  What definitions of evolution are you using?  What aspects
> of the biological evolution are in dispute and are being debated?
> Who are the participants?

To the best of my knowledge, anthropologists and biologists are not
all in agreement over Darwinian evolution at all.  By "missing steps,"
I mean that we have not found convincing evidence linking apes with
humans yet.

> Furthermore, should the analysis of consistency be put on hold 
> until a theory is accepted by the scientific community?  
> The next logical step in Bucaille type analysis is the possible use
> of the consistency check to judge the validity of a scientific 
> theory.  This mindset leads to bizarre "Miracles" conference and
> retrograde policies like restricting weather forecasting.   

Here is the problem: I think it is wrong to teach a scientific theory
as a *fact* to school children who grow up with that notion firmly
embedded in their minds.  They don't have a concept of questioning it,
which, as many have argued is the basis of scientific development.

> Finally, whose interpretation of the Quranic scripts should be
> accepted and why?  I am told that there are some mechanisms provided
> in Islam to build consensus on theological issues.  Is there an
> equivalent mechanism  for scientific issues?

I dunno.  I entered this debate because the allegation was that Islam
hinders scientific research and progress.  I have shown why that is
so.  The discussion shifted to whether the Qur'an contains scientific
truths.  It does.  It is not a Science book, and is not meant as a
book that will necessarily lead us to make further scientific
discoveries.  But it does contain references to things we are
beginning to understand only today.  Whether you believe this or not
is your problem.  But if you want to show that it is *wrong*, the
burden of proof rests on your shoulders.  And for that, you have to
look to the Holy Qur'an itself, not Bucaille.

-- Shakil Ahmed
=======================================================================
Dept. of Computer Science     INTERNET: ahmed-shakil@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158, Yale Station   BITNET  : ahmed-shakil@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158      UUCP    : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!ahmed
=======================================================================