Pervez Hoodbhoy - Tracing the Roots of Religious Extremism

[Toramana]

@Toramana

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them"

Qur`an 21:30

Isn't this clear evidence of the Big Bang?

Can you tell me what do "heavens" and "parted" mean in that verse? These are pretty absurd/ambiguous words/phrases (science requires rigorous and unambiguous definitions preferably in mathematical language than vague statements). It is not that simple you are making it out.

For your information, Hindu believers have made the same about the big-bang i.e., it was predicted in Hindu scriptures.

[Hakim Khan Urgonai]

Can you tell me what do "heavens" and "parted" mean in that verse? These are pretty absurd/ambiguous words/phrases (science requires rigorous and unambiguous definitions preferably in mathematical language than vague statements). It is not that simple you are making it out.

For your information, Hindu believers have made the same about the big-bang i.e., it was predicted in Hindu scriptures.

heavens = sky
parted = divided / broken up into pieces

so you are calling words of the qur`an absurd? not much of a sufi now are you?

i am not denying hindu claims, i am pointing you towards islam which you hate.

[Toramana]

I think you should read the answers to these claims below.

"Objection 1: If it was indeed the case those scriptures contain scientific facts and principles then we wouldn't need popular science books to explain scientific facts to common people. Instead the verses of the scriptures which are claimed to represent scientific facts and principles could be compiled and published as an "Introduction to Science". There is no doubt that if those vague verses are indeed compiled and edited (omitting God or prophets and other holy references) and then published as a science book, these books will not even be published, even if it is, no one will buy it. It is a sure failure, that's why it has never been attempted by the apologists. These verses cannot stand on their own merit as anything close to even a popular exposition of scientific facts and principles, let alone as accurate scientific statements.

Objection 2: If Qur’an is a book of science, then what branch of science is this? Physics ? Chemistry ? Biology ? Social science? Library science? Political science? No answer. [1] Islamic scholars can only give the answer in the line of technological/medical science relating blurry wordings of the book with practical examples of embryology, astronomy, Big-Bang etc. Moreover, if one considers Qur’an as a scientific book then, they should be able to show us at least one scientific principle that is disclosed in the Qur'an without using any mumbo jumbo words and hocus pocus boring tricks of difficulty with confusing translation of the Qur'an. They should be able to tell us where in the Qur'an one can find the laws of gravitation, laws of planetary rotation, principle of atomic structure of matters, the periodic table of elements, theory of relativity, geological science and which chapter of Qur’an deals with the modern science of aerodynamics, genetics engineering and inter-planetary travel, and elucidation of genetic code etc [2]. We fail to ascertain any meaningful direction. Moreover, If a perfect book written by a perfect God having intention to reveal a scientific idea, it should not have been so vague and metaphoric, but accurate and scientific enough that it can be put in a physics /chemistry/biology textbook without the need of any change. Not a single verse in the Holy Books contain even one scientific term, like atom, electron, cloning, Theory of relativity, Uncertainty principle etc. A "perfect" book cannot be lacking in precision so much [3]. In fact, the term “Islamic Science” popularly quoted in Islamic web-sites and articles by the Islamic scholars is also flawed in nature, if we consider the basic definition of science, not scienticism per se. Pakistani Nobel laureate Physicist Dr. Abdus Salam, wrote in forwarding letter of Dr. Parvez Hoodboy’s book [16]:

“There is only one Universal Science; its problems and modalities are international and there is no such thing as Islamic Science just as there is no Hindu Science, nor Jewish Science, no Confucian Science, nor Christian Science".

This is the inherent beauty of science - the scientists can speak the same language irrespective to their races, religion or nations, and the language is science itself. Nobel laureate Physicist Steven Weinberg also remarked in the same manner [17]:

"The experience of listening to a discussion of Quantum field theory or weak interactions in a seminar room in Tsukuba or Bombay gives me a powerful impression that the laws of physics have an existence of their own.”

The concept of Islamic science is therefore faulty in light of science.

Objection 3: If one insists that the verses of scriptures are literally word of Allah (God) who is omnipotent and omniscient then one is forced to conclude that Allah as a perfect being is even a worse science writer than humans and if Allah really wanted to communicate scientific facts and principles to his mortal creations, humans He failed miserably. Nobody discovered or understood those scientific facts and principles until humans discovered them on their own with no help from the verses. And as the words of a perfect being, the scientific accuracy of the verses should have been of such magnitude and objectivity that their could not be any scope of any dispute about them among humans and all would accept them like they do all the scientific principles discussed in science text books."

This is the stance of some one below. This doesn't mean I have any opinion about it. I have just posted it.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/avijit/Quran_miracle.htm

[Friend]

To your whole mindset and whatever it has in it. Quran is not a book of science and science could not prove a single verse of the Quran to be untrue.
Quran is a book to get salvation in this life and the life after death.

[Toramana]

1. Qur'an foretells about Big bang.

[al-Anbiya' 21:30] Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, ....



Some Muslim interpreters tries to relate the above mentioned sura with Big-Bang. But does it really depicts any fact about Big-bang at all? Lets look the next verses to understand the Qur’anic image ...

21:30 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?

21:31 And We have placed in the earth firm hills lest it quake with them, and We have placed therein ravines as roads that haply they may find their way.

21:32 And we have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.

For further clarification let us also quote verse from Sura Al-Rad (13:2)

Allah it is Who raised up the heavens without visible supports, then mounted the Throne, and compelled the sun and the moon to be of service, each runneth unto an appointed term; He ordereth the course; He detaileth the revelations, that haply ye may be certain of the meeting with your Lord.

It looks like a very primitive image on the relationship between the heavens and earth. After Allah raise up the heavens on unseen pillars, and put down the earth, he put the mountains on the earth to not quake, like putting a heavy thing on a piece of paper to not fly?! Allah make the sky a roof withheld to not fall on people head?! How he do so? By putting the heavens on unseen pillars!! How could one pass these as twentieth century science? Still more strange is this part of verse 21:30:…the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then we parted them, …..’ If these few words are really the proof of ‘Big-Bang’, then one may legitimately ask; where is the mention of the huge explosion? The word ‘Big-Bang’, itself, is very significant here. Where do we find the sign of that famous ‘Bang?’ [5]

Moreover, Big Bang in Physics refers to the explosion of SPACE-TIME SINGULARITY (not matter). Matter was not even created when Big Bang happened. Earth was formed billions of years after the Big Bang. The above verses are clearly referring to earth and sky being "joined" (which doesn't even have a common sense or scientific meaning) together and then being split apart (again no scientific or common sense meaning), forget about comparing it to Big Bang!

A scientifically and common sensually meaningless statement like - "sky and earth being joined and subsequently separated" cannot be suggested as hinting to the scientific facts of Big Bang! In fact, why the idea is put in such form in Qur’an can be easily guessed. Such kind of idea that the heavens and earth were once joined and then separated by the activity of Gods and Goddesses was actually quite common among pagans of the Middle East. Among the Egyptians for example, it was the involuntary separation of Geb (the earth god) from his wife and sister Nut (the sky goddess) that was responsible for the division of the earth from the sky. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh likewise describes the moment “when the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens” as a result of the separation of a sky God (An) from a earth Goddess (Ki). If you remove the pagan references, you have the same story as found in the Qur’an [10].

Again, from Quantum theory we know that moments after the explosion occurred, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force" (Wald). Where are those indications in those verses of Qur’an? How can someone derive Hubble's Constant from those verses ? How can some one calculate red shift ? How can we measure Doppler shifts? No answer.

If there is no answer of those scientific enquiries, how can one make himself convince that those verses actually describing big bang, not the partition of an egg before making an omelet?

On a side note, I want to add, Nobel laureate Physicist Dr. Abdus Salam once warned us against people trying to explain Big Bang using verses from Qur'an [15], saying that the current version of Big Bang is the best known scientific explanation for the creation of the universe. What if a better scientific explanation than Big Bang is found tomorrow? Should the verses be changed to accommodate the new scientific view? Certainly it is not possible; thus it shows the inherent contradiction such attempt leads to. Religious revelations can never vindicate or falsify science. The truth or falsity of a scientific principle lies within science itself.

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/avijit/Quran_miracle.htm

[Friend]

Quran don't have to prove it to you lol. Quran has given a ready made invention for which science has spent hundreds of years.

[Toramana]

To your whole mindset and whatever it has in it. Quran is not a book of science and science could not prove a single verse of the Quran to be untrue.
Quran is a book to get salvation in this life and the life after death.

In Quran, it says one should resume fasting when dark separates from the light (sahar) and break it when light separates from the dark. Now on the north and south pole, sun never sets ---means you are fasting forever---(Doesn't God didn't know how length of days and night changes with latitude/longitude?).

You should have solved the problems of qibla and citing of Eid moon by now if there were much science there.

Anyhow, emkhan, I agree Quran should not be called a book of science---It should simply be considered a book of morality. And it is not the purpose of Science to prove or disprove Quran. So saying that is absurd.

[Toramana]

In fact I have heard these ridiculous claims from scholars of Islam repeatedly ---i.e., assigning authenticity to Quran by trying to find versus that in some way can be linked to scientific discoveries (Scientists discover things and then these scholars search the Quran ---and say oh, it is already here...One gets appalled by the share degree of ridiculousness, ignorance, and self-delusion).

The other thing they do is to try to appear scientific and therefore more authentic as this dude Hamza above did. I remember when I was a college student, members of Islami Jamiat Talaba would approach me and say how scientific Tafhimul Quran is and how it interprets Quran in terms of chemistry, physics, biology, etc. and would praise Mulana Muadudi to be both a scholar and scientist.

Later when this Dr Tahirul Qadiri emerged his followers would claim he knows physcis, micobiology, genetics, etc. etc. and is a scientist apart from a scholar as well.

[Friend]

In Quran, it says one should resume fasting when dark separates from the light (sahar) and break it when light separates from the dark. Now on the north and south pole, sun never sets ---means you are fasting forever---(Doesn't God didn't know how length of days and night changes with latitude/longitude?).

You should have solved the problems of qibla and citing of Eid moon by now if there were much science there.

Anyhow, emkhan, I agree Quran should not be called a book of science---It should simply be considered a book of morality. And it is not the purpose of Science to prove or disprove Quran. So saying that is absurd.

Is there any human or animal life on those extreme north and south poles ?

[Karachi]

hoodboy is a naive, he is also an american puppet.

[Toramana]

Is there any human or animal life on those extreme north and south poles ?

May be not but you cannot rule out the possibility of humans populating that place. At some points where humans live nights and days are much longer sometimes months longer.

What if humans made it to some other planet with other variations of days and night.

[Toramana]

hoodboy is a naive, he is also an american puppet.

I think he is a very knowledgeable person and wishes that Muslim societies become stronger and scientific through political and ideological pluralism and rationality and scientific thinking. But alas, Mullahs are bringing Muslim societies down. Who knows this guy Hamza who debated with Dr Pervez Hoodbuy is a mole implanted in Mulsim societies to make Muslims more begotic and unscientific?

[Friend]

May be not but you cannot rule out the possibility of humans populating that place. At some points where humans live nights and days are much longer sometimes months longer.

What if humans made it to some other planet with other variations of days and night.

What may be ? Where you science gone now ? Fasting is for human beings and not icy mountains.
Science does not believe in "may be". So don't bring may bees. Prove human life on other planets then we will talk.
Thanks

[Toramana]

What may be ? Where you science gone now ? Fasting is for human beings and not icy mountains.
Science does not believe in "may be". So don't bring may bees. Prove human life on other planets then we will talk.
Thanks

This only shows your ignorance (one-dimensional thought). Science is based on skepticism where you don't give a definite statement until the validity of something is established by empirical evidence or theoretical indication. In Science, if you don't have the evidence, you don't say no or yes (it is gray not black-and-white). Science is not religion to give absolute statements.

Whether north and south poles will be populated is not certain. However, one can conjecture that as human population and also its needs for more resources would expand, humans may populate the north pole as well. There are many places on earth un-populated but inhabited later as human population expanded.

But there are places near north and south pole where humans live and where nights and days last for months e.g., Siberia). Now your argument flattens there.

[Friend]

This only shows your ignorance (one-dimensional thought). Science is based on skepticism where you don't give a definite statement until the validity of something is established by empirical evidence or theoretical indication. In Science, if you don't have the evidence, you don't say no or yes (it is gray not black-and-white). Science is not religion to give absolute statements.

Whether north and south poles will be populated is not certain. However, one can conjecture that as human population and also its needs for more resources would expand, humans may populate the north pole as well. There are many places on earth un-populated but inhabited later as human population expanded.

But there are places near north and south pole where humans live and where nights and days last for months e.g., Siberia). Now your argument flattens there.

That is what I am saying. Don't bring scientific theories because theories changes. Established scientific fact or principle is something can be discussed.
You better bring some evidence that people even Muslims inhabit there.