Talk:Maurice Bucaille

message: Does this paragraph belong here oor on the section about his book? Why is this considered critisism?
:Bucaille not only suggests that Islam is not incompatible with modern science - he also claims that many contemporary developments are predicted in Quranic prophecies : he claims, for example, that the Qur'an predicted space travel 1400 years ago.212.122.233.234 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this criticism content from the newly inserted material will have to be trimmed. Very little of it actually discusses "Bucaillism" itself. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism concerns both the book itself and the concept of Bucaillism expanded on elsewhere --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Some of the sources mention neither Bucaille's book nor "Bucaillism". In fact, most of it is a response "to general claims of prophesy from the Quran." To link them in here is original research. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisism 

message: Bucailleism, is nice and concise - one word and specific. 
The obvious alternative, Allegations of Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah is 
# long  
# uses the word "allegation" which in English usage carries the connotation of accusations of wrong-doing, as in "alleged murderer," something I don't think Muslims would find appropriate in connection with divine miracles in general or the Quran in particular. This could be changed to "belief in", but I don't think that has a wikipedia precident   
# Too vague. What are "scientific signs" or "miracles"? The miracles or signs are not "scientific," the alleged miracles are the predictions of scientific facts. Muslims who have been brought up with these teaching know immediately what it refers to, non-Muslims do not. To be accurate the title should be something like Allegations of Scientific Facts Predicted by the Quran and Sunnah --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't the place to popularise neologisms. Discussing any claim of scientific miracle under the umbrella of Bucailleism is also original research, and it poisons the well. There's many title alternatives we may consider, but the issue is whether or not we should have an article discussing this neologism specifically as its topic. ITAQALLAH 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense of [[Bucailleism]] article title 

message: A major part of the article - itemizing some of the major claims of bucailleism - was deleted by Yahel Guhan on the ground that the "entire section consists of unrelaible sources and original research."
The sources are not cited as proof that the Scientific facts are found in the Qur'an, they are cited as Bucailleist claims. They balance the criticism section which now has references to claims that were deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of "Scientific facts allegedly found in the Qur'an"

message: Question from anon:
Why are these quotation marks so ubiquotus whenever the editor happens to disagree with the portrayed? It looks belittleling in this manner, lets either keep them for all articles or...) 
This is a very controversial subject with some editors watching the article very carefully for anything they do not like. The quotes are to indicate this is a quote of the source -   When Science Teaching Becomes A Subversive Activity By Pervez Hoodbhoy  - not to suggest skepticism or disagreement. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation marks

message: User:Larkusix has sources that says that Bucaille converted to Islam, check here, at first sight the sources seem to be not very solid. Personally I think that his conversion is doubtful, and should not be stated as a fact in wikipedia. Any ideas? Imad marie (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Bucaille convert to Islam? 

message: There was a great live debate between Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on the book of Dr Campbell. Dr Campbell admitted the errors in the holy Bible and said he had no answers for those errors. At the same time Dr Zakir gave logical and convincing answers to all the alleged inaccuracies in the holy Quran. Without giving any counter arguments, all Dr. Campbell could say was " I do not agree to these explanations". This great debate gets on air on Peace TV from time to time, and is worth watching.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.234.230 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: Dr. Maurice Bucaille is an eminent French surgeon, scientist, scholar. An impartial scientist like Dr. Bucaille, who (being also a Christian) was converstant with the Biblical version of Pharaoh's story as being drowned in pursuit of Prophet Moses. He was pleasantly surprised to learn that unknown to the world till only of late, the Holy Quran made definite prediction about the preservation of the body of that same Pharaoh of Moses time. This led Dr. Bucaille to study the Holy Quran thoroughly after learning the Arabic language. "[]"
:That book is hardly a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, the "an eminent French surgeon, scientist, scholar. An impartial scientist like Dr. Bucaille..." is unacceptable. What you're trying to say there is "all this stuff must be true because X says so". Try to work towards NPOV language, taht isn't even close William M. Connolley (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about Maurice bucaille could be added in a book published by [[Trafford Publishing]] 

message: Some of the sources used in the "Reception" section are not explicitly discussing claims made by Bucaille. Instead, they discuss the topic of Quranic predictions/scientific miracles as a whole. But the literature on this subject is huge, with many fringe theories that may or may not be related to Bucaille's book. Reception sections in other articles tend to be more specific to the work/author being discussed. Shouldn't the reception section be more specific to Bucaille's works? Wiqi(55) 20:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresented sources in the "Reception" section 

message: I don't find recent edits by to be helpful. For one, this edit introduces WP:OR into the article. I think its best that the edits be reverted. We have scholarly sources (eg "Veiling Esther, Unveiling Her Story" page 21) that say Bucaille converted to Islam.VR talk 08:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In "Veiling Esther, Unveiling Her Story", page 21, it says: 
<Blockquote>For Bucaille this impossibility was clear proof that the Qur'an is divine and it contributed to his decision to convert to Islam. [17]</blockquote> Source for the above quotation: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=UM90DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Veiling+Esther,+Unveiling+Her+Story+maurice+bucaille&source=bl&ots=4JWaH71WDE&sig=ACfU3U0KERDtpQ3ZgIdS7gE5cF9NKrW8_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUxYz1n4n1AhW0LqYKHS4vDwcQ6AF6BAgkEAI#v=onepage&q=Veiling%20Esther%2C%20Unveiling%20Her%20Story%20maurice%20bucaille&f=false
What source did the author of the "scholarly source" present? Hint: none. The 17th citation mentions no credible source where Bucaille adhered to an Islamic creed (stated shahadat in front of witnesses, under their local imam). I'll state the 17th citation provided by Adam J. Silverstein, it is as follows:
<Blockquote>[17]: The "miracle" of Haman's existence in the Qur'an has been widely circulated online. In one case, the fears of a distressed, Arabic-speaking Muslim who was exposed to "Christian” arguments that Haman's appearance in the Qur'an is ana chronistic, are assuaged by his respondent, who points out not only that it is the Bible that is wrong, but also that Haman's appearance in the Qur'an is miraculous. The respondent adds that the Qur'anic verses concerning Haman were recited in the presence of Jews, who did not object to the reference to Haman. One of these Jews, the respondent says, was 'Abdallah ibn Salām, who subsequently converted to Islam. According to this, 1300 years before Maurice Bucaille, an Arabian Jew converted to Islam on the basis of Haman's miraculous appearance in the Qur'an (http:// shubuhat3arabic.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/6.html -last accessed 15 February 2017).</blockquote> Source for the above quotation is the same, page 21.
A blog article is not a credible source, it does not even mention Bucaille having credible witnesses for confirming the conversion (which in Islamic context is called "reversion"). It also violates WP:BLOG, and, therefore, it is classified as an unreliable source. 182.58.189.43 (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Wikipedia article content is based on what reliable sources say, not on the arguments of Wikipedia article editors. Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Maurice Muslim name 119.152.72.187 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maurice muslim name 

message: We seem to be in an edit war concerning whether Bucaille converted.  
Bucaille was one of the first western doctors/scientists to actively promote the "scientific Miracles in the Quran" narrative and this page is important in that history.  As such I think its important that an accurate and NPOV article on his life and views should exist on Wiki. 
No one could ever say that Bucaille did not make very positive statements in his books , in articles and videos regarding science , Islam and the Quran. 
However it also cannot be denied that he never actually publically declared that he had converted and (see the the Islamic Bulletin article and as some has pointed out, he was never photographed at a Mosque praying etc) . 
He also was employed by the King of Saudi Arabia (and president Anwar Sadat) and therefore any positive statements must be tinged with the thought that he might soon lose that well paid job if he ever said he wasnt a Muslim. Also his book sales might suffer. 
Surely we can come together and come up with an article that covers the above without it becoming a crude Dawah page or an Islamophobic rant? 
Yesihavereadit (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is neither at the moment. Anyhow, we don't normally focus on subjects' religion, unless plenty of reliable sources show it as important. Even then, religious controversies alone are not usually sufficient to establish a person's notability. Bucaille is known primarily for his book, and so that part of the article would do good with more details. But frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable to speculate about his religion. — kashmīrī TALK 11:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020-21 edit war re conversion to Islam - truce?  

message: Hello. Since there has been a content dispute and slow edit warring over the last sentence I added, then I invite anyone concerned to make a case here. They can suggest sources and viewpoints, or even a potential re-wording of the sentence, but either way, content should not be removed without a valid reason or because of WP:JDLI. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence