Talk:Islam and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Islam and science. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam and science article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Islam Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination: Keep, October 8, 2006, see discussion. Keep, October 2, 2006, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 Name change 2 Proposed merge 3 Proposed deletion 4 Islamic creationism 5 Quotefarm 6 Rename to "Embryology in the Quran" 7 Categories 8 Copyvio 9 This article needs a lot of work 10 my content being removed by Arrow 11 WSJ 12 What to do? WP:UNDUE and proposed fork article 13 Complaints about fork article 13.1 Defense of Bucailleism article title 14 Reliability? 15 Proposed merge 2 16 Sources for this article 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 17.2 Discussion 18 What happened to the Criticism section? 19 Proposed merge 3 20 POV-intro

[edit] Name change

This should be moved to Islam and science - the extra wording is uncecessary. -Ste|vertigo 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With appropriate disambiguation links at the top of the page (to Islamic science, for example) I'd support that. Arrow740 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the current title is the correct one.--Sefringle 04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could explain why, that would be great. -Ste|vertigo 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic science suggests that Islam is scientific, and thus is a POV, and is not the best title. Islam and science is too ambiguous. I find the current title the best.--Sefringle 02:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The present title may be just as ambiguous as islam and science - they are both quite open ended. How is the article's scope limited, in any case? Potatoswatter 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I would now support Islam and science.--Sefringle 05:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be moved to Islam and science. Not only is the article in the article unnecessary, the new title would also be more concise. — Emiellaiendiay 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article should be named as “A view on Islam and Science” rather than “The Relation Between Islam and Science”. Reason --- Well there are no supporting arguments for the other side and therefore writers approach to capture the complete relationship between Islam and Science is biased.For example the writer insists that Quran borrowed ideas from “Galen's scientific writings”. Only if the writer would have done a little more research other then a” copy past job” from other articles, he would have know that the person who brought the Quran was illiterate. There were no colleges or universities at that time that housed Greek teaching in their libraries. So how could he know about the existence of “Galen's scientific writings”? That only a well educated scholar can have.--Alisubhani 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad was not illiterate. Arrow740 02:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not clearing myself what I intended to say was that Muhammad (PBUH) didn’t know how to read or right and I will keep my position on what I said with regards to changing the title.--Alisubhani 13:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I recently found the article Islamic Science, which is very similar to this article. Should we move it here, considering they are the exact same topics?--Sefringle 06:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that one is basically about science done by Muslims. This one is different. Arrow740 06:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for a move to a different article that is more clear about the differences. Please offer your opinion at Talk:Islamic science#Requested Move--Sefringle 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and believe that this article should be merged in. The title "the relation between islam and science" promotes the agenda of finding as strong a relation as possible between known discoveries and islamic text. Meeting that agenda within the context of an article on the muslim world might better pass as encyclopedic. "science in the muslim world" can very reasonably accommodate both muslim scientists' view on religion and the muslim theological view on science, without alienating non-muslims by purporting to convey something more universal. Potatoswatter 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

This article continues to be ridiculous, and should be deleted as an embarrassment to what is supposed to be a respectable encyclopedia. Apart from the rants of a few cranks like Naik and Bucaille, there is actually no relationship at all, positive or negative, between Islam and science.Proabivouac 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your first sentence. Arrow740 07:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard to imagine how any philosophy that claims to explain life and the universe can have neither a positive nor a negative relationship to science. NN 10:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an is not a scientific book because it wasn't meant to be. --Aminz 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Parts of it were and are. Arrow740 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends upon how you look at it, if you are just reading it and taking it literally then good luck finding any scientific reference. However if you dig deep in it and give it some time then yes its does relate to scientific method of conclusion. And yes it does relate to science--- for those who can see ;-) -- Alisubhani 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

And for future reference, one needs to know Arabic in order to understand Quran fully because translations can be read and written in thousands of different ways. Because in Arabic a single word had multiple meanings, therefore Original (unchanged) Quran is only in Arabic and should only be referenced in Arabic. Any translation can not fairly represent the authenticity of Quran true meaning.-- Alisubhani 17:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Arrow740 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic creationism

lets see if we can add anything from this article here.--Sefringle 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotefarm

I've added this template because overone third of this article is quotes.--Sefringle 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC) This tag should stay until the quotefarm problem is fixed.--Sefringle^Talk 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Why don't you edit it? Arrow740 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to "Embryology in the Quran"

I think this article has failed to develop. Hence I suggest we rename it to "Embryology in the Quran". If no one object then I will move it myself. --- A. L. M. 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the majority of it is not about that. Arrow740 09:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Prehaps it is better to remove the unscholarly stuff and see if the information that remains is scholarly or not.--Sefringle^Talk 00:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good ideal! --- A. L. M. 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you both are forgetting the big fight over sources we had a long time ago. Arrow740 09:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I accept that you were right. --- A. L. M. 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming is not a good idea since the Qur'anic quotes are very few in the category.Mehfoos (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I suggest removing the category "Pseudoscience." At first glance it sounds like vandalism to me, but if anyone can defend it, please do. — Emiellaiendiay 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of vandalism. --- A. L. M. 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way. Arrow740 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Most of the content in the "Fossils of ancient humans" section was plagiarized from [1]. --Alksub 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a lot of work

It is repetitious, disorganized and focused with undue weight on "Bucailleism," which outside of the Musilm fundamentalist world is considered a laughingstock. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I had removed that crap a year ago. It's back. Let's just cut it. Arrow740 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my content being removed by Arrow

Arrow, if you keep removing my content, it's you who will be reported. The changes I have made are:

1. Remove : (convert to Islam) Maurice Bucaille, because is doubtful whether or not he actually converted to Islam.

This was my mistake. I will endevour to be more careful next time. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Remove the criticism content from "Belief that scientific facts are supported by the Qur'an" as there is a big criticism section right after it.
2. Added a see also link where it also elaborates on the Qur'an scientific miracles.

(Imad marie (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't know about the rest of all this, but I've never encountered any information which notes that Bucaille actually converted to Islam. The sources I've read point out specifically that he did not- something which, for myself and others, is the nail in the coffin for the sincerity of his claims. Also, I'm surprised that the extensive refutation of Bucaille's work by Dr. William Campbell is not even mentioned in part.--C.Logan (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It was agreed here that this article will not concentrate on Bucaille. And that the criticism will be put in its section. (Imad marie (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

The disputed paragraph doesn't contain criticism. It's just stating some facts about the movement. Arrow740 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article must not focus on Bucaille and Bucailleism, it must focus on the scientific miracles believe. and in my opinion, the funding of the movement is irrelevant.(Imad marie (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

In all honesty, a summary of the movement and the funding criticism can be placed if care is taken with presentation. Making the whole thing look like a digression would be ugly, but as Bucaille's work has been instrumental in the propagation of these supposed miracle connections, a criticism of his motivations may be worth mentioning. The possibility that the work of Bucaille could be a fraud is apparently relevant if the movement itself is treated with any sort of importance. As I'd said, if one is so inclined to include such information, it could fit, but only if done properly. I can't say for certain, but anything beyond two sentences on the matter seems a bit beyond what would be necessary for this piece of information. Of course, it is rather late, so my judgment might be off.--C.Logan (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Logan, I agree with you, are you willing to do the changes?

Arrow: Replying to your last contribution: You think that : "Critics have dubbed this belief 'Bucailleism'" does not contain criticism ?! (Imad marie (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

"Critics have dubbed this belief 'Bucailleism'" is a statement of fact. "Critics say 'Bucailleism' is in error" is a criticism --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the relationship between Islam and science. The critics appear to be criticizing Bucaille, not Islam (with respect to science). Thus, I favor moving criticism of Bucaille to the article on him.Bless sins (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An ingenious idea to get rid of the criticism but if we do that we should also move all mention of scientific facts within the Quran to that section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there has to be a distinction between those critiques which are against the notion of Islam and science, and those critiques which are against particular individuals. The section as it stands (as I mentioned below) is substantially larger than the discussion itself, and the focus on the 'techniques' of individuals is not without the taint of well-poisoning. Just my thoughts. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WSJ

Can someone please find a reliable link for the WSJ article "Strange Bedfellows: Western Scholars Play Key Role in Touting `Science' of the Quran"? A forum post on cafearabica.com is not sufficiently reliable for us to verify the article's contents, and I tried to visit the other link (msnbc) but it wasn't working. ITAQALLAH 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

you have to pay to look in online.wsj.com, so all copies outside that will be bootleg in one sense or another. Even so, this should be a stable link. rudra (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing any content that is referenced by cafe arabia (Imad marie (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I read the original article on a paid database and it is the same as the cafe arabia. There is no reason to remove it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you confirm that it's exactly the same. Another issue while we're on the topic: the criticism section is substantially larger than the section discussing "Bucailleism" itself, which IMO may therefore represent a slight WP:UNDUE problem. ITAQALLAH 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do? WP:UNDUE and proposed fork article

Should we spin off a new article on Bucailleism - since it is such a big issue in the Muslim world - and put all the information on (alleged) scientific facts found in Quran in it? We could restore the list of (alleged) scientific facts found in Quran that was deleted earlier so that the criticism section won't be WP:UNDUE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to create a new article, but the section on the tenets of Bucailleism would have to be sourced to reliable sources. Arrow740 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are sufficient reliable sources using this neologism or explaining it in any great detail to justify an article on the topic. Just my opinion. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article is Scientific facts believed to be supported by the Qur'an or similar wording, i.e. not claiming the facts were or were not actually proven to be predicted by the Quran, all we would need for sources is some of the Bucailleist web sites or books or what ever, agreed? --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the current criticism section poses a WP:UNDUE issue is because instead of directly commenting on specific examples it transforms into a discourse about the apparently suspect methods of "Bucailleists" (If we're referring to Zindani, then let's please just use his name), as if that's even central to the topic. I think it does little other than poison the well. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections I'm going to start an article on Bucailleism and shorten the criticism section. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a post on Jan 9 23:35 UTC related to this (the second reply to your comment). ITAQALLAH 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If people don't like the term Bucailleism, we can change it to something like List of alleged Qur'an scientific miracles, but it is a big controversial subject, a natural for a wikipedia article.

I hope my trimming down of the criticism answers your complaints about undue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by Bucailleism and what you intend to write in the new article, if you are willing to list the claimed miracles there is already an article doing that (Imad marie (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC))

Definition: Bucailleism, the belief that "the Qur'an prophesied the Big Bang theory, space travel and other contemporary scientific breakthroughs," --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a page that lists the alleged miracles. List of Qur'an scientific miracles (Imad marie (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC))

We'd need a more NPOV sounding name. If believers object to Bucailleism how about Scientific facts allegedly supported by the Qur'an or Scientific facts believed to be supported by the Qur'an or hopefully something shorter. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How about (List of alleged Qur'an scientific miracles)? and I think this section must not list ALL the alleged miracles, just the miracles that were claimed by the most known and credible sources (Imad marie (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Complaints about fork article

BoogaLouie, you have ignored ITAQALLAH's and mine comments and created the new article. first you used unreliable resources in the new article content. second you created a new article when there are old articles talking about the same subject (Imad marie (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

I must protest. What unreliable resources?

This article is a classic case of one aspect - whether the Quran predicts scientific discovery - overwhelming other issues - the development of science in Islam, the philosophy of science in Islam, etc. It is a natural for a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a great many Islamic websites alluding to the predictive miracles of the Quran (and Sunna). I venture to say most Islamic websites talking about Islam and science talk about the predictive etc., maybe almost all websites. Most of this article is or was about Bucailleism, not general issues of Islam and Science, especially before I started editing it. A google search for

International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an 

yields 54,800 hits.

PS, I have added the sources from your article that is up for deletion to Bucailleism.

Itaqallah, upon rereading your comment I see you are opposed to the Bucailleism article (although not very passionately it sounds like), not just the name Bucailleism. I hope that having deleted from this article the issue of "the apparently suspect methods of `Bucailleists`" gathering endorsements of Western scientists, (those alleged endorsements often given much prominence on Bucailleists websites), you aren't now in favor of deleting an article where the issue is discussed more appropriately. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, have a look at WP:NEO. I'm concerned that, barring this one discussion in this 'Strange Bedfellows' article, that this neologism hasn't received substantial discussion in other reliable source material (and I mean the word itself as opposed to the notion of science+Islam). ITAQALLAH 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not comfortable with how Bucailleism is being used as a placeholder for any material associated with Islam and science by people not necessarily associated with Bucaille or Zindani. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defense of Bucailleism article title

Bucailleism, is nice and concise - one word and specific.
The obvious alternative, Allegations of Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah is

1. long
2. uses the word "allegation" which in English usage carries the connotation of accusations of wrong-doing, as in "alleged murderer," something I don't think Muslims would find appropriate in connection with divine miracles in general or the Quran in particular. This could be changed to "belief in", but I don't think that has a wikipedia precident
3. Too vague. What are "scientific signs" or "miracles"? The miracles or signs are not "scientific," the alleged miracles are the predictions of scientific facts. Muslims who have been brought up with these teaching know immediately what it refers to, non-Muslims do not. To be accurate the title should be something like Allegations of Scientific Facts Predicted by the Quran and Sunnah --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to popularise neologisms. Discussing any claim of scientific miracle under the umbrella of Bucailleism is also original research, and it poisons the well. There's many title alternatives we may consider, but the issue is whether or not we should have an article discussing this neologism specifically as its topic. ITAQALLAH 16:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So what should we have? just an article on International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an? There are oodles of websites on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an (or Bucailleism), not just a conference. Do you see any problem with the status quo ante Bucailleism article - a huge issue in the Muslim world with no article on it wikipedia because to make one involves original research and using a neologism? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What content is unique to this article that isn't (or shouldn't be) covered elsewhere? The only truly unique content I see is this attack on the "methods" of Bucailleists which I personally think can be avoided if it's the complaint of one source, as opposed to something reported more systemically (i.e. as with Christian missionaries, for example). But I really doubt we need a separate article about "Bucailleism"- anything related to Bucaille himself or Zindani can be covered in their respective articles, and anything about Islam/science in general can be covered in the articles available on this topic already such as Qur'an and miracles, or The relation between Islam and science. ITAQALLAH 12:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another central problem is that you are equating "Bucailleism" with every expression of Islam+science. As 99% of sources don't do actually do that, we can discuss it without calling it "Bucailleism" or or without well-poisoning by associating it with Buccaileism. ITAQALLAH 13:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability?

Why is "Taner Edis. Ghost in the Universe. Quotes from page 14. Prometheus Books." a reliable source?Bless sins (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Mr. Maurice Buccaile and some of the other sources? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Taner Edis is a professor of Physics. He sounds pretty qualified to comment on Islam on first look. Search for the word Isla. He's had some publications too. Sounds more qualified than Maurice Buccaile and other apologists for sure, just by looking at his CV. I didnt know this guy had written a lot on Islam, thanks for pointing it out. I'll investigate more. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge 2

Due to the similarity of the two topics, the quran article should probably be merged here. Yahel Guhan 02:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "Quran and Miracles" or "Quran"? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant the quran and science article. Yahel Guhan 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I agree with the merge. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we have two (big enough) sections in two articles The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Qur.27an_and_Science_in_Muslim_thought and Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles that talk about the same topic. Also I believe that this topic (Qur'an and science) is important enough to create a separate article for it. (Imad marie (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

The quran article is not very big, and could easily be added in one section here (removing any repetition). Yahel Guhan 06:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I created this article is because we have two sections talking about the same topic. If we merge, are you suggesting that Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles link to The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an? Another reason for creating the article is that I believe that this topic (Qur'an and science) is important enough and might be expanded in the future... (Imad marie (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

I have a suggestion, the article Qur'an and miracles discusses the claimed scientific miracles of the Qur'an, and the scientific exegesis of the Qur'an, while the section in this article discusses the relation between Qur'an and science in other aspects, like that the Qur'an encourages the scientific knowledge, embryology ,or any other aspects. Does that sound right? (Imad marie (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Everyone got quite here... do we have a resolution? (Imad marie (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose. Article is comprehensive enough to be its own article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion This article is somehow badly written, what I suggest, is moving the related section (Specific science-related issues in the Quran and the Hadith) to Qur'an and science (after rewriting the section). And then we don't have much material left here, we can merge the article into Islamic science. Imad marie (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for this article

This can be useful if one has some free time in hand. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] What happened to the Criticism section?

Imad marie deleted it from Islam and Science, saying "put a summary, full content in main article," that article being Qur'an and science

So now the criticism of scientific revelation in the Quran in the article is one semi-coherent paragraph starting with a semiliterate sentence: "This believe is, however, arguable in the Muslim world, while some support it, other Muslim scholars oppose the believe, claiming that the Qur'an is not a book of science."

And in the "main article", Qur'an and science, after 20+ edits by Imad marie there is not longer any criticism section (or any other sections), and the criticism she transfered over to the article she has whittled down to gobbledigoop about "lexicographically untenable" and "neglects the contexts."

Thanks to the tireless effort of editors the article still embarasses wikipedia with its long rambling undue weight fantasy about Embryology, but thank goodness criticism has been reduced to one unreadable buried paragraph! --BoogaLouie (talk)

BoogaLouie, first I am a "he", Mari'e is an Arab male name.

Second, here is my edit where I removed the section, maybe I was not clear enough in my edit summery to explain this:

Is there a single word said on the talk page about why you gutted the article?

Take a look at some of the references used in the removed paraghraph: (http://www.infidels.org), (http://secweb.infidels.org), (http://www2.truman.edu). Are those reliable references? I think not. It was agreed with other editors that only high quality references shall be used for (Qur'an/miracles/science) topics. This is my opinion, if you disagree, then you are (and anyone is) free to edit the article. Imad marie (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee, Thanks

Why the rigorous criteria for sources for criticism, while Embryology section has what looks very much like original research and less than high quality sources such as Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, not to mention undue weight? Sure, anyone is free to edit, is that an excuse for a terrible article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We've had long discussions about that before. Some editors objected to me citing (Zaghloul Najjar) and (Maurice Bucaille) directly, and an agreement was made to use high quality references only. Imad marie (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge 3

This article is somehow badly written, what I suggest, is moving the section (Specific science-related issues in the Quran and the Hadith) to Qur'an and science (after rewriting it). And then we don't have much material left here, which we can merge into Islamic science. Imad marie (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

strongly against. Islamic science is about scientific advances in the Islamic World. Islam and science article is about the relationship between Islam and science. Islamic science is a very long and doesn't need an expanded subject to take on more text. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but suppose we move the (Specific science-related issues in the Quran and the Hadith) section to Qur'an and science then what do we have left? small poorly written material, which can easily be merged into Islamic science. IMO, this article is poorly written, and it's difficult to read and hardly presents information, if we merge, then information will be better presented. Imad marie (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an and science article should be merged here. Yahel Guhan 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the topic (Islam and science) has to offer that (Qur'an and science) does not? clearly the Muslims' view of science is centralized around Qur'an. I agree that the two articles should be merged, but I see the sources regarding this concentrating on the relation between Qur'an and science. Like we have Science and the Bible but we don't have Science and the Christianity. Imad marie (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam and science is more broad of a title than Qur'an and science, so it covers more areas. The Qur'an is a book. Islam includes more potential topics. Science and the Bible probably should be moved to Christianity and science too. Yahel Guhan 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the "History" section which can be easily merged into Islamic science, what are the (more areas) that this article covers? The additions that I see are three Hadith's, and some Pakistani believing that earthquakes are a result of sins, which is not that significant and the later being highly disputed. . Imad marie (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV-intro

I added the POV-intro tag because I believe the intro is not neutral, not all Muslims believe that "the scientific method" is actually "the Islamic method". I hope we can merge (Islam and science) and (Qur'an and science) into one neutral well-written article. Imad marie (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it has a heavy pro-Muslim slant to me. As far as the "Islamic Method" mention it has been well documented that a lot of Muslim scientist and scholars refer to it as the "Islamic Method". There's two references already listed in the article for that, I can add some more if you think it needs it.--Papajohnin (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a controversy, that is supported by some and rejected by some, and IMO it does not belong to the lead. Imad marie (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, you are saying that it is controversial. That's a valid point and is noted by me as well as on the article as a matter of controversy but the text gives both viewpoints on the matter and doesn't attempt to hide that is a debated subject. I do not understand exactly what part you think is not neutral though. I tried to find more mention of the Islamic method from online sources but unfortunately I do not speak Arabic but from what I could reference was usage of "Islamic method" but the sources were more of a pious/devout Islam religious source than a scientific source that just happened to identify itself as Muslim. That being said this article focuses on Islam and Science with emphasis on Islam's religious aspects instead of just Science and how it relates to Islam. Therefore the usage of the term "Islamic Method" seems appropriate IMO and removing it would then POV the article and leave about potentially pertinent information to the reader of the article. I hope that makes sense as I tend to write in prose.--Papajohnin (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)