Talk:Qur'an and science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qur'an and science article.
Article policies
Islam
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Bias?

This article contains no specifics or critisism at all; for something that is clearly extremely controversial in the secular scientific world.

137.222.214.63 (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started criticisms/explanations section, hope it'll expand further. Abdullais4u (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs

We already made the point that this trend is popular in the Muslim world: The search for Qur'anic references to and prophecies of modern scientific discoveries has become a "popular trend" in some Muslim societies, also the Arabic phrase "Sabaq al-Qur'an al-'ilm al-hadith" is not understandable to most of the readers. Imad marie (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the valid point here is demonstrating the degree to which some institutions have adopted the belief that modern science must be foreshadowed and "forestalled" by the Qur'an. That isn't done in the blander statement. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't (Qur'an "forestalls" modern science) the same as (Qur'an prophesied modern scientific discoveries) ? which we already covered ? I don't see how the phrase you added say that modern science "must" be foreshadowed by the Qur'an. Imad marie (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
"Forestalls" means to act beforehand. It also implies a certain constraint on subsequent action, which merely prophesy doesn't; which is why I thought that it adds additional info. In any case, giving an example of a semi-official body helps the reader understand that this is not a marginal phenomenon. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The second section talks about "Scientific exegesis of the Qur'an": the belief that all sorts of findings of the modern natural sciences have been anticipated in the Qur'an, I'm not sure what "Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs" think, but it seems they fit better in that section. Imad marie (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You may be right, I'll move it there. I think we should have an article on the SCIA, incidentally. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Abdullais4u, the references you are using are not RS, www.infidels.org is a secular website that is targeted against religious beliefs, which is definitley not third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You cannot use anti-Islam sources for the same reason that I cannot use pro-Islam sources like www.islamonline.net Imad marie (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is throwing out of a window secular sources? That's a news for me. BTW, this is not from Internet Infidels. Anyway, I was trying to balance this heavily biased article. Abdullais4u (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
WP is throwing out partisan sources. Imad marie (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course religious fundamentalists label secular sources as "partisan", "anti-islam/christian/insert_your_religion_here", "heretics", etc. It is clear that this article is pure POV. Abdullais4u (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "religious fundamentalists"? www.infidels.org is not RS, and you can check with Wikipedia:RSN if you wish. Imad marie (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last changes

Badger Drink, please discuss your changes in the talk page before removing referenced material. Imad marie (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I felt the edit summaries were plenty - Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy and all that. However, in the hopes of settling, here are my problems with the article which, unfortunately, your flurry of edits has not yet resolved:
  1. The neutrality of the article is, in fact, disputed, by editors including, but not limited to, myself. Considering your edits have done little, if anything, to address this, I find it problematic that you continue to remove this template. The article remains wholly without context - it doesn't mention, for instance, the rather dubious light in which these claims are held.
  2. "Almost all sources, classical and modern, agree that the Qur’an condones, even encourages the acquisition of science and scientific knowledge." - this needs a citation. In this case, a good citation would be a meta-review of the sources which draws this conclusion. A good citation would not be one, two, or even three individual sources - unless the total amount of classical and modern sources happens to be three. I doubt that this statement is incorrect, so a source should be pretty easy to find.
  3. The big paragraph that begins, "According to Keith L. Moore (professor emeritus of anatomy at the University of Toronto, and son of a Protestant clergyman)" is problematic. It takes the viewpoint of a single man - a single man who happens to be very committed to this viewpoint, yes, but a single man nonetheless - in such a light as to present his theories as the be-all, end-all. I'm sure there are people on the opposite end of the spectrum who feel, naturally, the exact opposite - as well as people in-between. It also seems slightly cherry-picked, especially considering the lack of any mention of this bit: "Simpson attested that this passage was consistent with the way recessive genes pass on traits not obvious in parents. But he says that the parallels — while striking — aren’t necessarily evidence of divine inspiration.".
  4. The [who?] tag I added was in fact in err.
Those are the major differences between my reversion and yours. There are undoubtedly other problems - major, moderate, and minor - but let's start somewhere. --Badger Drink (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion in the talk page is necessary when you are removing sourced material
  1. If you believe that this article is POV, then identify the areas that you think are POV, and suggest ways to fix that. For example if you think the article doesn't mention the dubious light in which the claims were held, then bring your WP:RS that explains that. But putting the POV tag doesn't solve any problem.
  2. this sentence is cited in "Encyclopedia of the Qur'an", the author of the article made his research, and concluded that "almost all sources agree that the Qur’an condones science", we can use his research in our article, I don't understand what you are objecting to.
  3. It is only natural that we mention the notable figures in the related subject, like Keith L. Moore, Maurice Bucaille and Najjar. What is wrong with that?
Imad marie (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can use Encyclopaedia of Qur'an as a source, why cannot we use secular source? Anyway, you always label any secular, irreligious source as "anti-islamic" and revert such edits. Isn't it POV-pushing? Abdullais4u (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see this, that will give you an insight about previous discussions about RS we had before. You cannot possibly say that www.infidels.org is a third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking. Imad marie (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll save you the efforts, if you want to make changes to this article, find academic third-party sources, not partisan sources. Imad marie (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
*sigh* Where have I used "partisan" sources in this my edit? Abdullais4u (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
One reason is WP:OR, how did you relate the age of the universe and earth to Qur'an? you made your own conclusions that those facts contradict with the Qur'an prophecies belief, and this would be OR. And on the later paragraph, you cited Arnold Neumaier, and he is not RS. Imad marie (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the first part of the edit, that is most definitely OR, a violation of WP:SYNTH to be precise. The user not only related the verse to the age of universe, but used the word "however" to imply there was a contradiction between the verse and science. Bless sins (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] scope

what is the scope of this article? The very first line states that the Quran "encourages the acquisition of science", pointing towards Islamic science (the Golden Age of Islam), but the article then goes on to harp on eccentric claims of scriptural foreknowledge. If this is going to be an article about claims of miraculous prophesies in the Quran, why not choose a title that reflects that scope? --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is: "the relation between Qur'an and science", perhaps the following paragraph from (Encyclopedia of the Qur'an) summarizes it well: "presumed relationship is construed in a variety of ways, the most common of which are the efforts to prove the divine nature of the Qur’an through modern science".
This article is not coatrack. Imad marie (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)