November 2006

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    

Pure Blog

This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from t h a b e t. Make your own badge here.

« Žižek(ick) | Main | The State of the Ummah II »

May 24, 2006



I have been a silent reader of your blog for some time now, and for the most part I appreciate the candidness of your posts. This time, however, I must say that your ideas are completely BS.

I am a medical student, and as such, have read a few embryology books in my day. It is easy to dismiss the Keith L. Moore statements as simply "apologetic" towards the otherwise impossibly "fable-filled" Quran. But who are we, as men (and women), to disregard any possibility of descriptions of scientific processes in the Quran. Especially through empty rhetoric that is better left to the courtroom. Your circular logic in the prosecution of Quran/Science relations disregards one simple fact: the ideas of certain scientific concepts are still there.

By your logic, if the embryogensis details in the Quran (I use this example because it is usually the most cited by your so-called "apologists") are not really there, and we are prescribing miracle-status to something that isn't there, then who is to say that the rest of the miracles described in the Quran (such as Jinn, Angels, etc) aren't there. After all, the whole point in describing embryogenesis in the Quran is God pointing out manifestations of his laws (i.e. the "miracle" of embryonic development...which I think shouldn't be considered a miracle, even in the Quranic context. It is referred to as a Sign in the Quran and should be treated as such). Is it really that despicable for people to point out the validity in the description of these processes?

In my opinion, and I would just like to reiterate that it is my OPINION, the Quran is not as simple as "faith-based" or "science-based". It is not something that can be put on trial, and as such, not something that can be subjected to methods of proving it's "guilt" (which in this case would be falsehood). I believe that the Quran contains some allegory and metaphor, and it also contains some scientific fact.

In the end, scientific fact is nothing more than a manifestation of physical limits placed on this universe by God. So is it so wrong if God Himself explains processes within these limits (scientific "miracles"), and then explains how he can overcome these limits (parting the Red Sea, etc)? I would think not, especially for a book that is for all times and all peoples.



Thanks for your comments, SLM.

Firstly, I never said the Qur'an is "fable-filled". These are your own words and not mine. I hope we can agree on that.

Secondly, I don't disregard "scientific facts" in the Qur'an outright. What I disregard are:

(a) The seemingly artibatry appeals to science. Why is one verse "scientific" and another not? Scholars, old and new, traditional and modern, have methodlogies to derive their opinions so their views can be evaluated for internal coherency as well as external validity by their peers and others (and you're a medical student I don't need to explain that you further).

(b) I am highly skeptical of the belief that the were facts in the Qur'an the Prophet (upon whom be peace)was unaware of. If there are scientific facts are only known to us now then they must be unknown to the Prophet and his companions. Again, if the proponents of the "scientific miracles" claims upheld this view honestly, I would drop that point, since they've open about it. However...

(c) The people who usually promote the "scientific miracles" arguments are often the same people who regard any "new" reading of the Qur'an or hadith in *other spheres* as something of a heresy.

(d) There are philosophical problems associated with appeals to science like falsification.



Your points are well-received. I, for the most part, see the point you're trying to make. But in regards to point (B), are we to understand that the Prophet did indeed understand every component of the Quran (this is an honest question, not a rhetorical one)? I've always read that the mysterious letters at the beginning of Surahs (e.g. alif-laam-meem) were considered mysteries. If they are indeed mysteries, then I think it can be safely said that the Prophet didn't understand everything about the Quran. But then again, I am no scholar, so I don't know what the accepted view on the issue is. Perhaps they are mysteries to the common reader, and not to the Prophet, in which case he chose to not disclose this information. I have the same theory regarding Lailatul Qadr. It is the night the Quran came down to the Prophet. Wouldn't the Prophet know what date it was? We are still told, however, that it is one of the odd-numbered nights of the last 10 days of Ramadan. I find it hard to digest that a man, nor any of his companions, would take note of the date he received his first revelation from God. I am not clear on these issues so please fill me in. Thanks for the response. Wasalaam.


As far as I understand, good science is based on observation. The Qur'an asks us to observe, and makes observations within itself about a wide variety of things, many of which we may describe as scientific. If both the Qur'an and science are based on reality, one must surely reinforce the other.

On the other hand some individuals get worked up about miraculous phenomena they claim to have observed, and even play an absurd game of presenting them as if a test of one's faith. Things like the miraculous aubergine with Arabic script inside it. This is one of the less embarrassing "phenomena". Arabic is very organic and flowing in form, which is beautiful - and also means you can find it everywhere. The other day I started to idly stare at a stain on a surface left by some water that had dried up. It looked like Arabic and I absentmindedly started to read it, finding in it some religious meaning, in fact - as you would. Then I stopped myself. The stain was on the bathroom floor.

Signs and reminders are everywhere and some perhaps should be taken less seriously than others. But personally, I don't recommend taking the latter day, Western division and label "Science" as a boundary for this. Common sense seems like a better criteria,


O sweet person, how sweetly you mentioned that qur'an points to the existence of sun and moon and night and day and that's it. Read the verses with your EYES ALL OPEN, it does not say the sun and moon the night and day exists, huh! quote me the verse if u dare!

it says sun and moon and night and day each is swimming (with its own motion, read the original word)in an orbit.

Next time open your mouth when you know the things properly and with objective mind and no biasness.


I'm not really sure what the issue is here.

Are you trying to say that muslims shouldn't allow for scientific explanations of the Qur'an because there might be scientific mistakes in it?
I'm sure I understood you wrong but please clear that up.
Secondly, I don't really see how the fact that science can't prove virgin birth and the existence of jinn would prove a problem for the Qur'an.

The comments to this entry are closed.




Powered by Rollyo
Blogs that link here

Add me to your network

  • Carnival of Brass

    • Get The Carnival of Brass RSS


    • Get the Brassfeed RSS

    Islamic Resources


    Powered by TypePad
    Member since 08/2003