Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science/Archive 1

message: *[http://www.islam101.com/science/quran_sc_tv.html The Qur’an and Modern Science 
Extracts from the video "The Truth"]
*Scientific Miracles in the Glorious Qur'an 
*Science in Islam
*The Qur'an, Knowledge, and Science 
*The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
*THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
*Qur'an and Science (unsigned comments from User:Ratherhaveaheart
Thank you from above post but most of those references will not be accepted by wikipedia. Although they might accept following books (I found from amazon.com).
#Islam and Science
#Islam and Science (Ashgate Science and Religion Series)
#The Bible, The Quran and Science. (Paperback)
#The holy Quran and the sciences of nature
#The Universe beyond: Spiritual interpretation of the universe : a scientific study in the light of the Holy Quran and the modern sciences 
#Some Secrets of the Quran
#Holy Quran,: Science and modern knowledge (Monograph)
#The holy Quran, science and modern knowledge
#The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives (Dibner Institute Studies in the History of Science and Technology)
and so on... --- ابراهيم 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They might be. But according to my previous experiences with Islamic articles, they ask for books only. Even some people reject books written by Islamic scholars (only western scholars). I had many long fights with this things. You know that things changes when applied on Islam articles. --- ابراهيم 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's perfectly OK to use reputable sources -- that is, for example, online essays, as long as they represent majority views within their field and are not the rants of some wacko. Do not assume that non-Muslims will try to suppress Muslim opinion, since that's not a good attitude to work here. I'm trying to be fair and restrict myself to good reviews of the Qur'an, both from believers and non-believers. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is another fairly reputable site I found with some good Quran/Science information
A History of Muslim Philosophy Ratherhaveaheart 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for Correlations between the Quran and science

message: I'm not really into astronomy, so it's probably my fault here, but "the sun also rotates in its own rounded course" makes me scratch my head. I thought this wasn't the case?  --Nehwyn 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as I know sun is also moving and obviously all the planets (circling around it) also moving along it. I will try to find some references for it. --- ابراهيم 19:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it does! the Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy. Here's the line from the Sun article: "The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 25,000 to 28,000 light-years from the galactic center, completing one revolution in about 225–250 million years. The orbital speed is 217 km/s, equivalent to one light-year every 1,400 years, and one AU every 8 days.[3]" - Ibrahim, you could get the ref from there. - Valarauka(T/C) 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank Valarauka I am going to add this in the article with the reference (# [3] from sun page). Can you please have some contributions on this article as it needs lot of work. More people working here better it will be. --- ابراهيم 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The sun has an orbit?

message: The key issue here is that there is nothing new in the Quran which people around the time (or prior for the previous many 1000s of years) knew anyway. Also, there is little mention of radioactivity, radio spectrums (microwave/Xrays/VHF etc) or even of aluminium (one of the worlds most abundant metal) yet these are all around us. Certainly nothing about computer technology be it valves or silicon. As with say Nostradamus, vague text can be made to fit into many Scientific observation. Keep the article but it needs a serious going over with an eye to what is reasonable. Ttiotsw 05:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me reading Quran is always a proof that it is book of God. Because it is preserved since last 1400 years and even it language is still alive (unlike other books). There is no book that is preserved since so long, in its original form. Furthermore, many things in Quran (including scientific facts) are also impressive me a lot and cannot be written by a man 1400 years ago. But you are right it is decision of a person because if it is clear-cut then there will be no Test. If God prove itself like 2+2 then nothing would be left on us to decide and no heaven/hells needs to exist.  --- ابراهيم 06:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His point is that as regards science there's nothing in the Qur'an that Muhammad's contemporaries hadn't already figured out, so there's nothing "new" there, and so this article is kind of pointless. It's basically you guys observing that the Qur'an isn't wrong about certain stuff, and that if you try really hard you can interpret some other stuff to be predicting modern scientific developments. 24.7.89.173 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly the quran was not written by a man - The quran was scribed and transcribed until it was collated into todays version. If this is wrong then wikipedia articles on the providence of the quran need updating. As for unchangability - the heiroglyphs of Egypt are unchanged (chiselled n stone after all) and yet record details of people and gods long since dead that predate the quran by millenia. The language of the quran can not be unchanged and yet still alive. All languages that are alive change as society changes. The earliest know copy of the quran is uncertain according to our own wikipedia (reading Origin and development of the Qur'an but don't worry neither is the existance of Jesus or the Bible equally clear). Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a creation-science soapbox. Ttiotsw 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating Science and Technology. 

message: The section titled, Big Bang, which has one of the translations to English in it, reads like a straw man or an irrelevant conclusion at best. These are often used ploy within religious tracts and quite effective, but it's a fallacious  ploy for us to perpetrate such fallacies within an encyclopedia. The plainly visible separation of the heavens (I guess sky ?) and Earth and the obvious fact that all life requires water is used by the Quran to then tell the disbelievers this proves the existance of a supernature through implication. The scientific approach is that the data presented by the quran can be explained by other means without the need to include anything supernatural. In fact science would hold the supernatural as irrelevant. The person proposed as the reference to support the link (Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani) is no doubt (and by me too with respect to religious tolerance) worthy in his own right but it is unclear if he has any authority in the field of cosmology. This section needs to be culled. Ttiotsw 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ttiotsw, I will try to improve that section. I just changed my city and have to get new library card in this new city. I will try to search any book possible in this regard and will try to improve it. In the mean time I am going to search Google with "Big Band and Quran" and its variation. I hope to get few URLs to add there and improve it. No body is claiming that it is Big bang 100% sure. It might NOT BE at all big bang. However, it could be. So we have to give different opinions. May be there are some people have to prove it wrong, you can put those people comments there too. You are welcome to do that. --- ابراهيم 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad could have proved to future generations that he was speaking God's word by actually coming up with something new. Why didn't he? The "there has to be some room for faith" argument I've heard Christians say doesn't work here (and is tenuous there) because, the Quran to the contrary, there is compulsion in Islam; if you renounce it, you die. So faith isn't really that important; being a member of Islam is. Arrow740 00:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw man or irrelevant conclusion within Quran WRT Big Bang 

message: Ibrahimfaisal seems to spend every waking moment devoted to skewing wikipedia articles on Islam. I need someone to help me. He's refusing to let me put up the claim of SCIENCE that a sperm cell is not sufficient for conception and that ants cannot communicate at the level of complexity they are portayed as using in the Quran. If "Human embryology" and "Communication of ants" are going to have sections in this stupid article, I think that's relevant. And yes I will register sometime today. This is really frustrating. It's not like I'm censoring this article! Censorship is one of those things that is OK in Muslim countries but not in the West. Like cutting people's hands off. Oh and I'm still anonymous but have a username now. Arrow740 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help keep this article accurate

message: *Harun Yahya is not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an. Read his article.
*Dr. Zakir Naik is literally a medical doctor, not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an.
*Dr. Maurice Bucaille, again a medical doctor (employed by the Saudi royal family), not a scientist, not an expert on the Qur'an.
*Who is A. Abd Allah?
*Ibrahimfaisal himself.
I fail to see that there is any notable real-world debate among reputable experts regarding these subjects; they seem rather the talking points of a handful of proselytizing cranks.Observation Post 01:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That guy Naik is an expert on the Koran. Not on science though. 24.7.89.173 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This article should be moved to a book page "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science" as the article gives "French born Saudi royal physician" Maurice Bucaille 's book as a source for these theories. I do not see that this article can seriously stand on its own under the title "Quran and science". --CltFn 21:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, that is the only reasonable way to save this .... Arrow740 06:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this page be moved to a book page 

message: I have labeled a criticisms section and created a history section.  As I learn more about the subject I will be adding to the article Ratherhaveaheart 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Critism of non-notable sources by other non-notable sources? Is this what we've come to?Proabivouac 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are obviously new to wikipedia. Please read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS before you make any changes. We're all working hard on this (Muslim and non-Muslim), and we're all following the rules. Arrow740 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Criticisms Section

message: What if we take all the science sections that do not have references and put them on the talk pages as areas for further expansion. Ratherhaveaheart 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with you (because I assume good faith towards you) but I am afraid that they will use that chance to delete whole sections. Then it will become difficult to restore those sections. Have you seen these books  ? They have useful stuff for this article and many of them are available on amazon.com. They are reliable sources (with ISBN etc) according to wikipedia standards. If you could fill some sections then it will be great. --- ابراهيم 21:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other then above books this URL is also good http://www.islamvision.org/Physiology.asp . --- ابراهيم 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr.Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya) is certainly not a reliable source, as he has no acknowledged area of expertise related to any of subjects to which this article refers (anymore than he does on the Holocaust or Freemasonry, other subjects upon which he expounds.)Proabivouac 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to WP:RS his books are reliable sources. --- ابراهيم 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, what a mixed up ideology Mr Oktar has! With due respect to you, Ibrahimfaisal, reliable sources for history/religion/social science articles are books and scholarly articles published with reputable publishers by people who have relevant academic qualifications and are working as academics conducting original research. It is not enough for a book to have an ISBN. See the discussion on Bat Ye'or on talk:dhimmi and discussion elsewhere on Koenraad Elst. On the relationship between religion and science, I don't think anyone has yet improved on the non-overlapping magisteria view of Stephen Jay Gould, as Mary Midgley says in this week's New Scientist, in her review of the latest book by Richard Dawkins. Itsmejudith 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not care about discussion on some talk pages. As long as he is defined as a reliable source according to WP:RS he is a reliable resource for me. Otherwise, you must change WP:RS or prove that according to it he is not acceptable. --- ابراهيم 08:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To respond to your first point good faith is to be assumed for everyone.  Whether the sections are on the talk page as areas to be expanded or within the article proper there is a chance that they will be wrongly deleted and such deletion will be dealt with appropriately. In order for this article to be done properly in line with NPOV, EVERYONE needs to put their personal POV/agendas aside, be it religious, scientific, or political. If you are editing here your motivation should be to create a quality article about the relationship between the Quran and science. Ratherhaveaheart 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think these sections should be moved to the Talk Page as sections for further expansion, since they currently do not have referenced sources for the relationship between the Quran and Science.
*Big Bang
*Motion of Sun and Moon
*Shape of the Earth
*Formation of Night and Day
*Water Cycle
*Sex of Plants
*Geology
*Medicine
*Oceanology
*Physiology
*Zoology
Nearly all specific area sections should have referenced arguments that science is not supported by Quran.  I personally think the metalevel sections are more important for the article rather than the specific scientific areas.Ratherhaveaheart 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Perhaps a subpage might be appropriate? It's rather a lot of stuff. Ibrahim, you may want to consider the more unsourced / OR-ish / objectionable material there is in the main article, the more likely it is that it won't pass a second AfD. Ratherhaveaheart's suggestion is the best way to move forward on sourcing the content while also ensuring that the article itself is worthy of inclusion. - Valarauka(T/C) 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, keep whatever is verifiable in the article for now and then gradually work the other points in after they have been worked on and referenced. ITAQALLAH 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agreed however now I feel for me it increasingly difficult to assume good faith towards couple of people who had openly told their enmity towards Islam to me many times. Even at my talk page. I just wish that they do not use that event in wrong way. Furthermore talk page is also ever changing thing and it is better to shift on your User page (or to somewhere else) than to talk page. Because who will keep track of changes on talk page all the time? --- ابراهيم 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd go a step further and suggest that all material not based upon reliable sources with expertise in the fields being discussed - both the Qur'an and science - be removed. Of course, nothing would be left.Proabivouac 20:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Of course, nothing would be left." Here we go. I hope now you could know that what I am afraid of... --- ابراهيم 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created a page at Talk:The Quran and science/Temp, to hold sections under consideration. Proabivouac, realize that this article isn't about Quranic or scientific fact, it's about the view some hold that the two are in harmony (or discord, depending on POV). As such, articles and books by people who hold those views are perfectly natural and valid sources. - Valarauka(T/C) 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the unreferenced sections into the temp page created and will now delete the sections from the article.  For those who object to this article, this is a major concession, which we hope you will consider in the AfD. Ratherhaveaheart 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a "major concession" to follow WP:NOR?Proabivouac 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps concession was not the exactly right word. I think POV is suseptible to enter when people become too rigid on any position, even WP policy.  If I remember my new user WP guideline page, the last statement is IGNORE ALL RULES, if they get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, the point I was making that given that the article is under major construction with new additions everyday, moving all the working parts to another page and going back and forth is a bit of an inconvenience. Part of consensus is compromise.  All I am asking is that those who object to the article keep an open mind while it is a work in progress.Ratherhaveaheart 03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for avoiding constant reversions

message: Who changed it from semen to sperm? There's no way they had a word for sperm back then. Western scientists didn't discover it for quite some time. Arrow740 04:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather like the fellow who translated an Arabic term as "zygote."  By this princely method, we can prove that the Qur’an says most anything: this word, usually translated uninterestingly as "light," really means "ultraviolet radiation," anticipating the findings of science by over 1,200 years…Proabivouac 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets use the translation of Yousaf Ali and other two well known people. If they say it is sperm then it should remain sperm and vica versa. --- ابراهيم 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one says seed and one says semen. The word probably means seed, as the word semen does. Arrow740 07:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... whoever it was removed my response to your comment too. I'll try to get to the bottom of this. Arrow740 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sperm vs. semen

message: The section in Astronomy which is titled, Creating of Galaxies, is original research. Why ?. Because the quotes of Commentary by Maurice Bucaille do not mention the word "Galaxies". Also the two verse 21:30 and 41:11 which are mentioned talk about coming together and also being torn apart. Which is it ? We also won't mention the Quran ignoring the basis of all living things on Earth - Carbon or that to create either Oxygen for the water mentioned in 21.30 or Carbon for organic chemicals you need supernovae - type II helps I think. Well hey, kind of a clanger not mentioning some of the most catastrophic events in the Universe. Maurice Bucaille says "that constituted the basic process of the formation of the Universe " and that may be true to him but we can't simply discribe what we know today about comology and how stuff in it was formed in the same space that the Quran is described hoping for some sort of halo effect to have science rub off into the Quran sura.  Ttiotsw 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So move it to the temp page. Arrow740 00:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating of Galaxies is Original Research. 

message: In the section "Fossils of human ancestors" it talks about "According to first two verses, Adam and Eve were directly created by the God from clay. They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin. The rest of mankind is the progeny of Adam and Eve. The third verse implies three stages in their creation." This whole section seems to be copied from http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq202.htm so copyvio may be in hand, but copyright aside, who exactly is this person Shehzad Saleem. I'm not going to judge his advice on beating your wife ( http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mayq203.htm ) but for him to say that "They did not descend from any other species as proposed by Darwin" without presenting evidence goes against all science we know today with respect to common ancestry and the genetics of the human genome. Ttiotsw 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it says that, "they did not descend from any other species", it is talking on behalf of Qur'an and not behalf of science. It is clear from previous sentence. Secondly, this guy is an associate fellow at Al-Mawrid. TruthSpreaderTalk 11:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then by your own words, the entry cannot be included if it is not relevant to the science in or of the Quran. That would be original research on our part to include it if you say that he is speaking solely for the Quran. It would need to be in it's own Quran section with say creation but not Science and the Quran. The issue of authority was with respect to the field of biology. It's unclear from the web site of Al-Mawrid what contribution it makes to this field. It seems to focus on Islamic Law and Sharia. We only need to look towards what the European Human rights courts have said of Sharia law to classify that in the spectrum of what is authoritive. Ttiotsw 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just saying that Quran does not accept evolution as proposed by Darwin, but rather gives two possibilities from Qur'an, without ruling out any one of them. This is simply based on interpretation of Quranic verses on the creation of humans, which is related to this article. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "two possibilities". The original of the text quoted (assuming the web site was correct) seems to be a lot more positive in it's denial whereas our Wikipedia article seems to have been "weasel worded". Why the discrepancy between the other web page and wikipage ? Where in the Quran does it say that the Quran doesn't accept evolution as proposed by Darwin ?. Since when was the quoted author an authority on evolutionary biology ? Thats the kind of data we need here. Having someones interpretation of what the sura mean with respect to evolution is simply original research and it's certainly not science. Someone has edited and copied the whole of some guys apology in which he discards over 150 years of hard scentific theory and you don't see the irony of including what he says in a wiki page that has Science in the title AND tagged in Category:Science ?. I vote the whole section is culled unless it gets a more balanced view. That the Quran is at odds with what is know of evolutionary science today would intimate to even the most naive that the Quran and it's creation science is on a par with the Bible and it's creation science; it is creation but it is not Science. I won't delete the section for a few days, though others may merciously decide to edit it before then.Ttiotsw 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mate! author is not claiming to be a biologist or evolutionary expert. He is simply trying to interpret Qur'an. I have added another source for its clarification. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK accept his focus is the Quran only and not the science and in that case my other argument stands: There is still original research here because what difference between what the authority (Shehzad Saleem) says and what the Wikipedia article is made up of. In our wikipedia article it says, "The fossils which we find today might belong to forms of the first and second phases." etc etc Yet if you look at the link where it was copied from (which is used as the authority) it quite clearly says, "The fossils we find today are those of these forms of the first and second phases.". Notice how the text from your authorative reference has been changed to be more ambiguous ?. As to the authority of the new link you provide with respect to either the Quran or science matters I don't know if they are relevant or not. I'm not going to edit the section to tally with the original text as I don't even see why any of the text needs to stay at all as it has no science content.Ttiotsw 14:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added another reference, which explains creation of humans according to the same verse, but puts doubts in it. So now, "might" is coming from a new reference. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still stays as original reseach because what simply has happened is that one "authority" (ahem) has been incorrectly (subtly I might add) quoted (and it is a cut+paste job too that feels like its WP:COPYVIO ) and then to support this tweak the tail end from another quote is concatenated to the first. This doesn't feel right. Too much of the first authority has been added in, subtly changed and then expounded upon. I'm going to remove this whole section on the basis of WP:COPYVIO but giving people a chance to make it more NPOV to have both Quran and Science content. Ttiotsw 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Both sources are in harmony to each other, except that one is accepting the second option more than the other. But putting the second source as the final conclusion seems to be more closer to WP:NPOV, so that any violation of scientific claims don't occur. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sources are not reputable (in fact the second is self-published). Neither should be cited in this or any encyclopedia. I am moving all this material to the temp page: I'm not deleting it in the unlikely case that some reputable source conveys this "information" some time in the future. Arrow740 00:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ... in spite of this, i do think the apparent theories proposed are quite ridiculous. i'm not sure that this viewpoint is held amongst a significant number of Muslims, i would like to see some other sources for these points. ITAQALLAH 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you guys should pick your battles a little better. But since you insist on including the brilliant Saleem's work, I will include it in more detail and attribute it properly, as Itaqallah indicated should be done (but please do it yourself next time; the burden is on you if you want to keep something). Arrow740 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The second source is still self-published so not reputable even as a source of Muslim opinion. Note that both declare that the Quran says that man was created out of clay and did not evolve from another species. No doubt they're reading a mistranslation. Arrow740 20:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys can prove that Moiz Amjad is a reputable scholar then we can allow his self-published work. Until then we shouldn't include it. Arrow740 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying Itaqallah is very wrong. I'm happy that a Muslim view is presented BUT you can't then edit it to conform to what you see is neutral. That's not only plagarising that guys content, you're misrepresenting what he's said with your own words. As the section stands it has "ref=" marks in it. I started to edit the section to elaborate on Darwin and show the current theory on common ancestry and comparative genomics so as to show the problems with the Quranic studies and thus the Quran but given the whole block is copied I can't even insert stuff without messing with that guys words. This is crap. Ttiotsw 07:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I had already removed the "mights" and "maybes" after discounting the second source (which is basically the first with "mights" and "maybes"). Itaqallah had made only minor changes after that, so the two of us have a tacit agreement about it. If you, Ttiotsw think that the version on the temp page is OK, please revert it. Arrow740 08:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: i believe i only made one or two edits to that section. and i have proposed rewriting the section so that it would not be such a blatant possible copyvio. i also stated that this section merits inclusion, if, and that currently is a big if, other sources can be provided showing that this theory is a significant opinion within Muslim interpretation of these verses. ITAQALLAH 21:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossils of human ancestors source not authorative. 

message: Should we fix the quotation style used in this article as it is waste of space and makes the article hard to read, using up to 6 lines of that article for a one line quote.--CltFn 16:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  I think like in the Science and the Bible the subject matter should be the main focus with quotes embedded as reference points Ratherhaveaheart 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used quotations because of Talk:Islam_and_slavery#GA_review, 2(b).2. TruthSpreaderTalk 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation style

message: The section titled, "Reflection of light by heavenly bodies" has numerous technical errors. Firstly it quotes part of Qur'an, 24:35. There are two errors here. The quoted sura do not match the exact text of the links provided. The use of the word "similitude" would indicate Pickthal is the closest. The section point is that the whole sura is not quoted but extracted. It leaves out the last bit of the sura that mentions the rather unscientific source of the light i.e., 
"...(This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things. "
This is just plain wrong to not only misquote just the small part of the sura as if it was the whole sura but then to present what is clearly stated as a parable in other versions of the sura as some evidence of science. Last time I checked very few olive "trees" (actually Olives are bushes) are found on the Sun or moon or probably neither on any planets other than Earth. Don't people understand parable ?. The second issue is that the use of the word "lamp" also progresses in Sura 25:61 which is also misquoted, through an edit to have the word (Sun) in it in Wikipedia !. The closest seems to be by SHAKIR but the three translations reference are as below and neither mention "Sun",
025.061
YUSUFALI: Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;
PICKTHAL: Blessed be He Who hath placed in the heaven mansions of the stars, and hath placed therein a great lamp and a moon giving light!
SHAKIR: Blessed is He Who made the constellations in the heavens and made therein a lamp and a shining moon.
They all mention "lamp". Maybe the same olive oil lamp mentioned in 24:35 ?. We can only guess but we cannot add the word sun simply as this is original research. We can't reference something unless it is quoted exactly. This is a fatal flaw in this section. Ttiotsw 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Maybe someone with Bucaille can fix this; if it's not fixed shortly we can move it to the temp page for further work. Arrow740 08:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In your first point, you are absolutely right that it is a parable, but in this parable, it is giving example of reflection from glass of niche as reflection from كوكب , which means planets. The word for star in Arabic is نجم . Hence, different translators translate differently. Just put it in http://translate.google.com and translate it from Arabic to english. In your second point, the same verse is more elaborated with similary words in verse . But I didn't use this verse, because I knew that you people would allege me for WP:OR, hence I used the same verse which I found in the source article. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have made it clear that all the stuff in that section is due to a particular person. If we note the mistranslation (or alternate translation) and include the full surahs, that should bring this up to code. Arrow740 09:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How can I tell you that translation is a primary source? TruthSpreaderTalk 09:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I'm happy with the difference in translations. Why are you avoiding adding the section on the olive oil lamp to the relevant sura - I can't as I have no idea which version to use. It's already been stated here that it is parable. Why is this parable titled "Reflection of light by heavenly bodies". I propose that the second sura be shown in full (any primary source translation will do) and that the section title be changed to "Parable of Light Sources." Ttiotsw 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that the primary source is being deliberately misleading by only quoting part of the surah. We should not include such misleading material. So we can either remove this entire section or quote the complete surah. I'm for the latter. Arrow740 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We're getting close to OR here. It might be better to scrap the whole thing. Arrow740 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflection of light by heavenly bodies incorrectly quoted Sura 24:35 and 25:61 

message: We need more sources like Golshani. There have to be more people out there writing on this topic with good qualifications. I have Hodgson, Edis, Ziauddin Sardar, God, Life, and the Cosmos edited by Peters, Iqbal, and Haq, Islam without Illusions by Ed Hotaling, and some less useful sources, with more coming to my library soon. But anything and everything else with a good pedigree would be very helpful. Arrow740 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for sources

message: I haven't checked the text of the article in a few days.  What happened to the part about the history of scientific study in Islam? I thought it was a good section.  Ratherhaveaheart 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of the related Islamic science article. We never had a section on that here. Aminz has recently added the "Arrival of Modern Science in Muslim world" section. Arrow740 06:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did the history section go?

message: This is quoted from the wikipedia article on Harun Yahya:
Even though he often writes about science, he has never actually studied any science at a university level.  (, , )
If we are to keep his work in this article he needs to be demonstrated as having some standing as a Quranic scholar. Is he so received in the Muslim world? Is there any evidence for this? Arrow740 06:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by the way, the comments on the article related to this sex scandal were removed (per WP:BLP) pending authoratative and preferably governmental sources along with an actual court conviction reported from a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel moved to translate such reports from Turkish into English please do so. Otherwise people can use google if they want to know what he apparently admitted to doing. Arrow740 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar 

message: I think we can have another article particularly on Qur'an and science. I have found articles from Encyclopedia of Qur'an and from Oliver Leaman on this topic. This article is focused on "The relation between Islam and Science" in general. --Aminz 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is shaping up nicely. It's forming an organic whole; the three sections that we have complement each other well. There's also more to add to the individual sections that will complement the others. So, leave it the way it is, but add to it, so that the connections between the sections, which I believe are already quite satisfactory, become even stronger. On a related note, the more I read, the more it becomes clear to me that we must follow the lead of prominent Muslim scholars throughout the ages by discussing the statements in the Quran regarding the natural world only in the light of the related passages from the hadith, so any article involving the Quran and science must include this material as well. The original title "The Quran and science" was no doubt inspired by the title of Bucaille's unscholarly work, but even his book includes numerous references to the hadith. Arrow740 00:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran and the science 

message: "The conception of an omniscient and omnipotent personal God, Who made everything in accordance with a rational plan and purpose, contributed to the notion of a rationally structured creation." 
"The notion of a transcendent God, Who exists separate from His creation, served to counter the notion that the physical world, or any part of it, is sacred. Since the entire physical world is a mere creation, it was thus a fit object of study and transformation." 
"Since man was made in the image of God (Gen.1:26), which included rationality and creativity, it was deemed possible that man could discern the rational structure of the physical universe that God had made." 
"The cultural mandate, which appointed man to be God's steward over creation (Gen1:28), provided the motivation for studying nature and for applying that study towards practical ends, at the same glorifying God for His wisdom and goodness." 
What exactly does God has to do with science . Is there anything in this section that science is ever gonna prove ( untill unless humans invent some "God detectors") F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 02:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is "The relation between Islam and science." The passage you quoted is germane to this topic. Aminz was right to see that something along these lines should be included. Arrow740 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It grates; it just doesn't look right in this article. All of those sections in "Relation between Modern Science and Religion" really needs some serious unbiasing. Whilst it's fine to quote Mehdi Golshani I'll quote that even within Wikipedia (to be internally consistent) it says the, "In all of Golshani’s works, there is a clear attempt to help revive the scientific spirit in the Muslim world." Poor guy, I pity him. Thus to me the purpose of Golshani is to present science to be compatible to Muslims. Thus adding what is basically a whole couple of paragraphs by him biases this article to his purpose. I agree with his aims but it's not what this article is about. Though the content of "Great influence of Biblical worldview in development of Science" could be stated I question if the reasons stated have had any effect on science. In fact if we look at the http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html which Mehdi Golshani has judged (or won?) it complains that so much has been done since in the past 200 years more or less (in which many argue that has been the rise of secular society) without a "spiritual" focus. Nope - I think all of "Great influence of Biblical worldview in development of Science" is biased and irrelevant to the topic. I'll be out a few days as just got my copy of the The_God_Delusion. ! Ttiotsw 01:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above it needs to be complemented with other stuff at the very least. I'm waiting for some books to arrive at the library, and after I get them I have some other things planned. I was hoping someone else would work on the section we're talking about. Arrow740 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GOD

message: With respect to Mr. Golshani, I am shure, that he isn't the only scientist doing research on this topic. Perhaps his theories can be discussed on his article page in depth and there for shorten his view here slightly and use the space to present further opinions.
I would like to put the article on the lack-of-quality page too, but can't find a matching templete. I think the structure of this article desperatelly needs wikinizing. It's a sheer caos right now.
Might be, the best thing of all would be to delete it.
Reguards.
:I wouldn't go so far as to say that the article violates NPOV. There's too much of the Golshani stuff and not enough balancing material, but the article is still a work in progess. I won't have anything to do with adding the tag or removing it. Arrow740 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I dispute the nutrality of this article 

message: Article give undue weight to Mehdi Golshani. First three sections are just big quotes from him. Probably should make these one small paragraph, the view of Golshani.Opiner 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do it. If you want you can find a source discussing the fact that there hasn't been any Islamic science in hundreds of years, to keep it balanced. Arrow740 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medhi Golshani

message: What most of the article is really about is if the Koran predicts modern scientific things or not. It is the controversy over this that really makes it interesting, so what we should be talking about is not the "Facts" themselves but the claims (there is a subtle difference). Perhaps the article should be renamed to explain this.
Should we do things this way?
The danger with doing this is that the article will turn into a series of 
"X says Y, but Z says not Y" articles.
What do you think? Mike Young 23:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to have a scholarly discussion of that topic. This article attempts to be worth reading. Arrow740 07:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Mike Young that what we are already trying to do. That is using secondary sources to give explanation of Quranic versus. You might be interested in the article that was there originally and now exist at top of my user page. I wish I had more time to expand this article. --- ALM 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The only good sources for this stuff, we have already included. Bucaille's stuff is discussed on the page about him. You are right about the general purpose of the article. The other material has been added by User:Aminz. His way of dealing with articles involving issues that are, let's say, sensitive, is to drown them with other things. Arrow740 09:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims that the Koran Predicted Modern Science

message: I object to the neutrality of the entire article because it's failings are pervasive as noted above. First and last: it provides no scientific viewpoints on several of its subjects. Ttiotsw's observations about this subject being pseudo-science are right on target.
In addtion to the points I raised above, I object to the factual accuracy on various points:
#The "Fossils" section is nonsense.
#That the Quran agrees with Galen doesn't mean that it agrees with modern science — it would actually suggest that literal readings of it don't in several cases.
#Have you seen the "Conception" section? Female semen(?) forming the our flesh and blood?
The "Embryology" sub-section is the only one of use; however, I'd like to see more than a two-page op-ed piece. I have a very bad feeling that a lot of this relies on selected passages that are out-of-context.
The article is trying to make the case that literal readings of the Quran conform precisely to some degree to modern science. While any affirmative statement is inherently POV, that does not necessarily mean it should be excluded.
But affirmative statements need proof and corroboration. Without them, and this article lacks both in abundance, the POV position remains nothing more than a POV statement. And those are to be called out, if not excluded. MARussellPESE 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the issue that we have a conflict about. You said: "The article is trying to make the case that literal readings of the Quran conform precisely to some degree to modern science." I disagree. It used to do that, and you might want to look at a really old version of this page to see how bad it was. I think this article is about any relation science has ever had with Islam, past or present, and about any statements about the natural world contained in the Quran or ahadith. To this end we've cited the most reliable sources we can find. Maybe we need to make clear that all we're doing is relaying the points of view of some reliable sources. Arrow740 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally disputed

message: But in Christian apologetics a contempory of Darwin argued another possible explanation on creation... It runs (mutatis mutandis) "Allah did not create Adam as a baby but created him as a man, therefore Allah created something already "old". The same with the rest of creation: trees not seeds etc. If Allah can create a man with an age why should he not also create him (and the world) with a history? So the whole of pre-creation History that we study and try to understand in Evolution: that should also be regarded as a creation of Allah." Of course philosophically this becomes unfalsifiable meta-physical speculation but it made a lot of Victorian clergy feel better and I wonder if Islamic scholars followed the same debate? --BozMo talk 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps Original Research ? ... 

message: I got rid of the links to polemical sites; I'll remove the tag. Arrow740 02:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: This article shows a lack of historical perspective. Islamic culture was more scientific than the Christian world for most of the time that both have existed. That only turned around in the Age of Reason.  4.250.168.22 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has almost nothing to do with Christianity. Arrow740 19:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History