> Arab World Ministries has an essay on the relationship of normative and radical Islam. It raises an important point, also brought out by a Coptic friend, that traditions supplement the Quran. Different emphases on parts of the Quran and these traditions will give greatly varying results. More information is cited at http://answering-islam.org/
> At an Islamic outreach and apologetics table in London, I picked up a brochure claiming to provide scientific support for Islam. Passages from the Quran were claimed to be remarkably vindicated by modern scientific discoveries, causing amazed scientists to convert. A passage vaguely describing the condition of a developing embryo, with much less precision than might be obtained by examination of premature babies, was cited as supernaturally detailed medical knowledge. Another example claimed that mysterious properties of undersea springs discovered by Cousteau so matched a statement in the Quran that he converted to Islam. I have no doubt that Cousteau knew enough basic oceanography to not be startled by the purportedly mysterious properties, nor do I have any reason to believe that he accepted Islam. Does anyone know of direct evidence to the contrary? No one was manning the table, as I apparently came past at afternoon prayer time, so I could not ask any questions.
Kurt Wood had an article on such Islamic arguments in the June 1993 PSCF: "The Scientific Exegesis of the Qur'an: A Case Study in Relating Science and Scripture."
It's child's play to read modern scientific discoveries back into ancient texts: Christians have found the expansion of the universe in Isaiah 44:24. It's a little harder to predict such discoveries from the texts before they're made. & Cousteau's conversion to Islam has the same credibility as Darwin's deathbed conversion to evangelical Christianity.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 31 2001 - 20:41:19 EST