From: salama@topaz.ucq.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.bangladesh
Subject: Re: The Quran and the Modern Science
Date: 30 Dec 92 13:59:36 AET
Organization: UCQ

In article <1hqvr2INNa9j@aludra.usc.edu>, fafat@aludra.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
> Salam writes:
>>> 	A "general concept" without any basis is not very useful and certainly
>>> 	does'nt allow a conclusion that Muhammad knew what he was talking 
>>> 	about in the sense of corresponding to observational reality.
>>
>>      The general concept is never for any scientific use. It is quite
>>possible that Muhammad (SW) didn't know the exact details or He might knew,
>>who knows, but God definitely knew and knows what he had revealed to his
>>prophet.
> 
> 	It is extremely possible that Muhammad did'nt know anything (or
> 	"God", for that matter). Without any corroborating evidence for
> 	his speculations, Muhammad is as bad as any other man who claims
> 	to know the secret of life :)

          You may call Muhammad (SW) whatever you like, its' your business.
BTW, aren't you claiming to know the secret of life? If you don't know the
secret of life, then are you making any effort to find that out? 
 Dr. B did. :-|)

> 
>>> 
>>> 	Unfair, IMO. The OP clearly made a tall claim, throwing in agreement
>>> 	with "data" without saying what it was (if any, i.e.)
>>> 
>>       What is this IMO?
>>       You are taking the word "data" literally and trying to make something
>>out of that. It is a reference to the details given in Qur'an. Some of them
>>are discussed in the book. BTW, the original article (paper) was in French.
> 
> 	What deatils? That's what was questioned. Quran has *NO* details
> 	about anything which would stand strict scrutiny.
> 
     Read Dr. B's book. He gives the details.

>>>>They are simple, sensible and intelligible.
>>> 
>>> 	Even Aristotle was intelligible. But in no way connected with
>>> 	"reality".
>>> 
>>> 
>>         You are again doing the samething as you did before. Yes Aristotle
>>was not connected with "reality", but the Qur'an is.
> 
> 	on what basis? What makes Aristotle any lower than Quran? Both had the
> 	same modus operandi. Say something without justifying.
> 

       Because the subject of the Qur'an is human. It addresses the very facts
of life.

>>> 	The scientific achievements of the former left tell-tale marks.
>>> 	Muhammad's speculations did no such things and as such, imagination
>>> 	does'nt need "existing knowledge". 
>>>
>>         That is exactly what Dr. B has made clear that the Qur'an is neither
>>a book of scientific achievements nor any one's speculations. 
> 
> 	If not speculations, then philosophy. Maybe "good" philosophy. But
> 	the very fact that busy B was trying to show an agreement with
> 	Science means that he's hinting that Muhammad knew what he was
> 	talking about i.t.o. observational reality.
> 
    Dr. B wasn't trying to show anything rather he was explaining what he had
found through his study of the Quran as a scientist. I will elaborate on this
later.

> It wasn't
>>dependent on "existing knowledge". IT IS DIVINE. 
> Dr.B reached this conclusion
>>after an objective study of Qur'an. 
> 
> 	Whhaaat? He found theu an "objective" study that Quran is DIVINE?
> 	Shows his credibility. Science and "Divine" don't gel. 
> 

    God is the source of all knowledge and science is knowledge, why can't
the gel?

> He found nothing in the Qur'an which
>>contradicts well known scientific knowledge instead there is a great deal
>>of agreements.
> 
> 	So? you can always twist sentences to get meanings not intended.
> 	
> 	FFT

    Dr. B's perception of Islam is based on his study of the Quran as a
scientist and that is how he explains it. The way you perceive the world
around you and beyond is dependent on you personal experiences. Scientific
notions have played very important role in his gradual understanding of
Islam which finally led to his conversion to Islam. It is this experience
he describes in his books because that is what had convinced him. You may
not find it convincing becuase you have different experience and so is
every one for that matter. I know a Canadian mathematician through his
christian experience and that is how he puts his case.
   so we are talking about Dr. B's personal conviction which we can't 
dispute. :-|)


Salam.

> 
> 
> 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.pakistan:18838 soc.culture.bangladesh:7114 soc.culture.indian:42042