Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
I hope that people find this paper of use. What I found both fascinating and
encouraging was some of the responses that Muslims made to it. I had several
who actually agreed with what I had said, and disagreed with their fellows who
had been trying to use this polemic to promote the Qur’an.
2
For example, a Muslim called AbdulraHman Lomax wrote of point 4 above "this
is, in fact, the reason why our scholars generally reject the efforts to proclaim
‘science in the Qur'an’" and concluded his reply to my post with the words
"Basically, *Andy is right.*".
Finally, for those who are interested, here are the links to the original debate in
the archives of the soc.religion.islam newsgroup:
• The posting from Suleiman that started it all.
• My reply to Suleiman and his friend Abujamal (basically the text of this
paper).
• AbdulraHman Lomax’s reply to me.
Please feel free to use and/or distribute any part of this paper. If you have any
comments or suggestions, then do please email the author at
andybannister@mac.com.
"The above verse of Quran clearly refers to the meeting between big rivers
and the larger seas and oceans, where the river in some cases goes in the sea
water for miles without mixing between the two entities of water. it is a well
recognized phenomenon these days by scientist, also, the Quran clearly and
undeniably points out to the reason for that, sweetness of one and saltiness of
the other, in modern scientific terms, its differences in specific gravity between
the two entities, which is also the explanation provided by modern scientist."
(Suleiman, in thread "Scientific facts and Qur’an", soc.religion.islam, 4-Nov-99;
online source)
However, when you compare the various English translations of the Qur’an, you
begin to see that the verse is not talking about rivers, but bodies of water,
according to the Arabic (I have a Muslim to thank for pointing this out to me):
YUSUFALI: It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One
palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier
between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though
they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar
and a forbidding ban between them.
SHAKIR: And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that
subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and
between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.
Now in order for a "modern scientific" interpretation to work, one has to insist
these are not two seas or sheets of water, but that one is a river. The Arabic does
not make that distinction. Why is this important? Because in order to find modern
science in this verse, Suleiman et al have to insist that one body of water is a
river (fresh water) and that one is an ocean (salt water). They can then introduce
the idea of rivers of fresh water flowing into the seas and not mixing. Now, laying
aside the issue of whether (as I would claim) or not (as Suleiman et al would
claim) these two waters mix, there is a more fundamental issue. If the Arabic
does not specify one is a river, then there is a much simpler interpretation:
1 The first "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" (in Arabic) in question is the
Red Sea (close to Mecca and Medina) and known to Muhammad,
which is salt water.
2 The second "sea" or "body of water" or "bahr" in question could be any
local sheet of fresh water (plenty of oases to choose from).
3 These two "seas" or "bodies of water" or "bahr" are separated by land;
this is the impassable barrier.
4 Hence Sura 25:53 was actually a comment by Muhammad on the
wondrous miracle (as he saw it), that Allah has seen fit to separate
fresh and salt water.
4
This interpretation has a number of advantages going for it over the position put
forward by Suleiman and others who would claim a modern scientific miracle in
this verse. The advantages are:
In order to use Sura 25:53 to support the "modern science proves the Qur’an"
position, then this latter interpretation needs to be rejected in favour of the
former, with no real arguments in favour of the former interpretation other than it
must be right because it is a miracle! (Note: Suleiman’s interpretation does not
show that the Qur’an contains a miracle, merely that his interpretation of it is
something special).
You see, elsewhere in the Qur’an, when it speaks about a subject it is crystal
clear. Consider Sura 3:2:
"Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal. " (Yusuf
Ali)
Nobody could argue other than that this verse is claiming that Allah is the only
god, who is living, self-subsisting, and eternal. It is very clear as to what it means.
If a "scientific miracle" exists in the Qur’an, then it would be a wonderful proof of
the divine authorship that Muslims claim for it. Yet apparently this miracle is
buried away, requiring clever exegesis and interpretation to find it. Somehow this
doesn’t add up, does it? If Allah had meant for there to be science in the Qur’an,
it would have been written clearly.
Now, as the "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument has become so
popular in the last 30 years, verses have been quoted at a massive rate. Let us
6
assume that 20 new verses per year are put forward as containing science. That
means (given the 30 years figure) over 90% of such verses have already been
used up, and in less than 5 years time, there will be no more source material. Do
you see what this means? Looking back in 10 years time, over Muslim history
from 700AD - 2010AD, people will see that the Qur’an allegedly spoke to modern
science from 1970 - 2002 and then fell silent on the subject; that revelation ran
out. What does this tell us? That the "modern science proves the Qur’an"
argument is a modern polemic, limited to a small time frame, that will soon burn
itself out as the source material dries up.
4) At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur’an" polemic
does not find science in the Qur’an, rather it uses science to judge the
Qur’an
The arguments in the soc.religion.islam newsgroup over the exact meaning of
Sura 18:86 prove this point marvellously. Here is that particular passage again:
"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky
water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,)
either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."" (Yusuf Ali)
Now of course no Muslim would claim that this verse was supposed to contain
science. Why? Because we, at the beginning of the 21st century, know full well
that a man cannot reach the place where the sun sets. Why, given a fast enough
aeroplane, one can even "chase" the sunset (or indeed overtake it). And of
course we know full well that the sun certainly does not reside in muddy puddles,
lakes, or in any other body of water. Fine. But here comes the rub: what Muslims
have done in using this polemic is to use science to judge the Qur’an. Those
verses that appear to be scientific are proclaimed as a miracle, those verses that
appear to contradict it are stated to be metaphysical, or metaphoric, or whatever.
For example:
Do you see the problem? Muslims claim that the Qur’an is God’s final revelation,
containing guidance for living and all that is true. Yet those who pursue the
"modern science proves the Qur’an" argument inherently contradict this
7
fundamental tenet of Islam. Logically, they have to claim that science, not the
Qur’an, is the ultimate truth, and use the former to judge the latter.
wants us to live? Perhaps they need to read elsewhere to get the full picture?
And so on. The "modern science proves the Qur’an" argument destroys the
authority of the Qur’an.
Conclusion
It is impossible to argue a position in isolation. There are always consequences,
implications of the position you choose to hold or preach. And this is true of the
"modern science proves the Qur’an" argument. For many Muslims it sounds very
nice and neat in theory, and if it were true it would indeed be a proof of the
Qur’an. However, for a Muslim who chooses to use the polemic, the logical
consequences are dire; it is restrictive, it demotes God, it sets up science as a
higher standard than the Qur’an, it doesn’t prove anything at the end of the day,
and above all, it removes the Qur’an’s authority over anything. As a polemic it is
both weak and dangerous, and as such I believe best avoided by Muslims.