The Muslim ummah needs to regain the spirit of wonder of the early Muslims whose faith in God soared under inspiration from Qur’anic revelations.
Muslims were aware of God’s benevolence in creating the universe with man as the khalifah (custodian) of the heavens and earth! God says: “He has subjected to you, as from Him, all that is in the heavens and on earth” (45:13).
The Muslim’s imagination on reading the Qur’an would be stirred by verses where Allah avers to natural phenomena, encouraging mankind to investigate. Islam as a science-friendly religion promotes investigation and technological advancement that contributes to human wellbeing.
Mohammad Iqbal wrote in Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam that for a long time Muslim scholarship was influenced by theory-oriented Hellenistic thought. The Qur’an eventually changed that and in this sense Iqbal characterised the Qur’an as ‘anticlassical’ in its focus on deductive reasoning.
Consequently, early Muslim scientists expanded the frontiers of science and technology and built the world-leading Islamic civilisation. A Muslim (natural) scientist inspired by the Qur’an would maintain a connection of science with spirituality whilst acknowledging the world’s divine origin.
The Qur’an refers to ‘ilm (knowledge) in the broadest sense; not separating knowledge of the manifested world from the unseen. God Almighty provides humanity with two books – kitab at-tadwini (written revelation) and kitab at-takwini (book of natural phenomena). Understanding from these two books deriving from one Source should obviously be in agreement. If they appear not so, then scientists need to revisit their theories since Muslims believe the Qur’an is flawless.
Muslim scientists have a great advantage over other scientists in that the Qur’an is without error. Verses on natural phenomena can yield true insights. Scholars believe that the Qur’an contains references to essential themes but does not go into details. It however provides numerous insights in more than 750 verses on natural phenomena.
Informed tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur’an depends traditionally on the Qur’an explicating other verses, and from the Sunnah, Arabic language, and Prophet’s Companions. These would also be investigated regarding scientific exegesis of the Qur’an, Tafsir ‘Ilmiy.
Classical scholars applied this approach, including al-Jahiz (776-869). The great Qur’an commentator, al-Razi (1149-1209) used scientific knowledge in his Mafatib al-ghayb (Keys to the Unknown). From Allah’s title, rabbil ‘aalameen (Lord of the worlds) in surah Al-Fatihah, he proposed that many ‘universes’ existed rather than the one known – the Milky Way. Other galaxies were confirmed much later using powerful Hubble telescopes.
Among the most impressive ‘scientific’ verses are those describing human foetus developments in the womb (32:8-9): “Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him of His spirit. And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling (heart)”. These clearly prefigure more recent findings of the true sequence of organ appearance in the foetus – first ears, then eyes, and finally heart.
As a young scientist, my own experience in realising the Truth and so embracing Islam resulted partly from being shown Qur’anic verses accurately describing natural phenomena. My faith increased on reading verse 21:30: “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and earth were joined before we clove them asunder? … Will they not then believe?” As a student being taught on the origin of the universe, the “Steady state theory” now considered obsolete, was still accepted. Only subsequently did the “Big bang theory”, closely compatible with Qur’anic statements, gain prominence.
The Muslim world is on the doorstep of important advances in Qur’anic-inspired scientific understanding. Close collaboration between scholars of revelation (‘Ulama) and scholars of natural phenomena (‘scientists’), particularly those capable of crossing tadwini /takwini boundaries, can recapture the initiative for a new Islamic enlightenment of religious-inspired scientific understanding.
Yes there are two revelations from God. The Qur’an and the Book of Nature. Now Daud takes the point of view that there are scientific revelations in the Qur’an and that the findings of science should not conflict with the Qur’an. If they do then scientists need to rethink their ideas.
The problem with this is that Muslims find science in the Qur’an which is simply not there. His example of embryology is a case in point. These interpretations of embryology in the Qur’an are factually incorrect. In fact the type example of this occurs in the source book for these claims, the third edition of the text book “The Developing Human” by Keith Moore. This is a special edition published in 1983 by Saudi Arabia and contains “Islamic additions” by the Saudi-based scholar, Abdul-Majeed Azzindani. These additions conflict in a number of places with the actual textbook and in one case reduces a century of careful research with important medical and practical applications to irrelevancy.
A careful examination of many of the so-called scientific claims for the Qur’an show similar major errors. The problem is not a conflict between the Qur’an and science with science having to yield. It is a lack of understanding of both the Qur’an and science. Even more dangerously it shows ignorance of the way science works. A little over 500 hundred years ago everybody knew that the Earth was flat and that the sun moved around the earth. Several years ago a well known Muslim scholar echoed these same views and declared that the Qur’an affirmed them. Well if the Qur’an affirmed them and science now clearly confirms the earth is not flat and that it moves around the sun then science has disproved the Qur’an.
The fact is that yesterdays interpretation of the Qur’an may not be today’s interpretation, just as yesterday’s science may be shown as wrong by today’s science. To link the Qur’an to a changing enterprise like science is dangerous for this reason.
Daud has overlooked the very important work of another Muslim scholar Ibn Rushd who addressed the very problem of this conflict. Like Daud and in fact myself, Ibn Rushd agreed that there should be no conflict between the Qur’an and science. In the case of Ibn Rushd he was actually addressing philosophy from which science developed. In his Kitab Fasl al Maqal, Ibn Rushd sets out a method for resolving apparent conflict. He recommends looking at the understanding of both science and the Qur’an to see if changes are needed in one or both. If the conflict is not resolved this way he recommends making no changes rather leaving the matter as undecided and agreeing to disagree until a better understanding is achieved. The last thing you do is throw out perfectly good practical science because it conflicts with what may be an incorrect understanding of the Qur’an or throw out the Qur’an because of an apparent conflict with science,
Brief Response to Gary Dargan Comments:
Although knowledgeable in aspects of the relationship between science and the Qur’an, Gary is mistaken in his criticism of my article. We do agree that the Qur’an is not a science textbook. But God surely draws our attention in more than 750 verses to natural (scientific) phenomena, asking us to ponder on their significance as God’s signs (ayaat).
I draw the reader’s attention to the Qur’anic verses (32:8-9) where Allah Ta’ala mentions sexual propagation and follows in presenting the exact sequence (as expected from the Supreme Intellect) of embryonic development in a developing foetus – ears, eyes and ‘feelings’ (heart), as confirmed by medical science. This is self-evident and I am not referring to any supposedly flawed treatise mentioned by Dargan, but to the majestic Qur’an.
He says, “A little over 500 years ago everybody knew that the Earth was flat and the sun moved around the earth”. This is factually incorrect. The great Muslim scholar and arguably the world’s first modern scientist, Muhammad al-Biruni (973-1048), believed the earth was round and at age 30 measured its radius as 6339.6 kilometres, just 38 km less than NASA’s measurement today of earth’s equatorial radius. Al-Biruni discussed the novel heliocentric concept held by a few Muslim astronomers before its confirmation by Europeans 600 years later. (See my article http://www.iais.org.my/e/attach/Al-Biruni.pdf) I do agree that there are some valid criticisms of the so-called ijaz (miracles) industry on science erroneously developed from Qur’anic verses.
Dargan faults me for not discussing Ibn Rushd’s work on seeking truth and resolving conflict vis-a-vis Qur’anic exegesis and scientific theories. I point out that AMUST articles must be brief (ideally 500 words) which does not allow exhaustive discussion of issues and perspectives on every topic.
Daud and I are singing the same tune but from slightly different sing sheets. He and I both agree that the Qur’an is the truth revealed by God. We both agree that many verses contain allusions to the other book, the book of nature. We both agree that the findings of science from the book of nature should not conflict with the Qur’an. Where we disagree is his statement that where they disagree, scientists should revisit their theories because the Qur’an is flawless.
I referred to Ibn Rushd because he dealt with just this problem and pointed out that any disagreement is not with the Qur’an itself but with the fallible human interpretation of the Qur’an. In other words we are required not to just rethink the science we also have to rethink our understanding of the Qur’an. Many of the classical tafsirs refer to the understanding of nature of the time to explain the meaning of verses. For Ibn Rushd this process of reviewing both could lead to fresh understanding of both. Where a conflict still existed he considered it to be a conflict of understanding which should stand until knowledge moved on and a fresh explanation could be found. He recognised the fluid nature of human knowledge changing and refining as we learn more about the world.
Daud acknowledges problems with the I’jaz “industry” and if anything I am more opposed to it than he is. It contributes nothing to the advancement of science and by marrying the Qur’an to a science which is subject to change and falsification, (a key foundation in modern science) it renders the Qur’an open to the same.
His claims about embryology are a case in point. My comments were about a book with “Islamic” additions which was used as a textbook in Saudi universities. These additions were packed with errors. While his reference to Qur’an 32:8-9 could refer to embryonic development it does not give an exact sequence of development and refers to more than just this process. Verses such as 23:12-14 can more appropriately be interpreted according the former Aristotelian view that conception took pace by the mixing of sperm and menstrual blood. As for the claim, made in the textbook, that the “lump of chewed flesh (Qur’an 23:5) refers to the somites, this is clearly wrong. The somites are distinct cellular structures which give rise to bone, muscle and connective tissue. In no way do they resemble chewed flesh.
Perhaps the most egregious error in the text book is the suggestion that the 23 stage Carnegie scale of embryonic development be replaced with a “simpler” 4 stage Qur’anic scale. The Carnegie scale is the product of nearly a century of careful research. It is used among other things to assess embryo development during ultrasounds and also in researching the causes of genetic abnormalities in developing embryos. The four Qur’anic stages are useless for this.
As for the flat earth and al-Biruni; yes he did suggest the earth was round and calculated its circumference. He was a brilliant scholar who also argued that the earth could move around the sun not vice versa as was the belief of the day. He did not however state that this was the case merely that this was an alternative explanation for astronomical observations. He also suggested that these observations could be explained by an egg shaped orbit rather than a spherical one. He prefigured Kepler’s later discovery of elliptical orbits but was clearly still wedded to the Ptolemaic idea of the planets moving on spheres. He also published a major treatise on astrology although he, himself didn’t believe in it.
We can contrast this with the situation in 1966 when the late mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz criticised Riyadh university for teaching that the Earth moved around the sun and claimed that the earth was flat. He based this on his understanding of the Qur’an and only changed his views after 1985 after discussions with Sultan bin Salman Al Saud the Saudi space shuttle astronaut. In this case a Qur’an scholar ceded his Qur’anic understanding to the evidence of science.