what scientific evidence from the Quran was not known to the peers of its time?
-
Peace all. I think it was Micheal foucault,the philosopher,who stated that science/knowledge does not always exist in a vacum,or is not always free from bias...In other words the 'establishments' scientific theories,religious theories,historical accounts,and propogation of 'public knowledge' are sometimes maintained or promoted just to consolidate the power of the elites/establishment/ and keep the status quo/keep the masses ignorant...This seems to me what certain parties are doing,just trying to make the quran/their wishes/their philosophies seem superior to other methodologies.....BUT we,THE PEOPLE,will not fall for this... bravo yay sun INCREASE THE PEACE... group
Peace,
This is funny, as the Quran coincides with all main science that is know now, and all of these scientists don't believe in the Quran, so your comment would have worked if it were muslim scientists....so you THE PEOPLE, need to check first if a comment fits with the argument or not
-
Peace arnoldyasin. If you follow the argument,you will see that this means that SOME established science is embellished/mis-interpreted by the power elites, (be they muslim or not.) and these mis-interpretations are seized upon by people trying to justify the qurans correlation with science...
Also many people of 'islamic' background like to say that much modern science (algebra,medicine etc...) comes from the 'golden' period of islamic civilisation.....You think all those 'islamic' scientists were un-biased,and didint have a vested interest to promote the validity of the quran....?.
When you look at certain history,you can see that some of the mutazilites put reason above the quran,and stated if a verse contradicts reality it must be re-interpreted. (or even 'rejected'....Its just that 'traditional' history either 'obscures',or hides these important events...
You tell me,if the climate is such that a scientist would be ostracised,imprisoned or worse for discovering contradictions/opposition to science in the quran (such as during certain periods in history,when 'extremists' were in power.) do you think that a scientist would say 'hey abdul,i found this verse contradicting science' openly...? Yet what he said can be documented in history... Read tariq alis book 'clash' of fundamentalisms,and other oriental and 'islamic' history to see 'other' versions,maybe more complete than the 'edited','bleached' history we have from normal sources...
Also did you read phoenixs' post about the saudi government misquoting scientists,and mis-using their theories to justify the quran/their power base....That is exactly what foucault was talking about...
By the way,where is the mordern research from MUSLIM scientists Proving their claims ?(or are some muslims believing in this science blindly,just because it seemingly agrees,or can be interpreted to be in line with their book?.)
Im going to put a new thread in about why modern technology is not mentioned in the quran,because the question has gone TOTALLY un-answered in this thread...(even though its claimed to be a book relevant for all time,and supposedly contains scientific facts.)
Peace all. -
Peace,
Of course there is some truth in your statement, but 'main' stream science had to prove a lot of theories, till now they have not been refuted, and a lot of new theories that are still doubted and not accepted by the main stream, but do coincide with the Quran. A lot of scientists are or athiests or christains, and their findings prove a design and thus show there must be a Designer, so the atheists don't like this, but still share their findings even though it goes against their beliefs, the same holds for the Christians, even though their findings also shows a design, it also shows that the Bible's creation story is only a babylonian myth and the years between adam and jesus are not true , so also their findings go against their beliefs and shows their scripture cannot be the exact word of God. The persons who discovered the traces of the big-bang were athiests and knew this would disprove most atheistic claims, they knew it showed a beginning of space, and by thus a sign of creation. One of them even said "If you believe, you could see in this the face of God". So even it went against their own beliefs, they still shared their findings. This is only one example of the thousands i could mention where scientists shared findings that went against their beliefs. Of course not all of them do this. But a lot have done it. And those findings do coincide with the Quran....
So to say that all claims are only made to proof certain statements is certainly not true. As it doesn't serve no real cause or politics. And the Saudi's even promoted a flat earth 30 years ago, so your claim is again not completly true, as they followed the hadiths more. A lot of hadith goes against the Quran and show the ignorance of those times about science, still those hadiths are held as true. So why then did people uphold 'science' hadith that went against the science in the Quran, but using your claim only promoted science that coincided with the Quran? These contradict. If they were really scared of contradicting the Quran by your claim, then they would have treated the hadiths with the same attitude, because they didn't show their ignorance of scientific facts in those times.
Also that is why the claim that the Quran just copied known science of that time cannot be true, as all hadith show their ignorance of scientific truth's that contradict the Quran. If it were real common knowledge or avaible knowledge, then these contradictions and ignorance wouldn't have ended up in the hadith literature. We would have seen the same knowledge ending up in hadith, but we only see the opposite, which directly shows they didn't understood the facts mentioned in the Quran.
Peace
-
Peace arnoldyasin. You make some interesting points.
Some hadith do agree with the quran,especially those on embryology. Not all hadiths contradict the quran by any means...
Im not saying ALL scientists follow the government line,or have vested interests...
But the quran/habith/bible/scriptures/philosophies are DEFINATELY used by some people to hold on to their power and justify their theories/behaviours....And to give it more legitimacy,SOME of them INTERPRET the quran so that it agrees with science,or PICK the science that seemingly agrees with the quran. (or use some of the more 'vague',ambiguous verses.) Im not saying for one minute than there is NO scientific truth in the quran....
Do you think that if a mainstream islamic scholar in saudi stood up and said that the quran was wrong,(or the hadith) that he would be warmly welcomed for his research...?
And ARE there any western non-muslim scholars that think the quran is not scientifically correct? Because if there are, (and you and me know there are many.) then why dont you take note of their theories and explanations as to why the quran is not scientifically correct?
Or are you telling me that a MAJORITY of scientists believe the quran is 100% correct scientifically.....
Peace all. -
Peace,
Yes, we can see this behaviour with the Christain creationists who are trying to prove a young earth or that humankind only excists for 5000 years. As for non-muslim scientists who don't believe contain scientific facts, are not doing that based on it contradicting science, but that they just don't believe that a 1400 year old book can contain that. So they refuse to see a connection between the Quranic explanation and the scientific explanations. So there has not been a real scientists trying to disprove the connection, they just push it away and don't wanna look at it.
As for some hadith coinciding the Quran, the embryology in the Quran is really clear and obvious, so it doesn't surprise me people used the Quranic facts to make up these hadiths. But this argument doesn't hold as all the rest of more then 40 scientific facts in the Quran are not mentioned in the hadiths, or the hadiths even contain ignorant claims on natural phenoma that the Quran doesn't have. So we can clearly see they didn't understand the Quranic facts, and ignored them.
-
Peace arnoldyasin. So not ONE genuine (except mr maurice bucaille,who is now muslim? ) 'non-muslim' scientist has made a proper study on the science in the quran,and all the other non-muslim scientists just ignorantly refuse to believe a 1400 year old book can contain recent scientific theories...?
And even if they did a 'genuine' study,...which 'objective' translation/interpretation would they use, and take to study....? I can see people 'modifying' the interpretations to suit the 'accepted' science...
Dogma/blind faith is indeed a very misleading endeavour...(not referring to you personally arnoldyasin.. .)
peace all. ps;not all scientists believe in the 'big bang',ive seen this theory used to justify the 'truth' of the quran...If the big bang theory is finally disproved,what does this mean for the quran...? Will it be re-interpreted to something else as in the past,or will it be proved wrong...? -
Peace,
No there are a lot of scientists who were confronted with the Quranic verses and were startled by them. Some believed in the Quran, others still don't know what to do with them.
And yes, some verses are twisted to suit a certain meaning, but this is not done with all of the verses. I have checked old translations from before 1920 and they all translate it the same which coincides perfect with the scientific findings.As for the Big-Bang, you will always find some people who neglect something even if all the proof shows otherwise. This is not proof for a claim being false.
-
Salaam Magi
Why do you take so great offence, by this simple persuit of knowledge?.
Anyone else?
On the contrary. I was simply trying to establish what it is that you wish to pursue? If a discussion like this is to have any sensible meaning then clear bondries have to be defined. So I shall try again.
If your point is simply to illustrate that the Quran does not contain all the established scientific facts, the you are correct. There is not the slightest disagreement- THE END.
However if your point is that the Quran is fallible or contradictory because the possible scientific statements contained within are now proven to be incorrect. This is obviousouly a different issue and a serious discussion can take place around this. So if this is your point then surely you have to start dealing is facts and tell us what it is that in yout opinion is inaccurate in the Quran.
Salaam enquirer
And ARE there any western non-muslim scholars that think the quran is not scientifically correct? Because if there are, (and you and me know there are many.) then why dont you take note of their theories and explanations as to why the quran is not scientifically correct?
Or are you telling me that a MAJORITY of scientists believe the quran is 100% correct scientifically
.....You are no doubt correct in your assertion, but as I have previousouly stated so what. Anopinion is an opinion and NOT a fact. If you have facts to show why these scientists think the Quran is wrong then please share them and we can analyse them togather. Otherwise the discussion will just go around in circles (if it is not already doing so)
regards
-
peace
On the contrary. I was simply trying to establish what it is that you wish to pursue? If a discussion like this is to have any sensible meaning then clear bondries have to be defined.
I disagree, this is setting a goal for the debate from the beggining, and as such it is not truthseeking, but answerseeking within ones own comfortzone. Im pursuing knowledge, and truth, thats all. And it may take me where it may take me, even if its away from my comfort zone.
The question still stand. There is nothing in the Quran that wasnt known at its time. ZERO, nothing, null, nada, kein. And upper arabia being a central trade route shows that this knowledge is very likely to have passed here, as there was alot of different influences present. Then it was compiled, in the same way the Bible was, containing the knowledge of all sourrounding ideologies of the time, some invented and then some. And Arnold says that 100% is true, i disagree. Because of lot of that rely on fancyfull interpretation, and if thats the case. then bagha ghita is one long truth statement. But thats how it works isnt it, if you are allowed to fancyfully interpretate anything can become truth of the day. And if its written in a way that needs this kind of interpretration, whenever the actual truith changes (reality) beacause we learn something new verifyable, we just say our understanding was lacking "back then". If tahts the case, then its hardly a universal truth. So Arnold, what wasnt known at the time according to you?
Peace
-
Peace,
I made you a list in this thread. Go refute them one by one....Plus, you cannot explain, that if it was common knowledge in the time of Muhammed, how then the hadith contains zero scientific facts which are true, only the embryologic ones, which are direct copies form the koran and thus don't count. This is impossible if it were common knowledge among the traders.
-
Peace,
I made you a list in this thread. Go refute them one by one....
oh hell no i aint. And i told you allready why, and outlined the debateform. One by one, is it fancyfull translation etc.. to just link me to several pages echochambering eachother will not cut it. because several of those you DID pull out was disproven right away, so why must I be the one who bring out excactly what miracles were talking about ,when obviously the pages you used was biased to begin with, and not right? You are the one who belives in what these pages are telling you, not me. So show me what im missing out.
peace
-
Peace,
People all over the earth experience those same things, but all of them never came to these conclusions. Plus, no premature births, miscarriages, abortions, dead babies, etc.. doesn't give a precise order, as there are things mentioned that were impossible for them to observe. These are only a few facts which ALL were proven right, together with all the other facts, you have a list that cannot be ignored.... This argument is not good enough and is based on guesses as nowhere on earth did people make the same observations as you claim are so easy to make....
thats all good brother, but it wasnt the question. Im sure truth stands on its own, in fact, i know it does. Lets just take it one point at the time, in the above mentioned way.
You claim some things was impossible to observe, lets take those one at a time, take your pick. however?Ancient Indian theories lacked an empirical base, but they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics. ?
- A.L. Basham, Australian Indologist
peace
Yes i know, but let's see if all of these were known in the time of India....
See, its not taken either frmo scriptures from india, or any other place, its collaborated from all over the place. from several places, and it being a trade center. makes it not only possible, but plausible.
Peace
-
Peace,
Because i don't feel like posting them as they are more then 40. When i have more time i will do it. See where we will end. But you cannot explain how these 'common known facts' didn't end up in the hadiths....
-
Peace,
Because i don't feel like posting them as they are more then 40. When i have more time i will do it. See where we will end. But you cannot explain how these 'common known facts' didn't end up in the hadiths....
Peace
HOw do you know they didnt? I personally dont know anyone who managed to get through hadith from one end to another. yet alone study it enough to draw such conclutions. Or are we talking about the sahih hadith? which hadith ?
Altso im not talking about "common known facts". that is merely twisting my words. These scriptures ALWAYS passed hands between scholars. they where the ones that collected and wrote down what stories was in curculation.Altso i dont need ad hoc posts. If you feel there is more than 40, thasts fine, but lets just take them one at a time, nice and slowly. YOu dont have to find 40 and post them all at once. Just, one by one, will be fine.
-
peace
what I don't get is this
why would God give these poor people a book they didn't understand? I mean, all God needed to do was create an up to date book and then keep updating them as time went on. Why not that? why give people living 1400 years ago a book which contains knowledge that still isn't found today?
If I saw that book, and that's what my recent poll was about, I wouldn't be able to believe it.
Paganism made much more sense to those people. -
Peace,
If you look at islamic history, it shows that they didn't mind somethings were not known to them. Also a lot of verses which we recognize as containing scientific facts, they approached in a symbolic way. So there were not a lot of verses they felt were not for them to understand...
-
Peace,
If you look at islamic history, it shows that they didn't mind somethings were not known to them. Also a lot of verses which we recognize as containing scientific facts, they approached in a symbolic way. So there were not a lot of verses they felt were not for them to understand...
Arnold, your arguments are senseless and arrogantly defiant with denial. The ?mummification? and ?embryology? in the Quran has been badly refuted and shattered. Once you?ve read or browsed or searched within the texts of all the books mentioned below including the Bible, Talmud, Zabur, Dai Lama, Baghavat Gita and over 600,000 ahadith, then let us know if you still can?t find the things that only quran confesses otherwise in its mesmerizing futuristic and scientific dialogues that were unknown prior to quranic advent. Good luck. Better yet, research and read about some of the oldest poetry available on the web. There are loads of information to dig in before you start making frivilous claims about Quran.
Oldest books found long before Quran
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3696333.stmhttp//www.moorishgirl.com/archives/000371.html
http//www.antique-antiques.com/old-books-worlds-oldest-book.shtml
A good read about ?oldest book? referencing Islam?s denial and extremism
http//www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2240 -
Peace,
The Bible does contain some truth's about the rain cycle. The Talmud only contains correct observations of the planets movements as what i have discovered now. The Zend Avesta itself contains no scientifical references. The psalms are the ones containing the rain cycle. The Daililama? which one, the one from now? Or the one from 1000 years ago? Whatever it is, not any of them have refered to scienitifical observations. The Bhagada-vita doesn't contain any reference to things that are linked with science. And till know, there have been only found correct references of the embryology in hadith, but those are just the Quranic verses said differently, for the rest all hadith that talk about scienitifical observations are so wrong it is even laughable, there are only a few medical observations in them.
The Veda's do contain some correct observations on solar movement and some observations on medical plants and vedic mathematics are still used today. And Reiki and other forms of medical science were developed like medicins are developed now. The Hopi indian legends do refer to the magnetic poles of the earth in a real profound correct observance, but for the rest their hymns only contain mystical approaches of nature which is also found in hindu, toa and buddist literature which are not scienitifical and don't refer to phenoma in nature, but their spiritual connection with them.As for the links you gave, what has that to do with this discussion or even my ideas? Did i ever claim the Quran to be the oldest book or anyone here on the forum? So useless information and argument. Those books have nothing to do with books containing scientifical knowledge.
As for the Egyptian sunni culture being non-tolerant, this is the sunni thinking, not Quranic thinking, big difference. And you know this. Is like saying, i am german so i got to be a Nazi. This has again nothing to do with the conversation and even with the Quran as it is based on mideavel thinking.
So you don't bring in any substance to this discussion. please come back when you do have something substancial...
Magi, we will discuss certain ideas one by one over time.
peace
-
As for the Egyptian sunni culture being non-tolerant, this is the sunni thinking, not Quranic thinking, big difference.
Sorry bro, the word "Egyptian" caught my eyes,
may I ask is the sunnis are only Egyptians?
I'm not saying you said that, I guess it was in one of those urls provided by danish?
Salam