The three postings from the Islamic newsgroup referred to in the
Qur'an and Science article are duplicated here in order to make sure
they remain available even if the internet archives should one day disappear.
In the Google archives, the beginning of the discussion thread can be found
here.
From: beebojl@webtv.net (beebojl sul)
Subject: Scientific facts and Quran
Date: 1999/11/04
Message-ID: <7vr6hg$t8u$1@samba.rahul.net>
Approved: sri-admin@hrweb.org
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Moderator: SRI Moderator
NNTP-Posting-User: ariel
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
in chapter 25( Al- furkan= the criterion) verse 53 Allah said
"It is He who let free the tow bodies of water:one palatable and
sweet,and the other salt and bitter,yet has He made a barrier between
them, a partition that not to be passed"
the above verse of Quran clearly refers to the meeting between big
rivers and the larger seas and oceans, where the river in some cases
goes in the sea water for miles without mixing between the tow entities
of water. it is a well recognized phenoamenon these days by
scientist,also,the Quran clearly and undeniably point out to the reason
for that, sweetness of one and saltiness of the other, in modern
scientific terms,its differences in specific gravity between the tow
entities, which is also the explanation provided by modern scientist.
if it wasnt God revelatin to muhammad, how did the illetarite muhammad ,
who lived thousands of miles away from rivers and seas, knew,or even
talked about it?
Suleiman,MD
(Source: SRI archive)
From: "Andy Bannister"
Subject: Re: Scientific facts and Quran
Date: 1999/11/15
Message-ID: <80oj67$ren$1@samba.rahul.net>
Approved: sri-admin@hrweb.org
References: <7vr6hg$t8u$1@samba.rahul.net> <7vtuet$gcu$1@samba.rahul.net>
<8004b3$v9$1@samba.rahul.net> <809cnf$pe1$1@samba.rahul.net> <80id1r$baf$1@samba.rahul.net>
Organization: None
Moderator: SRI Moderator
NNTP-Posting-User: ariel
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Dear Abujamal,
Thank you for your reply to my last post. Before I attempt to demolish once
and for all the "modern science proves the Qur'an argument", there is just
one particular point in your post I wished to pick up upon. You said:
> please refrain from adding the innuendo "why
> was Muhammad not being literal" as if the Qur'an was written
> by him
Now I have just two points to make here:
1) You know full well I am a Christian, and therefore do not believe the
Qur'an to be divinely inspired. Therefore it is my point of view that the
Qur'an was possible written by him.
2) You are more than happy to apply the same terms to Christianity. In fact
you used the term "Paulinanity" in your post "Do you have all the answers
about Jesus?" (dated 11-Nov-99). I believe that it is important to be
consistent and not apply double-standards.
Anyway, on to to the subject in hand:
======================
Rebuttal - "Modern Science in the Qur'an"
Every so often on "soc.religion.islam" and in other circles a particular
argument surfaces. This is the claim that within the pages of the Qur'an,
modern science can be found. Everything from comets to astronomy, embryology
to geology, all this and more are claimed to be found in various Suras. And
then it is argued that because Muhammad could not have known this science,
the Qur'an must be divine.
Rebutttals to this argument usually consist of debating the particular point
of science being advanced and whilst this is easy enough to do, it becomes
somewhat irksome having to do it again and again. Therefore in this short
paper, I have produced a rebuttal of the very +concept+ of modern science in
the Qur'an. The argument itself contains inherent logical flaws, and the
points in this paper can be used whether embryology, geology, or any other
point of science is being claimed as proving the Qur'an.
The paper arose out of a debate on "soc.religion.islam" about rivers and
oceans, hence some references to that subject.
Anyway, here are six inherent flaws in the "modern science proves the
Qur'an" argument.
A) Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative
interpretations
The very nature of the Qur'an means that Muslims often have alternative
interpretations of what a particular verse means. There is nothing wrong
with this; exegesis is often a difficult, tricky business, especially when
we do not know the exact historical context in which a particular verse was
revealed. For example, consider Dhu Al-Qarnayn/Zul-qarnain in the Qu'ran.
Muslims are divided over who this mysterious traveller, referred to in Sura
18, actually is. Some (e.g. Yusuf Ali) believed him to be Alexander the
Great, others disagree and have other theories as to his identity, such as
Cyrus the Great. There is plenty of room for healthy debate.
However, those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur'an" argument
are not relying upon what a particular verse says, but upon their
interpretation. In fact, it might be better to rename their position as the
"Belief that an interpretation of the Qur'an contains modern science
demonstrates that it is from Allah." No verse in the Qur'an has yet been
found to contain +outright science+ (see point (B) below for more on this).
Consider Sura 25:53 which was what started this particular thread on
"soc.religion.islam":
"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. " (25:53; Yusuf Ali)
Now Suleiman (subsequently backed up by Abujamal, amongst others) argued
that:
"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 tow entities of water. it is
a well recognized phenoamenon these days by scientist,also,the Quran
clearly and undeniably point 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 tow entities, which is also the explanation
provided by modern scientist." (Suleiman, in thread "Scientific facts and
Qu'ran", soc.religion.islam, 4-Nov-99)
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 (thanks to Abujamal for pointing this out):
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 claim) or not (as Abujamal claims) 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" (thanks to Abujamal for the
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.
This interpretation has a number of advantages going for it over the
position but forward by Suleiman and others who would claim a modern
scientific miracle in this verse. The advantages are:
i) Suleiman claimed that Muhammad had probably never seen a river flow into
the sea (he "lived thousands of miles away from rivers and seas" according
to Suleiman's first post on 4-Nov-99) If Suleiman is correct in this
statement, then this fits the my latter interpretation above, as in
Muhammad's mind fresh water and salt water did not meet.
ii) It means that Sura 25:53 is applicable both to the time the verse was
written (circa 600AD) and today; the people who first read it could
understand it and praise God for his provision, as can people today. The
alternative interpretation requires that this verse was meaningless for
1,300 years until those of us with the advantage of modern science could
probably explain its meaning. Therefore the Qur'an was not relevant to all
men at all time.
iii) It explains why Muhammad wrote Sura 25:53. Despite having no concept of
rivers/oceans and mixing/non-mixing, he would, however, understand the
importance of fresh water, and it is perfectly understandable why he sees a
supply of fresh water, separate from undrinkable salt water, to be an
example of Allah's provision and therefore worthy of mention.
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 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).
B) The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak
If Allah was going to use science to prove the Qur'an, then why not do it in
a way that does not depend upon clever exegesis from the supporters of that
argument? Rather, Allah could have done it in a way that was indisputable.
For instance, why not predict TV with a verse such as: "Say:'Men shall watch
images that move in a small box that stands in the corner of their
dwelling.'" Or the moon landings: "Say:'Lo! And men shall walk upon the face
of the moon, and plant a flag thereon." Do you see? Verses such as these
could have no argument against them, unlike the current situation, which
requires a) a somewhat tortured exegesis of these "miracle verses" and b) a
categoric insistence by those who interpret them that theirs and theirs
alone is the right interpretation (often ignoring over 1,000 years of what
previous Muslim scholars and interpreters have said.)
You see, elsewhere in the Qu'ran, 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 stating 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, 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.
C) The argument is a modern polemic
I find it very interesting that the "modern science proves the Qur'an"
argument is a recent one. Can anybody find a Muslim scholar putting this
argument forward five hundred years ago? Or two hundred years ago? Or even
one hundred years ago? Answer: probably not. And the reason is that it is a
modern polemic. You see science is not a recent thing, yet this argument is.
Why? Because it is only recently that Muslims have found that people have
begun questioning the Qur'an, rather than accepting it blindly. The need has
arisen for more proofs of its "divine authorship", proofs that might appeal
to a scientific, Western mind-set, as Islam has sought to make inroads in
the west. And so this argument has arisen.
An interesting thought is this; that whilst the "modern science proves the
Qur'an" argument being a modern polemic does not prove it wrong per se, it
does pose Muslims who seek to use it with an interesting problem. And the
problem is this; that if they are not careful, they will bind the Qur'an to
one era. You see, if Allah intended to place science in the Qur'an as a
sign, then presumably one hundred years from now, Muslims must still be
able to find "modern" science. Yet science will have progressed. So
consider:
* The Qur'an consists of approximately 6,400 verses.
* Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 10% of these can be cleverly
interpreted so that they appear to contain "science".
* Therefore we have 640 verses for our source material.
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 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.
D) At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur'an" argument
does not FIND science in the Qur'an, rather it uses science to JUDGE the
Qur'an
The arguments in "soc.religion.islam" 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 close of the 20th 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 you have done in this interpretation 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:
* Sura 18:86 = talks about someone finding the sunset = scientific nonsense
= THEREFORE metaphoric
* Sura 25:53 (for example) = talks about two separate bodies of water, one
salt one fresh = does not contradict science = THEREFORE scientific
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 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.
E) Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything
As I explained in point (D) above, the "modern science proves the Qur'an"
argument relies upon selective exegesis, picking up and using those verses
that seem useful, and ignoring those that cause difficulties. By +exactly
the same method+ one can prove anything. Suppose I want to convince people
that I am a prophet with the ability to foresee the future. Now consider the
England/Scotland football match that took place here in the UK yesterday
(Saturday 14 November). Now before the match, imagine I made three
statements:
1) England will win
2) Scotland will win
3) It will be a draw
Now after the match (which England won 2-0, incidentally), I simply say:
"Statements 2 and 3 were metaphoric, I never intended them to be taken
literally. However, in statement 1, I was talking about fact. Therefore I am
a prophet!" It does not take a genius to see the fundamental flaw in this
reasoning. Yet those who preach the "modern science proves the Qur'an"
argument rely on +exactly+ this reasoning; show them dozens of verses in the
Qur'an that appear to contradict science (I picked just the one in my
previous posts, Sura 18:86), and they will claim: "It's fictional, a story"
or "It's metaphysical" or any number of other possibilities. When it comes
to correct and proper exegesis, the end cannot be used to justify the means.
F) Applying the argument means that the Qur'an is no longer authoritive
If people wish to argue that the Qur'an contains modern science and is
therefore a miracle, then there is a further problem. The logical extent of
their argument is that the Qur'an is no longer authorative. Let us suppose
that Sura 25:53 does talk about the science of oceans. However, it is only
one sentence. In order to find out more about this subject, we need to step
+outside+ of the Qur'an, as it is not authoritive. There are a wealth of
journals, books, and scientific papers that we could read to find out +more+
than the Qur'an teaches on this subject. This then leads naturally to the
question: if we can learn more about one subject in the Qur'an by reading
externally, then why not others? How can Muslims claim that the Qur'an
contains all the guidance mankind needs for living? Perhaps we need to read
elsewhere? How do we know that the Qur'an teaches us all we need to know
about God's nature? Or about how he wants us to live? Perhaps we 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. It sounds
very nice and neat in theory, and if only it were true. However the
implications 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.
Many blessings in Jesus.
Andy Bannister
(Source: SRI archive)
From: marjan@vom.com
Subject: Re: Scientific facts and Quran
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <80ql05$aof$1@samba.rahul.net>
X-Folder: SRI
Approved: sri-admin@hrweb.org
References: <7vr6hg$t8u$1@samba.rahul.net> <7vtuet$gcu$1@samba.rahul.net>
<8004b3$v9$1@samba.rahul.net> <809cnf$pe1$1@samba.rahul.net>
<80id1r$baf$1@samba.rahul.net> <80oj67$ren$1@samba.rahul.net>
X-Original-Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
X-Original-Message-ID: <3830c7f9.36694468@news2.vom.com>
Moderator: sri-admin@hrweb.org (SRI Moderator)
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
NNTP-Posting-User: ariel
as-salaamu ^alaykum. a few odd points here and there:
"Andy Bannister" wrote:
>Thank you for your reply to my last post. Before I attempt to demolish once
>and for all the "modern science proves the Qur'an argument", there is just
>one particular point in your post I wished to pick up upon.
Andy shows us that Muslims have no monopoly on argumentative
arrogance...
>You [Andy is addressing Abu Jamal] said:
>
>> please refrain from adding the innuendo "why
>> was Muhammad not being literal" as if the Qur'an was written
>> by him
>
>Now I have just two points to make here:
>
>1) You know full well I am a Christian, and therefore do not believe the
>Qur'an to be divinely inspired. Therefore it is my point of view that the
>Qur'an was possible written by him.
However, it can be gratuitously rude to assume one's one point of view
in a discussion when one knows that one's point of view is offensive
to another. Granted, Andy is free to speculate here as to the
authorship of the Qur'aan, or to express his own conclusions that
Muhammad (SAS) was the author rather than being merely a messenger.
I am not personally offended by this, for though I do not consider
Muhammad the author of the Qur'aan, were he the author, I would be
sorely tempted to worship him....
>2) You are more than happy to apply the same terms to Christianity. In fact
>you used the term "Paulinanity" in your post "Do you have all the answers
>about Jesus?" (dated 11-Nov-99). I believe that it is important to be
>consistent and not apply double-standards.
While some of us are certainly rude in our argument, to term modern
Christianity "Paulianity" is merely to assert that Paul was central to
the formation of Christian doctrine. The fact is that Christians do
not really disagree with this; the question, rather, over which we
might argue, is whether or not Paul was right in the direction he gave
to the Church.
>Anyway, on to to the subject in hand:
[...]
>Every so often on "soc.religion.islam" and in other circles a particular
>argument surfaces. This is the claim that within the pages of the Qur'an,
>modern science can be found. Everything from comets to astronomy, embryology
>to geology, all this and more are claimed to be found in various Suras. And
>then it is argued that because Muhammad could not have known this science,
>the Qur'an must be divine.
What Andy does not note in his response is that many Muslims are
suspicious of these arguments and have expressed their reservations
many times.
>Rebutttals to this argument usually consist of debating the particular point
>of science being advanced and whilst this is easy enough to do, it becomes
>somewhat irksome having to do it again and again. Therefore in this short
>paper, I have produced a rebuttal of the very +concept+ of modern science in
>the Qur'an. The argument itself contains inherent logical flaws, and the
>points in this paper can be used whether embryology, geology, or any other
>point of science is being claimed as proving the Qur'an.
An ambitious effort. Andy is obviously capable of clear thought. Let's
see where he goes with this.
[...]
>Anyway, here are six inherent flaws in the "modern science proves the
>Qur'an" argument.
>A) Those who pursue the argument leave no room for alternative
>interpretations
Right.
[...]
[and in the middle of his argument on this, he notes]
>iii) It explains why Muhammad wrote Sura 25:53. Despite having no concept of
>rivers/oceans and mixing/non-mixing, he would, however, understand the
>importance of fresh water, and it is perfectly understandable why he sees a
>supply of fresh water, separate from undrinkable salt water, to be an
>example of Allah's provision and therefore worthy of mention.
By accepting the overall outline of Andy's argument, I am not thereby
accepting all the details. Andy's speculation about the mind of the
Prophet might equally well be refigured to note that Allah reminds us
by means of images known to us, not by images which we would not
understand.
>B) The argument as it stands makes Allah out to be weak
Without going into the details of this argument, this charge is
reasonable but not conclusive. The counterargument is that Allah has
embedded signs in his book which will not be understood except by
those who are in the possession of certain keys, in this case a key
would be knowledge of the science involved.
I'm pleased to note that Andy recognises the essential clarity of the
Qur'aan:
>You see, elsewhere in the Qu'ran, 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 stating 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, 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.
Obviously we share a somewhat similar conception of Allah!
>C) The argument is a modern polemic
Andy is basically correct, but his argumentation specious:
[...]
>* The Qur'an consists of approximately 6,400 verses.
>
>* Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 10% of these can be cleverly
>interpreted so that they appear to contain "science".
>
>* Therefore we have 640 verses for our source material.
Andy has made certain assumptions, and his result follows from his
assumptions. But he pulled his assumptions out of thin air. There is
no practical limit to the hashing of Qur'aanic text to produce
potential additional interpretations. Even one verse might produce
many possible interpretations relating to science. [I have omitted the
rest of this argument.]
>D) At the end of the day, the "modern science proves the Qur'an" argument
>does not FIND science in the Qur'an, rather it uses science to JUDGE the
>Qur'an
This is, in fact, the reason why our scholars generally reject the
efforts to proclaim "science in the Qur'aan."
[...]
>E) Selective interpretation can be used to prove anything
Yes. We've seen it many times.
[...]
>F) Applying the argument means that the Qur'an is no longer authoritive
>
>If people wish to argue that the Qur'an contains modern science and is
>therefore a miracle, then there is a further problem. The logical extent of
>their argument is that the Qur'an is no longer authorative. Let us suppose
>that Sura 25:53 does talk about the science of oceans. However, it is only
>one sentence. In order to find out more about this subject, we need to step
>+outside+ of the Qur'an, as it is not authoritive. There are a wealth of
>journals, books, and scientific papers that we could read to find out +more+
>than the Qur'an teaches on this subject. This then leads naturally to the
>question: if we can learn more about one subject in the Qur'an by reading
>externally, then why not others? How can Muslims claim that the Qur'an
>contains all the guidance mankind needs for living? Perhaps we need to read
>elsewhere? How do we know that the Qur'an teaches us all we need to know
>about God's nature? Or about how he wants us to live? Perhaps we 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.
Basically, *Andy is right.*
>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. It sounds
>very nice and neat in theory, and if only it were true. However the
>implications 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.
Now, why does this Christian come to do us such a favor?
>Many blessings in Jesus.
Indeed there are, and more in faith in God.
Having agreed with Andy in much of what he said, I will add something
which he did not say. The Qur'aan is remarkably susceptible to
scientific interpretation; that is, little if any of it is offensive
(in Arabic especially) to a modern scientific mind. It's very true
that it is not a science textbook, and it is also true that the
alleged miraculous scientific knowledge found in it is generally
dependent upon modern interpretation, as Andy explained so well. But
that interpretation is quite easy.
If the book was written by a man, as Andy seems to think, he was
remarkably able to keep it simple and to avoid inserting much -- if
anything -- in the way of the kind of speculation about causation and
so forth that frequently afflicted other religious works. He stayed
with what he knew from experience.
Alternatively, in reminding us, as we believe, Allah used what was
familiar to those to whom the message was revealed. He did not use
some strange science from the future. Why would he?
There was a book written by what is called automatic writing using one
of the earliest typewriters, in the late nineteenth century CE, called
the Book of Oahspe, if I remember the spelling correctly. It purported
to be an account of this section of the universe; I forget many of the
details, but I do remember the science that was in the book,
supposedly channeled from some high divine source. It was very clearly
late nineteenth century pseudoscience, marked with its time. I recall
finding math errors in some of the arguments in it. I think there are
still people who follow this book....
AbdulraHman Lomax
marjan@vom.com
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433
USA
(Source: SRI archive)