Does the Qur’an Contain Scientific Miracles? A New Approach on How to Reconcile and Discuss Science in the Qur’an
By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis
6 June 2023
Since the eighties there has been a growing
movement of Muslim academics and apologists using science to establish the
miraculous and Divine nature of the Qur’ānic discourse. On a grass roots level,
Muslims across the world, especially in the West, try to articulate the
veracity of Islam by using verses that allude to science as evidence for the
Qur’ān’s Divine authorship. The internet is full of websites, essays, videos
and posts on the scientific verses in the Qur’ān. A Google search on “Quran and
science” produces over 40 million search results.
[1] This movement has classical and modern
origins. The Islamic classical scholarly tradition was engaged in a debate as
to whether to use science as an exegetical tool to explain the Qur’ānic verses.
However, it was during the eighties that the apologetic expression of this
movement was born. I would argue there are two main events that facilitated the
emergence of this movement. The first was the publishing of the book Bible, the
Qur’ān and Science in 1976 written by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, and the second was
the 1980s video This is The Truth produced by the Islamic scholar Abdul-Majeed
al-Zindani. Dr Bucaille’s book argued that there were no scientific errors in
the Qur’ān and that the Bible was full of scientific inaccuracies. Dr.
Bucaille’s book became a best seller in the Muslim world and it was translated
into many languages. Even though the book has faced academic criticism[2], it
is still a popular read and used as a reference for Islamic apologetics and
proselytisation.
The Islamic Scholar Abdul-Majeed
al-Zindani, founder of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Qur’ān and
Sunnah, produced a video entitled This is the Truth. Al-Zindani invited
prominent Western academics to attend one of their conferences. During the
conference al-Zindani claimed that a group of eminent non-Muslim scholars in
several fields testified to the fact that there were scientific miracles in the
Qur’ān. However, the Commission received criticism that it had spread out of
context and misleading statements to justify its narrative.[3] Relatively
recently an Atheist video blogger and commentator personally contacted some of
the scientists who had attended the conference and conducted interviews with them.
The interviews were recorded and uploaded on YouTube. All of the scientists he
interviewed claimed that their statements had been taken out of context, and
that there is nothing miraculous about the scientific statements in the
Qur’ānic discourse.[4]
In spite of this, millions of booklets and
pamphlets have been printed that make the claim that there are scientific
miracles in the Qur’ān, and countless non-Muslims have converted to Islam as a
result. This growing movement has influenced academia too, for example an
academic book published by Curzon entitled Qur’ān Translation: Discourse,
Texture and Exegesis dedicates a few pages on the topic.[5] Famous popularisers
such as Dr. Zakir Naik[6] and Yusuf Estes[7] have also used the scientific
miracles narrative to verify the Divine nature of the Qur’ān. Due to this
intense popularisation over the past few decades, there is now a growing
counter movement that attempts to demystify the so-called scientific
statements, and they seem to be more nuanced, with a growing popularity. A
significant number of apostates from Islam (many of whom I have had private
conversations with) cite the counter movement’s work as a causal factor in
deciding to leave the religion. Nevertheless, I do believe that apostasy is not
entirely an intellectual decision but rather a spiritual and psychological
problem. This can include a lack of spiritual connection with God and
disheartenment with Islam due to unfortunate negative experiences with Muslims
and the the Muslim community.
Regrettably, the scientific miracles
narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists,
including myself. A few years ago I took some activists to Ireland to engage
with the audience and speakers at the World Atheist Convention. Throughout the
convention we had a stall outside the venue and as a result positively engaged
with hundreds of atheists, including the popular atheist academics Professor P.
Z. Myers and Professor Richard Dawkins.
During our impromptu conversation with Professor Myers we ended up
talking about God’s existence and the Divine nature of the Qur’ān. The topic of
embryology came up, and Professor Myers being an expert in the field challenged
our narrative. He claimed that the Qur’ān did not predate modern scientific conclusions
in the field. As a result of posting the video[8] of the engagement on-line we
faced a huge intellectual backlash. We received innumerable amounts of emails
by Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims were confused and had doubts, and the
non-Muslims were bemused with the whole approach. Consequently, I decided to
compile and write an extensive piece on the Qur’ān and embryology, with the
intention to respond to popular and academic contentions.[9] During the process
of writing I relied on students and scholars of Islamic thought to verify
references and to provide feedback in areas where I had to rely on secondary
and tertiary sources. Unfortunately they were not thorough and they seemed to
have also relied on trusting other Muslim apologists. When the paper was
published it was placed under a microscope by atheist activists.[10] Although
they misrepresented some of the points, they raised some significant
contentions. I have since removed the paper from my website. In retrospect if
this never happened, I probably wouldn’t be writing this essay now. It is all a
learning curve and an important part of developing intellectual integrity.
In light of this, this essay aims to
provide a rational and Islamic perspective on how to understand the scientific
verses in the Qur’ān. It is time more people from the Muslim community spoke
out against this problematic approach to verifying the Divine nature of the
Qur’ān. It has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists and
it has exposed the lack of coherence in the way they have formulated the
argument. Significantly, many Muslims who converted to Islam due to the
scientific miracles narrative, have left the religion due to encountering
opposing arguments. This essay intends to explain how the scientific miracles
narrative is problematic and incoherent, and it aims to bring to light a new
approach on how to reconcile and discuss science in the Qur’ān. It must be
noted that I am not asserting that the Qur’ān is inaccurate or wrong, or that
there is nothing remarkable about the Qur’ānic statements eluding to natural
phenomena. I am simply bringing to light the perilous nature of the claim that
some Qur’ānic verses are miraculous due to their scientific content. For this
reason, I am offering a new approach to the topic that is nuanced and bypasses
the intellectual hurdles and problems faced by the scientific miracles
narrative.
A Summary of The Scientific Miracles
Claim
The scientific miracles of the Qur’ān are
expressed in different ways but with the same philosophical implications.
The Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace)
did not have access to the scientific knowledge mentioned in the Qur’ān,
therefore it must be from God.
No one at the time of revelation (7th
century) had access to the necessary equipment to understand or verify the
scientific knowledge in the Qur’ān, therefore it must be from God.
The Qur’ānic verses where revealed at a
time where science was primitive and no human could have uttered the truths
mentioned in the Qur’ān, therefore it must be from God.
There are an array of reasons of why the
above expressions of the scientific miracles are problematic and incoherent.
These include,
The Fallacy of the
Undistributed Middle
Inaccurate History
Teleology of the
Qur’ānic Verses
Scientism, the
Problem of Induction and Empiricism
“Unscientific”
Verses
Miracles,
Simplicity and A Note on Qur’ānic Exegesis
Each of these
points will now be explained in detail.
1. The Fallacy of the Undistributed
Middle
The science in the Qur’ān claim commits a
logical fallacy called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. This fallacy is
where two different things are equated due to a common middle ground that is
misused. Below is a generic example:
1. All As are Cs
2. All Bs are Cs
3. Therefore all As are Bs
The above fallacy is in the conclusion.
Since A and B share the common category C, it doesn’t follow that A is the same
as B.
Another example includes:
John needs oxygen to survive
My dog needs oxygen to survive
Therefore John is my dog
As can be seen above, the middle ground
that is misused is oxygen. Although the first two premises are true, that both
John and my dog need oxygen to survive, it doesn’t follow that John is my dog.
Most of the science in the Qur’ān arguments
commit this type of fallacy. Below is a summary:
A description of a
scientific fact A uses C
A description in
the Qur’ān B uses C
Therefore, the
description in the Qur’ān B is the description of A
The following are some specific examples:
The scientific fact in embryology is the
implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall. Implantation can be
attributed as a safe place.
The Qur’ān uses the words qarārin[11]
makīn[12], which can mean a safe place.
Therefore, the Qur’ān is describing the
scientific fact of the implantation of the blastocyst.
In the above syllogism, it doesn’t follow
that the words Qarārin Makīn (a safe place) imply the process of
implantation just because it to shares the attribute of a safe place. The
argument will only be valid if all descriptions of Qarārin Makīn refers
to, and describes, the process of implantation. Since Qarārin Makīn can
also refer to the womb[13], which was the 7th century understanding of the
words, then the argument is invalid. The mere correlation between a Qur’ānic
word and a scientific process or description does not ascertain the intended
meaning of the verse.
Another example includes:
The scientific fact is that the Earth’s
atmosphere helps destroy meteorites as they approach Earth, filters harmful
light rays, protects against the cold temperatures of space, and its Van Allen
Belt acts like as a shield against the harmful radiation. The Earth’s
atmosphere can be attributed as a protected roof.
The Qur’ān uses the words Saqfan Maḥfūẓan, which means a protect roof.[14]
Therefore, the Qur’ān is describing the
function of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Again, the above syllogism is invalid. It
doesn’t logically follow that the words Saqfan Maḥfūẓan,
which refers to a protected roof, describes the function of the Earth’s
atmosphere. This is because Saqfan Maḥfūẓan can also refer to a physical roof. Some interpretations of the
Qur’ān include that the heaven is erected with invisible pillars, and that a
fragment of the heaven or sky can fall on Earth; (see Qur’ān 13:2 and 34:9).
These interpretations indicate a solid roof like structure, as confirmed by the
classical exegete Ibn Kathīr who cites a scholar mentioning that “the heaven is
like a dome over the earth”.[15] Therefore the words Saqfan maḥfūẓan
can also refer to a physical roof or dome like structure. For that reason, the
above argument will only be valid if all interpretations and descriptions of Saqfan
Maḥfūẓan describes the function of Earth’s
atmosphere.
In light of the above, the argument that
the Qur’ān is a miracle because the descriptions of certain words it uses seem
to relate to descriptions of words used in scientific facts, is logically
fallacious. The scientific miracles claim would only be valid if it could be
demonstrated that the interpretations of the words that seem to correlate with
science are the intended meanings. The principles of Qur’ānic exegesis dictates
that this is impossible to ascertain (this will be discussed later in the
essay).
Furthermore, there a myriad of questions
that exposes the incoherence of the scientific miracles narrative. For
instance: why are the more simpler explanations and meanings of the verses in
the Qur’ān dismissed? What about the alternative valid interpretations of these
verses that are unscientific or crude? Since the ambiguity of the words renders
it impossible to know what the intended meaning of the verses are, how can
anyone claim them to be miracles? What about the ancient civilisations and
their accurate predictions of scientific phenomena before they were verified by
modern science? Does that make the ancient civilisations Divinely inspired?
2. Inaccurate History
To salvage the strength of their argument,
those who advocate the scientific miracles narrative assert that there was no
knowledge of the science implied by the Qur’ānic verses available in the 7th
Century. Their argument is usually expressed in two ways:
I.
The knowledge implied by the Qur’ānic verses was not available or
discovered at the time of revelation (7th Century)
II. The Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be
peace) could not have had access to the knowledge implied by the Qur’ānic
verses.
I. The knowledge implied by the Qur’ānic
verses was not available or discovered at the time of revelation
Concerning the above assertion when we
refer to history we will see that it is false. The following are examples of
verses that mention knowledge that was available and known at the time (or
before) of revelation:
The Sending Down of Iron “Miracle”: Take
for instance the claim that the Qur’ān is miraculous due to the fact that it
mentions that iron was “sent down”[16] (وَأَنْزَلْنَا).
This can refer to the fact that iron was sent down from space, something which
has been scientifically confirmed. [17] The Qur’ān states: “And We sent down
iron…” [18]
However, the Ancient Egyptians 1400 years
before the Prophet-hood of Muhammad (upon whom be peace) referred to iron as
ba-en-pet meaning “Iron from heaven.”[19] The Assyrians and Babylonians also
had similar concepts for iron.
The Moon Being a Borrowed Light “Miracle”:
Another example is the word used to describe the moon’s light. The word used is
nūran[20] (نُورًا) which means a borrowed or reflected light.
“It is He who made the sun a shining light
and the moon a derived light (nūran) and determined for it phases – that you
may know the number of years and account [of time]. Allah has not created this
except in truth. He details the signs for a people who know.”[21]
The claim made by the scientific miracles
advocates is that no one at the time, or even before, knew that the moon did
not omit its own light. In light of history this is not true, at around 500BC,
1200 years before the Qur’ānic revelation, Thales said: “The moon is lighted
from the sun.”[22] Anaxagoras, in 400-500BC asserted that: “The moon does not
have its own light, but light from the sun.”[23]
The Mountains Have Roots “Miracle”:
Consider the verses speaking about mountains having pegs or roots. The Qur’ān
states: “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as
pegs?”[24]
This knowledge was already available via
the ancient Hebrews as the Old Testament explicitly mentions the roots of the
mountains:
“To the roots (לְקִצְבֵי) of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in
forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O Lord my God.”[25]
The key word in this verse used is the
Hebrew word לְקִצְבֵי which means extremity,
and it is a poetic description of the bottoms or roots of the mountains. [26]
The Big Bang “Miracle”: The Qur’ān mentions
the creation of the cosmos in the following way:
“Have not those who disbelieve known
that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we
made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?”[27]
This knowledge was already available via
previous cultures, for example a particular creation story from ancient Egypt
includes the separation of the heavens from the earth. Alan Alford, who is an
independent researcher and author, writes about Egyptian views on the creation
of the universe: “This is the myth of the separation of the heavens from the
earth. Note that the separation takes the form of a cataclysm.”[28]
In Sumerian literature we find similar
concepts in the Epic of Gilgamesh: “When the heavens had been separated from
the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens, when the fame of
mankind had been established.”[29]
In light of the above, to claim that these
verses are miraculous is farfetched and does not take into account the possibility
of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) accessing the common knowledge of
the time from other cultures, and it does not consider the fact that earlier
civilisations made similar statements. This does not mean I adopt the absurd
view that the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) borrowed knowledge from
other civilisations and inserted that knowledge in the Qur’ān, nor do I believe
the Qur’ān is a representation of 7th Century knowledge. I believe the Qur’ān
is accurate and true. My main point here is that claims of miraculousness via
verses eluding to natural phenomena does not stand in light of intellectual
scrutiny and a new approach is needed – something I will discuss later in this
essay.
A contention to the above is that only the
primary meanings and a crude understanding of the language has been used, and
not the other meanings that can be reconciled with modern scientific
conclusions. This may be true, there may be other meanings that can reconcile
the verses with scientific conclusions. However, the point raised above is not
that these verses cannot be reconciled with modern science, rather the point
here is to show that with the primary or explicit meanings the verses point to
knowledge – that although not entirely inaccurate – could have been accessed or
known at the time of revelation. In light of this, claiming that the verses are
miraculous is wrong. From a rational point of view, if a plausible naturalistic
explanation is available then that explanation will be adopted over a supernatural
one. The very fact that a plausible naturalistic explanation is possible
implies that there is no miracle because by definition a miracle is an event
that cannot be explained naturalistically. This point will be explained later
in this essay.
II. The Prophet (upon whom be peace)
could not have had access to the knowledge implied by the Qur’ānic verses
In the eyes of a sceptic or truth seeker,
the knowledge currently available about the history of ideas renders the above
assertion as unsound. The Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) could have
accessed some form of popularised knowledge at the time of revelation because
he already referred to other cultures and civilisations. For example, in
permitting intercourse with one’s suckling wife the Prophet (upon whom be
peace) took into consideration the practices of the Romans and Persians. Below
is the Prophetic tradition (ḥadīth):
“I intended to prohibit cohabitation with
the suckling women, but I considered the Romans and Persians, and saw that they
suckle their children and this thing (cohabitation) does not do any harm to
them (to the suckling women).”[30] [Please note that this does not mean the
Prophet (upon whom be peace) used knowledge from other civilisations as a
source of revelation. Rather, in Islamic theology when it concerns medical and
scientific matters, it is advised to seek the best opinions and best practice,
as practised by the Prophet (upon whom be peace) himself. Access the following
link for a discussion using cross pollination as an example
http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1691.]
This authentic ḥadīth shows
that the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) had access to medical practices
prevalent in other civilisations. Therefore, in the eyes of the sceptic, it is
not impossible that he could have accessed other scientific knowledge that was
popularised at the time.
It is important to note that 7th Century
Arabian economic life was based around trade and commerce. Travelling as far as
the Far East was a common occurrence. Therefore, it is not impossible that
there was an exchange of popular scientific practices and ideas. The historian
Ira M. Lapidus in his book, A History of Islamic Societies, clearly states that
the Arabs in Mecca were established traders travelling far and wide:
“By the mid-sixth century, as heir to Petra
and Palmyra, Mecca became one of the important caravan cities of the Middle
East. The Meccans carried spices, leather, drugs, cloth and slaves which had
come from Africa or the Far East to Syria, and returned money, weapons,
cereals, and wine to Arabia.”[31]
Therefore, in the view of a sceptic or
seeker of truth, the assertion that the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace)
could not have accessed knowledge that was implied by the Qur’ānic verses is
false. This is due to the fact that the probability of Prophet (upon whom be
peace) exchanging ideas and practices with other cultures is higher than the
probability of the Prophet (upon whom be peace) not accessing such knowledge.
Therefore a new approach is needed to overcome to this intellectual obstacle,
something which I will address later.
3. Teleology of the Qur’ānic Verses
The entire scientific miracles narrative
seems to ignore or overlook the main theological objectives for these verses.
These verses were revealed as signposts to reflect and come to the conclusion
that God is One and that He alone deserves to be worshipped. Other reasons
include to evoke an understanding and an appreciation of God’s Majesty, Power,
Glory, Mercy and Love. Studying classical commentaries of popular creedal
books, such as Aqeedah Tahawiyyah, will elaborate on the above reasons. Simply
put, they are not there to provide details on science. This is not their scope.
The sub-continent thinker and scholar Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī
in his Tadabbur-e-Qur’ān elaborates on this point:
“The reference to the creation of the
heavens and the earth indicates and demonstrates the tremendous power and might
of their Creator. The way they are fashioned testifies to the uniqueness of His
handiwork and astounding wisdom. It also refers to the beneficial nature of the
creation and its harmony with human life and needs, the benefits and advantages
we gain and depend upon. All these are indicative of the grace and Mercy of the
Creator and His providential care for His servants. Besides, these also clearly
demonstrate that there is a higher purpose behind the creation of this life and
the universe. Surely, a universe so marvellous, harmonious and full of so many
manifestations of wisdom, cannot be a purposeless creation, without direction
and a higher goal. Indeed, it has been created for a sublime purpose, says the
Qur’ān, and a day is fixed for its fullest accomplishment. The harmony between
the heavens and the earth clearly shows that they are both creation of one and
the same Creator, Who not only created them but also runs and manages them. And
it is His scheme and law alone that prevails in them; no other power can in any
way or manner interfere in His decisions.”[32]
In similar light, professor of philosophy
Shabbir Akhtar in his book The Qur’ān and the Secular Mind: A Philosophy of
Islam explains that the purpose of the Qur’ānic verses that allude to the
natural world is to point to a hidden immaterial order:
“Nature’s flawless harmonies and the
delights and liabilities of our human environment, with its diverse and
delicate relationships, are invested with religious significance. Created
nature is a cryptogram of a reality which transcends it: nature is a text to be
deciphered. Evidences accumulating in the material and social worlds and in the
horizons jointly point to a hidden immaterial order.”[33]
In the academic reference work Encyclopaedia
of the Qur’ān, under Science and the Qur’ān, it maintains that the majority of
the classical commentaries on the verses eluding to the natural world argue
that they are there to lead people to reflect on the wisdom of creation, and not
to establish a scientific fact:
“The marvel of creation is a recurrent
theme of Qur’ānic commentaries. These marvels are viewed as signs of God and
proofs that he exists, is all-powerful and all-knowing, and is the willing
creator of all being…At a basic level, such reflection leads to the conclusion
that there is order and wisdom in creation, which in turn means that a wise
maker must have created it…Ultimately, when people reflect on the heavens and
the earth, they will come to realize that their creator did not create them in
vain but for a remarkable wisdom and great secrets and that the intellects are
incapable of comprehending them…This means that the ultimate purpose of
reflection is to establish the limitations of human knowledge and its inability
to comprehend creation, not to establish a scientific fact and demonstrate its
correspondence with the Qur’ān…The Qur’ān, according to these commentaries,
directs people to reflect on the wisdom of the creation of nature but provides
no details on the natural order or on ways of deciphering it; these details, if
and when they appear in classical Qur’ānic commentaries, are drawn from the
prevailing scientific knowledge of the time.”[34]
Therefore, these verses must be reflected
on and used as opportunities to open the intellectual and spiritual windows to
reach an understanding of God’s Oneness, Glory and Transcendence. It is no
wonder that the 14th Century scholar Al-Shatibi was against using science, as
it removes the reader away from this necessary reflection:
“Many people have overstepped all bounds
and made undue claims about the Qur’ān when they assigned to it all types of
knowledge of the past and the present such as the natural sciences, mathematics
and logic.“[35]
From an empirical or scientific perspective
these verses can also provide intellectual stimuli to encourage the listener or
reader to look into the interconnecting principles of nature, and to explore
the inner dimensions of reality. So when God says in the Qur’ān, “Have not
those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece,
then We parted them…” This can encourage the believing scientist to seek
answers concerning the origins of the universe and look for clues concerning a
cosmic beginning. So rather than giving us the answers, the Qur’ān encourages
us to look for them ourselves.
4. Scientism, the Problem of Induction
and Empiricism
Jalees Rehman, a cardiology fellow at
Indiana University School of Medicine, aptly and concisely articulates a major
problem with the scientific miracles narrative. He writes:
“One danger of such attempts to correlate
modern science with the Qur’ān is that it makes a linkage between the perennial
wisdom and truth of the Qur’ān with the transient ideas of modern science.”[36]
What Rehman is eluding to here is that
there is a philosophical issue in asserting that Qur’ānic verses are
miraculous. The problem is that science does not claim certainty or 100% truth,
and to use science as a method to establish the absolute nature of the Qur’ān is
fallacious. Science by its very nature is not static, it is dynamic. Its
conclusions change over time, even ones that we may think are established
facts. A hidden assumption behind the scientific miracles narrative is that
science is the only way to render truth about the world and reality – a
proposition known as scientism.
So there are 3 things to discuss here:
Science does not
claim certainty or 100% truth.
Science is dynamic
and therefore changes over time.
Science is not the
only way to render truths about the world and reality.
Science does not
claim certainty or 100% truth
The
philosophy of science is a field of study that attempts to address how we can
derive knowledge from scientific experiments and empirical data. Key problems
in the philosophy of science include induction and empiricism, as they both
have limitations and a restricted scope. Understanding these issues will enable
us to reach the conclusion that scientific facts are not 100% and there is
always the possibility of doubt.
Induction: Induction is a thinking process
where one makes conclusions by moving from the particular to the general.
Arguments based on induction can range in probability from very low to very
high, but always less than 100%.
Here is an example of induction:
“I have observed that punching a boxing bag
properly with protective gloves never causes injury. Therefore no one will be
injured using a boxing bag.”
As can be seen from the example above,
induction faces a key problem which is the inability to guarantee the conclusion,
because a sweeping generalisation cannot be made from a limited number of
observations. The best it can provide are probabilities, ranging from low to
very high. In the aforementioned example the person who made the statement
could not logically prove that the next person to punch a boxing bag will not
get injured.
Therefore, the problem with induction is
that it can’t produce certainty. This issue was raised by the 18th century
Scottish philosopher David Hume in his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding. Hume argued that inductive reasoning can never produce
certainty. He concluded that moving from a limited set of observed phenomena to
making conclusions for an unlimited set of observed phenomena is beyond the
present testimony of the senses, and the records of our memory. [37]
From a practical scientific perspective,
generalisations made for an entire group or for the next observation within
that group, based on a limited set of data will never be certain. Take the
following example into consideration, a scientist travelled to Wales and wanted
to find out the colour of sheep (assuming he does not know the colour of
sheep). He started observing the sheep and recorded what colour they were.
After 150 sheep observations he found that all of them were white. The
scientist concluded, using induction, that all sheep are white. This basic
example highlights the problematic nature with the process of induction as we
know sheep can also be black. Certainty using induction will never be achieved,
because there is always the possibility of new observations undermining the
previous conclusion.
Professor Alex Rosenberg in his book
Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction concludes that this is a key
problem facing science; he writes:
“Here we have explored another problem
facing empiricism as the official epistemology of science: the problem of
induction, which goes back to Hume, and added to the agenda of problems for
both empiricists and rationalists.”[38]
Empiricism:
Empiricism claims that we have no source of knowledge in a subject or for the
concepts we use in a subject other than sense experience. Philosopher Elliot
Sober in his essay Empiricism explains the empiricist’s thesis:
“Empiricists deny that it is ever
rationally obligatory to believe that theories provide true descriptions of an
unobservable reality…For an empiricist, if a theory is logically consistent,
observations are the only source of information about whether the theory is
empirically adequate.”[39]
Empiricism suffers from limitations and
logical problems. One form of empiricism – which I will call strong empiricism
– is limited to things that can only be observed. This form of empiricism faces
a whole host of logical problems. The main problem with strong empiricism is
that it can only base its conclusions on observed realities and cannot make
conclusions on unobserved realities. Elliot Sober explains this problem:
“Empiricists need to address problems in
the philosophy of perception. The most obvious first stab at saying what seeing
an object involves is to describe the passage of light from the object into the
eyes, with the result that a visual experience occurs. However, the
invisibility of white cats in snowstorms and the fact that we see silhouettes
(like the moon during an eclipse) shows that this is neither sufficient nor
necessary.”[40]
Further exploring Sober’s example, imagine
you observe a white cat walking outside of a house towards the direction of an
oncoming snowstorm; you can see the cat walking up to the snowstorm and then
you can no longer see the cat. A strong empiricist’s account would be to deny
that there is a cat in the snowstorm, or at least suspend any claims to
knowledge. However, based on other intellectual tools at your disposal you
would conclude that there is a white cat in the snowstorm regardless of whether
or not you can observe one.
The problems faced by strong empiricism
have not gone unaddressed by empiricists. They have responded by weakening
their definition for empiricism by redefining empiricism to the view that we
can only know something if it is confirmed or supported by sensory experience –
I shall call this weak empiricism. Others have dogmatically maintained the view
that the only way to truth is via direct observation and being supported by
observation is not good enough. These responses have created an unresolved
dilemma for the empiricist. The Philosopher John Cottingham exposes this
problem in his book Rationalism:
“But what about ‘all water at a given
atmospheric pressure boils at 100 degrees Celsius’? Since this statement has
the form of an unrestricted universal generalization, it follows that no finite
number of observations can conclusively establish its truth. An additional and
perhaps even more worrying problem is that when we reach the higher levels of
science…we tend to encounter structures and entities that are not observable in
any straightforward sense. Atoms, molecules, electrons, photons and the like
are highly complex theoretical constructs…here we seem to be very far removed
from the world of direct ‘empirical observation’…The positivists tended to
respond to this difficulty by weakening their criterion for meaningfulness…it
was proposed that a statement was meaningful if it could be confirmed or
supported by sensory experience. However, this weaker criterion is
uncomfortably vague…Statements about God or Freedom, or the nature of
Substance, or the Absolute, may not be directly checkable against
experience…The positivist thus seems to be faced with a fatal dilemma: either
he will have to make his criterion so stringent that it will exclude the
generalizations and theoretical statements of science, or else he will have to
weaken his criterion sufficiently to open the door to the speculations of the
metaphysician. The dilemma has remained unresolved to this day…” [41]
In light of the above, since induction and
empiricism are used in deriving knowledge from scientific data then science
cannot claim certainty. There are the obvious problems of the unobserved and
the inability to guarantee that the next observation will be the same as the
previous observation. Our observations do not encompass all phenomena,
therefore science is tentative. In other words it can change based upon future
observations. For science to be certain, all natural phenomena must have been
observed. This is impossible.
Therefore to use the scientific method,
which is a method that does not provide certainty, to justify a book which
demands certainty is obviously problematic and incoherent.
Science Is Dynamic and Therefore Changes
over Time
To claim that there is anything
scientifically miraculous about a particular Qur’ānic verse is incoherent. This
is because science can change due to new observations and studies. Therefore,
for someone to claim that a particular verse is miraculous would mean that the
one making the claim can guarantee that the science will never change. To make
such a guarantee would imply gross ignorance. Ignorance of the fact that
science does change and is tentative due to the problems faced by induction and
empiricism. The problems of induction and empiricism (as discussed in the
previous section) explain the reason for the dynamic nature in science. In
summary these problems are that a new observation can be made, or more data can
be found. Therefore, by definition, we can never claim that a particular verse
is miraculous because to make such an assertion would mean that the science is
fixed. This is impossible to maintain.
To explain this point clearly, take into
consideration, Muslims living in the 19th century. The science and academia of
the time were asserting that the universe is static and without a beginning,
known as the steady state theory. Since the Qur’ān argues that the universe had
a beginning, does that mean the Qur’ān must have been rejected by Muslims
living in the 19th century? Of course not, because all Muslims believe the
Qur’ān to be from the Divine, and the Divine cannot be wrong. This exposes a
hidden assumption: the Qur’ān is from the Divine and science will at some point
show how the verses are in line with reality. This assumption exposes the
scientific miracles narrative, as the Qur’ān being from the Divine is
presupposed.
This assumption however it not problematic,
because it leads us to a new approach. This new approach will help us to use
the verses eluding to natural phenomena in a more nuanced and balanced way.
Science Is Not the Only Way to Render
Truths about the World and Reality
Another hidden assumption behind the
scientific miracles narrative is that science is the only way or method to
render truths about the world and reality. This assertion is known as
scientism. To put it simply, scientism claims that a statement is not true if
it cannot be scientifically proven. In other words if something cannot be shown
to be true via the scientific method, then it is false. There are a few
problems with scientism, for instance:
1. Scientism is self-defeating. Scientism
claims that a proposition is not true if it cannot be scientifically proven.
But the proposition itself cannot be scientifically proven! It is like saying
“there are no sentences in the English language longer than three words” or “I
cannot speak one word of English”. [42]
2. Scientism cannot prove necessary truths
like mathematics and logic. For example, If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q [43] and
3 + 3 = 6 are necessary truths and not merely empirical generalisations. [44]
3. Scientism cannot prove moral and
aesthetic truths. For example love, beauty, right and wrong.
4. Science cannot prove other sources of
knowledge. For example justified beliefs via ‘authentic testimony’. A major
problem with scientism is that truths can be established outside the scientific
paradigm. As aforementioned, authentic testimony is a valid source of knowledge
in which epistemologists have argued at length to explain that the say so of
others can – within certain criteria – provide a basis for truth.
The epistemology of testimony is the branch
of the theory of knowledge “concerned with how we acquire knowledge and
justified belief from the say-so of other people”.[45] Therefore, one of the
key questions it tries to answer is “how we successfully acquire justified
belief or knowledge on the basis of what other people tell us.”[46]
Many truths that we hold are on the basis
of authentic testimony, because we trust the statements of others and we have
no good reason to reject what they have said. This is especially so when we
have multiple people telling u-s the same thing via different chains of
transmission (known as Tawattur reporting in Islamic thought). Professor
C. A. J. Coady highlights some of the truths we accept on the basis of
testimony, he writes:
“Many of us have never seen a baby born,
nor have most of us examined the circulation of the blood…” [47]
Assistant Professor Benjamin McMyler in his
book Testimony, Truth and Authority, explains that some of the things he knows
are due to testimony:
“Here are a few things that I know. I know
that the copperhead is the most common venomous snake in the greater Houston
area. I know that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo. I know that, as I
write, the average price for gasoline in the U.S is $4.10 per gallon. And I
know that my parents recently returned home from a trip to Canada. All of these
things I know on the basis of what epistemologists call testimony, on the basis
of being told of them by another person or group of persons.”[48]
Although this is a vast topic, there is a
general consensus that authentic testimony is a source of knowledge. However,
there are disagreements amongst epistemologists on how we validate the
transmission of knowledge via testimony. Even scientists require testimony as a
source of knowledge in order to understand science itself. For instance, there
are many assumptions in science that are purely based on the say so of other
scientists.
Whatever discussions there are around
testimony, the key point to raise here is that it is a valid source of
knowledge. Therefore, the view that science is the only way to establish truth,
is false. Professor Keith Lehrer summarises the validity of testimony as a
source of knowledge:
“The final question that arises concerning
our acceptance of testimony is this. What converts our acceptance of testimony
of others into knowledge? The first part of the answer is that we must be
trustworthy in our evaluations of the trustworthiness of others, and we must
accept that this is so. Moreover, our trustworthiness must be successfully
truth-connected, that is, the others must, in fact, be trustworthy and their
trustworthiness must be truth-connected. We must accept this is so. In short,
our acceptance of their testimony must be justified in a way that is not
refuted or defeated by any errors that we make in evaluating them and their
testimony. Undefeated or irrefutable justified acceptance of the testimony of
others is knowledge.” [49]
It logically follows from the above that
since science is not the only way to reach conclusions about things, then we
should entertain the possibility of other routes to knowledge. Therefore,
assuming science to be the only yardstick to establish the truth of the Qur’ān
is false.
5. “Unscientific” Verses
Some verses in the Qur’ānic discourse are
currently “unscientific”. This does not mean the Qur’ān is wrong or not from
the Divine (as we have already discussed above that science is not the only way
to render truth claims about the world and reality, and that it faces problems
in the way that it derives knowledge from empirical data), rather it can show
that our scientific knowledge is limited and has not reached the right
conclusions yet. The reason I am including unscientific verses here is to
highlight the inconsistency of the scientific miracles in the Qur’ān
methodology. The inconsistency is that if science was a yardstick to use to
verify the Divine origins of the Qur’ān, then all verses must be in line with
scientific conclusions. Given that some verses are not currently in line with
science, then it follows that either the Qur’ān is wrong – and therefore not
from the Divine – or that the Qur’ān is right and from the Divine, and that
science will catch up. This dilemma, for the Muslims at least, is solved by
affirming the Divine origins of the Qur’ān and limited nature of science. In
this case it de-scopes the scientific miracles in the Qur’ān claim methodology,
and is reduced to the following statement: the Qur’ān is from God and the
science that agrees with it is correct, and the science that does not is
incorrect. Therefore, the miracle claim is reduced to: the Qur’ān will never be
wrong.
Here is an example of an unscientific
verse. The Qur’ān says:
“We said: Get down all of you from this
place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you guidance from Me, and
whoever follows My guidance, there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they
grieve.”[50]
The above verse refers to Adam and Eve
(upon whom be peace). It asserts that they were sent from paradise to earth and
implies that they were both fully formed and created before coming to earth.
This literal and orthodox interpretation of the verse is in direct conflict
with science. The theory of evolution asserts that human beings were formed via
natural selection and random mutations on earth over long period of time. The theory of evolution also argues that human
have a shared ancestry with non-human species. One attempt to reconcile the
theory of evolution and the orthodox interpretation of the Qur’ān is to accept
evolution for non-humans and to claim that the creation of Adam was a miracle.
A problem with this is that since the scientific evidence for non-human
evolution is the same or similar as the evidence used to conclude human
evolution, it would be incoherent to call it a miracle, because one would have
to accept the same scientific evidence for one and reject it for another, which
is tantamount to rejecting the all of the science.[51]
6. Miracles, Simplicity and a Note on
Qur’ānic Exegesis
When claiming that something is miraculous
it means that there is no plausible naturalistic explanation. In this case, in
order for a scientific verse to be miraculous there should be no physical
causal link between the verse and the nature of the knowledge of the time, and
there should be no alternative linguistic explanation available to explain the
verse. This definition of a miracle applied to the Qur’ānic verse exposes the
incoherent methodology employed by many to try and find something miraculous.
From a linguistic perspective for a verse
to be miraculous it must only have one meaning. If other meanings are available
then it would be more rational to take the unscientific or crude meanings over
the meanings that imply miraculousness. For a verse to be miraculous it would
mean that there is no causal link between the verse and the knowledge of the
language, or the science available and accessible at the time. However, since
the Qur’ānic discourse allows multiple meanings (obviously within a certain
scope) then the miracle claim is unfounded and incoherent by definition. The
fact that the language used in the Qur’ān for the verses eluding to natural phenomena
is not unequivocal and definitive exposes the perilous nature of the scientific
miracles in the Qur’ān claim. Simply put, there are alternative simpler
meanings that allow these verses to be explained naturalistically, and the
knowledge was available and accessible at the time to explain such statements.
Therefore, since a causal link can be found to explain the verses, it renders
any miracle claim as null and void.
A Note on Qur’ānic Exegesis
In order for a verse in the Qur’ān to be a
scientific miracle it would mean that the meaning attributed to a verse or word
is definitive and absolute. This is untenable in light of the science of
Qur’ānic exegesis. In the science of Qur’ānic exegesis (known as Usul
Ul-Tafsīr in Arabic) when a verse or word has not been explained via the
Prophetic traditions (ḥadīth) and the statements of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad
(upon whom be peace) and their students, then the linguistic meaning is offered
as an explanation. When the linguistic meaning is offered one would have to
consult the classical tradition and the classical Arabic dictionaries. A
consequence of this is discovering a range of meanings for a particular word.
The general rule is that no one can claim that the meaning that someone has
chosen is the intended meaning, someone could not say that God intended word X
to mean Y. Rather, the approach that has to be taken is to claim that a
particular word has a range of meanings and that word X may mean Y. The
indefinite nature of a word clearly highlights how it is untenable to claim a
miracle, as mentioned above, it would mean that the meaning chosen for a
particular word is the intended meaning by the author, in this case God.
A New Approach
So what now? How do we change the direction
of the science in the Qur’ān tidal wave that has engulfed Muslim apologetics
(more commonly known as daᶜwah in the Muslim community)? How do we transform the narrative? The
simple answer is we need a new approach. This new approach is what Professor of
Physics and Astronomy Nidhal Guessoum calls a “multiple, multi-level” approach.
[52]
The new approach is based on the following
axioms and principles:
The Qur’ān allows
multiple and multi-level meanings.
Our understanding
of natural phenomena and science changes and improves with time.
The Qur’ān is not
inaccurate or wrong.
In the case of any
irreconcilable difference between a Qur’ānic assertion and a scientific one,
the following must be done:
Find meanings
within the verse to correlate with the scientific conclusion.
If no words can
match the scientific conclusion then science is to be improved.
Find a
non-scientific meaning. The verse itself may be pertaining to non-physical
things, such as the unseen, spiritual or existential realities.
Mustansir Mir, Professor of Islamic Studies
at Youngstown State University, argues for a similar approach. He writes,
“From a linguistic standpoint, it is quite
possible for a word, phrase or statement to have more than one layer of
meaning, such that one layer would make sense to one audience in one age and
another layer of meaning would, without negating the first, be meaningful to
another audience in a subsequent age.”
“The word Yasbahun (swim or float)
in the verse ‘And He is the One Who created the night and day, and the Sun and
Moon – each swimming in an orbit’ (Q 21:33) made good sense to seventh-century
Arabs observing natural phenomena with the naked eye; it is equally meaningful
to us in light of today’s scientific findings [i.e. celestial mechanics].”[53]
Let’s use another example to highlight
Professor Mir’s point and apply the axioms and principles mentioned above. In
chapter 23 verse 14 of the Qur’ān uses the word ᶜalaqah (عَلَقَة) which can mean a clinging substance, a leech or a worm, and a
blood clot, or blood in a general sense.[54] This word is used to describe a
stage of the development of the human embryo. A Murli-level and multi-layered
analysis can include:
1. Appropriate for the time: The meaning
that refers to the embryo as a clinging substance and a blood clot could be seen
with the naked eye, as the Hellenic physicians and ancient Hebrews predating
the Qur’ānic revelation also described the embryo as a clinging substance and a
blood clot. [55] So from this perspective it agrees with the predominant
scientific view of the time.
2. Appropriate for our time: The word ᶜAlaqah
also refers to a worm or a leech. This can correlate to the external and
internal appearance of the leech.[56] This view of the embryo could only have
been discovered after the 15th century. Although the embryo at this stage (days
22 – 25) can be seen with the naked eye, it is about the size of the kernel of
wheat and such details cannot be seen without a microscope [57], which was
discovered in the 15th century. [58]See some of the images below taken from the
essay by Elias Kareem, Embryology in the Qur’ān: The ᶜAlaqah Stage
[59]:
Figure 1: External
Structure of a Leech compared to the Embryo
ScienceQuranFig1
Figure 1 A, shows
a lateral view of an embryo (size 2.5-3.0mm) at days 24 to 25. (Modified from
Moore & Persaud: The Developing Human 8th Edition) B, Hirudo medicinal is,
medicinal leech (modified from The Human Body. The Incredible Journey from
Birth to Death, © BBC Worldwide Ltd, 1998) C, Scanning electron micrograph of
an embryo at Week 4, 26 – 30 days. (Professor Kathy Sulik, the University of
North Carolina). Note the leech-like appearance of the human embryos at this
stage.
Figure 2: Internal
Structure of a Leech compared to the Embryo
ScienceQuranFig2
Figure 2 A,
Ventral dissection showing the internal anatomical structure of a leech. (From
J.G. Nicholls and D. Van Essen. The nervous system of the leech, 1974,
Scientific American 230:38-48.) B, Dorsal view of a 13-somite embryo at
approximately 24 days, actual size 3.0mm. (From Professor Hideo Nishimura,
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan). Note the remarkable similarity in appearance
between the human embryo and the internal structure of the leech.
This however doesn’t imply a miracle,
because the above interpretation of the word ᶜalaqah is not
certain, and a sceptic could argue that it could be just a guess. [There is
also the problem of interpreting the literal meaning of the word as a
metaphorical one. This is beyond the scope of the essay, but I adopt the view
that a comprehensive understanding of Arabic and Qur’ānic stylistics allows
this word to be understood as leech-like or worm-like and not referring to an
actual leech or worm]. The point here though is not to argue the miraculous but
to articulate the view that the Qur’ān is multi-layered, and therefore can
address various perspectives and interpretations.
3. Timeless non-scientific perspective: The
leech acts like a parasite, it clings on to its host and starts to suck its
blood. The embryo can also be likened to a parasite where it drains the
resources of its mother. Hence we should lower the wing of humility and mercy
for our parents, especially our mothers, as they sacrificed willingly in order
for us to be here today. This raises the perspective that we are not truly
independent, self-sufficient or free, as in our very development in the womb we
are dependent on our mothers. This should instil a sense of humility and an
understanding that we are all dependent on each other in some way, and
ultimately dependent of God.
Interestingly, this comparison between the
leech and the embryo has also been made by Lord Robert Winston, who is
Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at
Imperial College:
“[The leech] takes whatever it needs to
live by sucking the blood of whatever it can latch onto; in this case that’s
me. As it sucks my blood, it takes from it all that it needs to live, it
literally lives off me and the whole of pregnancy is shaped by a similar kind
of parasitic relationship. Unlike the leech, the developing embryo doesn’t suck
the maternal blood but t does raid her blood for the raw materials it needs to
grow. From the word go both leech and embryo are out for themselves.”[60]
4. Future findings: In absence of a link
between the meaning of a particular word or verse and scientific conclusions,
the meaning can be used as a motivation to find new data and develop innovative
scientific solutions.
If a multi-level or a multi-layered
analysis cannot produce anything meaningful, then a future scientific discovery
or conclusion can open the window of opportunity to provide a meaningful
analysis. This exposes the axiom that the Qur’ān is not inaccurate or wrong.
This is not a unjustified assumption, as there are a myriad or arguments that
indicate the Qur’ān is a signpost to the supernatural, in other words from the
Divine. Although it is not the scope of this essay to discuss this in detail,
one such example to show that the Qur’ān has Divine origins includes the fact
that it is linguistically inimitable. [61]
How to Articulate This in A Simple Way
For those concerned on how to articulate
this in a simple way I suggest a simple step process:
1. When talking about Divine revelation
speak about:
The fact that there are historical
statements that are mentioned in the Qur’ān were not known at the time
The linguistic and literary miracle of the
Qur’ān
The fact that Qur’ān is preserved
The meaning and message of the Qur’ān
The Qur’ān’s concept of God
Other remarkable features of the Qur’ān
2. After establishing the plausibility of
the Qur’ān having Divine origins, you can speak about the multi-level and the multi-layered
approach we have discussed. An example includes:
“You know what is very interesting about
the Qur’ān? Well, the Qur’ān seems to address various levels of intellect and
addresses different levels of understanding at different periods in human
history. For example, in chapter 23 verse 14 of the Qur’ān, it mentions the word
ᶜAlaqah to describe a stage of the
development of the human embryo. This word can mean a blood-clot, something
that clings and a leech or a worm. The knowledge that was available during the
7th century maintained that the embryo was like a blood-clot and that it is
something that clings. Interestingly in the 21st century the embryo on a
microscopic level looks like a leech, even the internal structure of the leech
looks like the embryo at around 4 weeks in its development. The word leech can
also imply that when we were embryos we drained our mother’s resources, just
like a leech does, so we should love our mothers more and lower the wing of
mercy and humility because they willingly sacrificed for us. This is an
interesting aspect of the Qur’ān, it seems to be able to address various times
and different levels of understanding. If some statements do not seem to be in
line with modern science, then science will catch up. I have already shown how
the Qur’ān can be from God without using science, and therefore we can conclude
that what God says is true. Also, and as you know, science is not absolute, it
changes with time and that there is always the possibility of new observations
and new findings.”
How Could Scientific Miracles Be
Established?
In light of the above, Muslims who have
adopted the science in the Qur’ān narrative may argue that what I have
presented is pessimistic. They may also assert that I haven’t provided a method
or criteria on how to assess if a verse can be described as a scientific miracle.
The primary reason why I find the science in the Qur’ān narrative incoherent is
due to the philosophy of science. However, it could be argued that a verse
could be deemed as more likely to have not come from a 7th century Arab if it
adhered to the following criteria:
The verse must have
meanings/interpretations that correlate to a scientific fact(s).
The meanings/interpretations must be clear
and unambiguous. [An intentionally unsophisticated meaning is possible so that
the Qur’ān’s direct audience could appreciate it.
The scientific fact must fall within the
range of the verse’s meanings/interpretations.
The correlation between the scientific fact
and the meanings/interpretations of the verse must be a strong one. In other
words, it must not be a tenuous link.
The science that the verse is eluding to
must be as close to a fact as possible, in other words it must not be a working
in progress theory. The scientific fact must be established as a conclusive or
factual via the scientific community.
It must demonstrate that no other
naturalistic explanations (chance aside) can account for the correlation
between the meanings/interpretations of the verse and the scientific
conclusion. In other words, there must be a exhaustive study of the history of
science to establish that: such scientific knowledge would have been impossible
to discover and no one in the past theorised or discussed the scientific
conclusion in question.
If such scientific knowledge was available,
then a exhaustive study of the Prophetic and Arab history must be done to
establish the impossibility of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) or any
7th century Arab could have accessed such information.
If the verse in question has an alternative
valid simpler unscientific interpretation/meaning. Then a probability analysis
of the verse must be performed. To consider the verse to be miraculously
predating science, the probability analysis must show that it is far more
likely it could not have come from someone living in the 7th century (in context
of the history, culture and language). The probability analysis may take in to
consideration that it is remarkable that at least some plausible
meanings/interpretations do indeed correspond to scientific facts.
Although this proposed criteria to salvage
the science in the Qur’ān narrative is still work in progress, I personally
find it almost impossible to practically fulfil the above criteria. Scholars,
thinkers and apologists should develop this further.
Conclusion
This essay has argued that the scientific
miracles in the Qur’ān narrative is incoherent, and it has articulated a new
approach to reconcile and discuss science in the Qur’ān. It is hoped that the
readers of this essay will adopt the new approach so a new narrative emerges in
the public sphere. This new narrative will be able to withstand scientific
criticism while bringing to light the timeless nature of the Qur’ānic
discourse. I appreciate that this essay may agitate some readers, especially
those who have adopted the scientific miracles in the Qur’ān narrative. The
intention is not to stir emotions, but rather to facilitate a new coherent
discourse in Muslim apologetics and proselytisation. I pray it brings about the
much needed discussion and dialogue, as it is through speaking to one another,
exchanging ideas and scrutinizing the approaches we take that we can find
solutions and answers to contemporary problems.
-----
References
[1]
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=quran+science&oq=quran+science&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0l3j69i61j69i62.6621j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
[2] Bigliardi, S. (2011), Snakes from
Staves? Science, Scriptures, and the Supernatural in Maurice Bucaille. Zygon,
46: 793–805. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2011.01218.x
[3] Strange Bedfellows: Western Scholars
Play Key Role in Touting `Science’ of the Quran by Daniel Golden Wall Street
Journal, January 23, 2002. pg. A.1, posted on the website of California State
University, Fullerton by Dr. James Santucci.
[4] Here is an example: “Alfred Kröner –
Quote mined scientist denounces Quran miracle claims”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClHuG880pqU, accessed 9:20AM, 26 June 2013
[5] Written by the academic linguist
Hussein Abdul-Raof. Refer to pages 166 – 169.
[6] Dr. Zakir Naik – Quran & Modern
Science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5h6CNhtVls.
[7] Yusuf Estes – Science in Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ehcirhZ-g.
[8] See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T5Pm7qLH50.
[9] You can download a copy here
http://www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Embryology_in_the_Quran_v2.pdf.
[10] You can download a copy here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110224187/2-101612-Embryology-in-the-Quran-Much-Ado-About-Nothing.
[11]
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qrr#(23:13:5)
[12]
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mkn#(23:13:6)
[13] The classical exegete Ibn Kathīr
mentions that these words mean the womb. See here
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2481&Itemid=78.
[14]
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=21&verse=33
[15]
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2321&Itemid=68
[16]
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=nzl#(57:25:12)
[17] See here
http://mineralsciences.si.edu/collections/meteorites.htm#3
[18] Qur’ān 57:25
[19] See The Story of Chemistry. N. C.
Datta, p. 22; The Spirit of Ancient Egypt. Ana Ruiz. Algora Publishing, p. 72;
Origins and Development of Applied Chemistry. James Riddick Partington, p87.
Ayer Company Pub, 1975;
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/metal/metalinegypt.html.
[20] http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=nwr#(10:5:7)
[21] Qur’ān 10:5
[22] Doxographi on Thales, Aet. ii. 1 ;
Dox. 327. See online reference here
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/thales.html.
[23] The Doxographists on Anaxagoras,
Hipp. Phil, 8 ; Dox. 561 260-1.
[24] Qur’ān 78:6-7
[25] Bible Jonah 2:6,
http://biblehub.com/jonah/2-6.htm
[26] Reading Jonah in Hebrew. Duane L.
Christensen. Bibal Corporation. 2005, p. 16. See online link here
http://www.bibal.net/04/proso/psalms-ii/pdf/dlc_reading-jonah-b.pdf.
[27] Qur’ān 21:30
[28]
http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/myth_religion/egyptian.html
[29]
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.1.4#
[30] Sahih Muslim Book 8 ḥadīth 3392 [also repeated in ḥadīth
3394 and Malik’s Muwatta Book 30, ḥadīth 16].
[31] Ira M. Lapidus, ‘A History of
Islamic Societies’, Cambridge, p.14.
[32] Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī.
Tadabbur-e-Qur’ān. Pondering over the Qur’ān. Vol 1. Translated by Mohammad
Slaeem Kayani. Islamic Book Trust. 2007, p 410.
[33] Shabbir Akhtar. The Qur’ān and the
Secular Mind: A Philosophy of Islam. Routledge. 2008, page 217.
[34] Dallal, Ahmad. “Science and the
Qur’ān.” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān. General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe,
Georgetown University, Washington DC. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Andreas
Tzortzis. 19 July 2013
<http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/science-and-the-quran-SIM_00375>
[35] Al-Shatibi, Ibrahim. Al-Muwafaqat,
ed. Muhammad al-Khidr Husayn al-Tunisi. 4 Vols., Cairo: al-Matba’a al-Salafiya,
1922. Vol. 2, pp. 80-1.
[36] Jalees Rehman “Searching for
Scientific Facts in the Quran: Islamization of Knowledge or a New Form of
Scientism?’ Islam & science, 2003.
[37] David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding, p. 108.
[38] Professor Alex Rosenberg. Philosophy
of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. 2012, p. 198.
[39] Elliot Sober “Empiricism” in The
Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Edited by Stathis Psillos and
Martin Curd. 2010, p. 129.
[40] Ibid, p. 131.
[41] John Cottingham. Rationalism. Paladin.
1984, pp. 109 -110.
[42] Taken and adapted from an online
lecture by Professor J. P. Moreland.
[43] Access the following link to
understand what this means
http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/forms/modus-ponens.php.
[44] See here http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-scientism-self-refuting.
[45] Benjamin McMyler. Testimony, Truth
and Authority. Oxford University Press. 2011. p. 3.
[46] The Epistemology of Testimony.
Edited by Jennifer Lackey and Ernest Sosa. Clarendon Press: Oxford. 2006, p. 2.
[47] C. A. J. Coady. Testimony: A
Philosophical Study. Oxford University Press. 1992, p. 82.
[48] Benjamin McMyler. Testimony, Truth
and Authority. Oxford University Press. 2011. p 10.
[49] Keith Lehrer cited in The
Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford University Press. 2006, p. 158.
[50] Qur’ān 2:38
[51] I take an epistemic approach to
evolution which doesn’t require one to reject the science or the Qur’ān. Read
my essay here
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/has-evolution-been-misunderstood-revelation-science-and-certainty/.
[52] See Nidhal Guessoum. Islam’s
Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science. I. B.
Tauris. 2011. Chapter 5.
[53] Cited from Nidhal Guessoum. Islam’s
Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science. 2011, p.
152.
[54] Embryology in the Qur’ān: The
‘Alaqah Stage. Elias Kareem. Accessed here
http://islampapers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/thealaqah.pdf.
[55] Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni
de Semine (Galen: On Semen) pages 92 – 95.
[56] Embryology in the Qur’ān: The
‘Alaqah Stage. Elias Kareem. Accessed here
http://islampapers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/thealaqah.pdf.
[57] For more information read here
http://islampapers.com/2012/07/01/can-alaqah-be-seen/.
[58] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope#History
[59] Ibid.
[60] See the video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pwwP_dgriLI.
[61] See here for more information
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-essays/exploring-the-quran/.
------
URL:
https://newageislam.com/islam-science/quran-scientific-miracles-science/d/129931
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in
America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and
Feminism