Talk:Islamic attitudes towards science/Archive 2

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--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)

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

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.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Why don't you edit it? Arrow740 03:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.-- Sef rin gle 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Moved --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The relation between Islam and science → Islam and science — "The relationship between" is implied and unnecessary for the title and subject of the article — Yahel  Guhan  02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support --Be happy!! (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support (Imad marie (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Support per nom. Iamaleopard (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

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)

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 and Qur%27an_and_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%27an_and_miracles link to The_relation_between_Islam_and_science? 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)

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)

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)

Embryology
Have moved the very long Embryology section to Qur'an and science --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
What happened to all the vigilant editors making sure "only high quality references" were used? "Islam since the ancient times has stood for Science as a means of understanding the true nature of God and his Blessings onto Mankind." is not at NPOV statement and has no references. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits performed by (123.176.41.80) on (26 May 2008) should be reverted. Imad marie (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with edits by Elazeez

 * Ardously long (and irrelevant) for the first introductory paragraphs.

Well yes, it was ... after Elazeez put an aya in blockquotes and added the not-very-relevent paragraph below to the lead!

''Prominent Muslim author Harun Yahya, in his article titled 'In the Wake of the Pakistan Earthquake' comments that 'a person may be tested with catastrophes, sickness, oppression of all kinds from unbelievers, slander, snares, mockery or cruelty. Yet a Muslim knows that this is all part of the test, and never forgets that patience in the face of these opens the way to beautiful things. That is because Muslims have auspiciously exchanged the life of this world for that of the Hereafter. Since they know that their selves, their property and all they own belong to Allah, any loss or increase in these never affects their moral values, thought structure or devotion to Allah' ''

There are longer leads in many articles.


 * There seems to be an anti-Islamic (?) bias in this article. A title like 'Specific science-related issues in the Quran and the Hadith' just shows that it has been created SOLELY to criticize (POV))

I believe there are many muslims who believe there are 'Specific science-related issues in the Quran and the Hadith' and these offer proof of the Quran's divine revelation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

'''there is a site talking about islam and science www.55a.net

and this site if talking about the prophet of Allah Mohammed ( PBUH )

www.rasoulallah.net''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.89.189 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent NY times article
There's a relatively recent New York Times article "How Islam Won, and Lost, the Lead in Science" published October 30, 2001. Didn't see it referenced in the article anywhere. Thought it would add something if it were. Here's the link:. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A mess of an article that should not be in an encyclopedia
I turned to this article for some basic information about the contribution of Muslims from the 'pre-modern' era to scientific and technological developments. I did not find it remotely useful for that particular purpose, but was interested to note the information that it does contain. On the basis of my own knowledge of the history of ideas and science and to some extent issues of science and society in the Islamic world, I felt that the article ought to be withdrawn because it is too partial, lacks authority and overall coherence.

An example of why I object to this article is the discussion of conception in this article. The Quran and hadith generate numerous often incompatible statements regarding development of human beings and variously imply, that human's develop from a male seed and the mixing of vital substances. The material out of which human beings is fashioned varies from one statement to another; dry, wet, water, clay, earth etc. The time of fixing sex differes from immediately to several days after conception. However, the article appears to discuss this issue from one relatively limited perspective, failing to consider in a general way the relationship between scripture, metaphysical conjucture and disciplined scientific investigation.

Perhaps the article might be reconstructed as a number of separate ones dealing in a more focussed way with topics such as:

The Quran and science, Science and Islamic society, Science and authority in the Islamicate world

Finally, Muslims contributed towards the development of naturalistic methodology as a plurality of methods and approaches. Qutb may have had a view on such matters but surely it is not an authorative view based on sound academic principles but rather an ideological claim. Perhaps it should be dealt with under an article about Qutb's religious rivalism and philosophy? This article if retained should perhaps focus more on sketching an accurate description of the development of naturalism within the Islamic world (or more accurately the Islamicate world) because we are dealing with a civilisation not merely a religion and one that was influenced by the activity and thought of members of other faiths. Science is a social activity not an outgrowth of religious belief even if religious belief may have an influence over the conditions within which it takes place and the institutional forms it can take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.34 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IP
removed an IP comment as he was criticising the article on false premises.He went against civility and this is what I meant about the sterotype.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
'Hadith and Science' section really isn't relevant. This paragraph discusses many scientists but doesn't make a single reference to Hadith. I don't know anything about Hadith so I can't help (copy edit I'm good at), but it does need specific points or it should be deleted. Friedonc (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The only related material is the first sentence "Hadith of Prophet Muhammad like " If anyone pursues a path in search of knowledge God will thereby make easy for him a path to paradise" and " The search of knowledge is an obligation laid on every Muslim" show importance of knowledge in Islam." which can be merged into another section. Imad marie (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it in for a couple more weeks, if no one disagrees, I'll go ahead and delete it. Friedonc (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit of lead
Moved a mass of recently-added text and created a hadith section for it. It still needs a lot of work. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the following sentence should be removed: Although earlier religious text like vedas advocates about the science but an inferior thought still prevalent that science is a boon of Islam.  First, the wording is akward and grammatically flawed.  Second, vedas are from the Hindu tradition, not Islam.  Third, it clearly has POV, ie the use of the word 'inferior' implies that anyone that views science as a boon to this particular religion is incorrect.  Too small to fix, we should just delete it.  If no one complains, I'll delete it in a week or two.  Friedonc (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand a word of that lead. I agree with deletion. The rest of the intro is also difficult to understand (though not as bad) and seems filled with weasel words.Jason M Espinosa (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll delete it. I suspect that much of this article has been written by non-native English speakers. I'll try and fix what CAN be fixed. Friedonc (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolution, Adam and Eve
I think the article should make a reference to Evolution and compatibility with story of Adam and Eve. --Nevit (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the different natures of religion and science
Regarding the different natures of religion and science some key questions arise which should be answered in a good article. There is no problem between religion and science where the two are in concordance. In a dialogue between a scientist and religion problems arise in areas of discordance. Should the scientist talk to religion? Should the religion interpret the results of scientific research? There are areas with public interest such as polio vaccine case cited in article where the two have the necessity to talk. Is the goal of science to deliver the results to public, and should the scientist be respectful (or pretend to be) to religious opinions? Can the two world views enrich each other? Is it the role of science to provide supporting evidence to faith? What happens when faith is confronted with evidence. Does it adapt, or does it fight back? Does faith only believe in belief or is it ready to accept evidence? --Nevit (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
I propose bringing over the content from Qur'an and science. Neither page is terribly long (this page is mostly a history). The data over at Qur'an and science would fit well here, and is obviously deeply relevant. As suggested above, there should really be just one Christianity and science page rather than the one Science and the bible. At very least this seems to suggest there should be one page in this case, no? Share thoughts!- Tesseract2 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Qur'an and Science is short because someone deleted most of it. We are working to negotiate for improvement of the article. The topics are distinct. Abdullajh (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if Qur'an and science were longer, I'm not convinced it would warrant its own page. It just seems much clearer for readers if we keep the information on that page over here. Both pages are discussing the various scholarly and scientific views on the Qur'an. Obviously this page also mentions the Hadith's take on things, but that does not seem to justify separating the issues; fossils and conception over here, embryology and evolution over there...
 * Maybe I'm just not clear on the point of the Qur'an and Science. Presumably it should be distinct from the aims of this article (Islam and Science), or for that matter from foreknowledge discussions.- Tesseract2 (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Islam and science is an article about the relationship between the Muslim community and science. Qur'an and science is an article about the line of reasoning, that has existed nearly as long as the Qur'an itself and which is very well sourced, that the Qur'an encourages scientific investigation and that it pointed the way to investigations in science that have improved human quality of life. Until this past week, the article was very clear in its emphasis, as a subsidiary of Islam and science. However, last week, User:William_M._Connolley began removing large portions of the article, with incorrect assumptions and rude comments, which has now obscured this clear division. From the discussion page, he was clearly attempting to destroy the article. What I recommend is that you give the community time to improve and source the article for this historically important line of thought that has been the cause of many fruitful scientific investigations. Abdullajh (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand growing pains. I seek only clarity. I have added descriptive sentences to the beginning of each page. Although you say the Qur'an supports science, there are certainly some reasons to believe this is not the case. I just mean I have kept the introduction to Qur'an and science more general. This has also motivated my creation of a Criticisms section. If you agree that these introductions are accurate, please feel free to remove my merge templates. If the sentences are not quite right, you might explain why.- Tesseract2 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm torn on this. I can follow the argument that there are two distinct topics here - one about what the Qur'an actually says about science, and one about science in the Islamic world (which was, at one stage, a major force behind scientific advance). However, that kind of leaves the Hadith falling into neither topic, and I can't help feeling that any scientific aspects of the Hadith belong more with the Qur'an than with the development of science in the Islamic world -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jagged, again
This article has problems. However, a more serious matter is the way this has overflowed into History of scientific method so I'll worry about that first William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a POV push on the relative value of contributions to science from the Islamic civilization. You are attempting to systematically reform world-view across articles. This has nothing to do with the Jagged cleanup. Nice prose, though. -Aquib (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding edit warring
The Qur'an and Science article was recently suggested to be redirected here, not deleted. Some content was on it for some time and needs to be fixed. Deleting it from here and there is no-way of construction. I suggest that editors tag each section with their concerns, while avoiding personal dicisions that the content "can't be fixed". I know it's a mess; but if we continue this way, I'm afraid that Qur'an and Science needs to be restored! (which I'd really want to avoid)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

hummanity
about islamic hummanity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.106.163 (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Definiton of Science
I edited the definition of "science", removing the phrase describing it as "falsifiable", as it doesn't appear to be supported by its reference (the OED). The prior definition does appear, word for word, in dozens of places on the Net, but apparently only on sites about Islam and science, indicating a common origin? The new edit is taken directly from The Science Council: www.sciencecouncil.org/content/what-science For more on this definition see: www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-definition-council-francis-bacon?cat=science&type=article SmarterAlec (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Russel Glasser On the Atheist Experience... blog
"Russel Glasser (Skeptic on The Atheist Experience TV show with Matt Dillahunty and Jeff Dee) argues that interpreting the Qur'an like this is cherry picking and risks simply confirming the biases of the investigator.[47]" Doesn't quite meet up to standard especially as it links to the Islam Watch website. Needs to be removed. Faro0485 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"certified muslim sources"
I have reverted AliSartawi's edit here. The stated reason for removal, "a portion that doesnt have a reference to certified muslim sources", is not valid. The source, Basim Musallam, Sex and Society in Islam. Cambridge University Press, appears to meet the WP:RS criteria. The other material added appears to be direct quotes from a WP:PRIMARY source, the Quran, which would be original research, rather than material from a WP:SECONDARY source.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. We don't need 'certified Muslim sources'. And I reverted an edit by this editor elsewhere as he was citing examples that he'd picked from primary sources whereas we need independent reliable sources for examples. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotation from Sex and Society in Islam=
The quotation from Sex and Society in Islam should perhaps be removed. If one were to look at the Arabic of the first hadith, I would have thought it would say ma' (water) and not mani (ejaculate), and so the translation using "semen" might be quite misleading. As for the second hadith, a shaykh I asked said he thought it was a quote from a scholar (I think he may have said ibn Jawzi) rather than an actual hadith, and indeed I could not find this in Sahih Muslim when I looked. I did think, perhaps the yellow fluid referred to is this follicular fluid or something similar: http://www.cincinnatifertility.com/page_assets/27/medium/ivfphoto_3.jpg, but I am not qualified to interpret hadith so I cannot say. I might research this properly later.
 * The 1st quoted hadith was removed on 16 July 2011 for no given reason (incidentally, it is ma' in the 1st sentence and mani in the 2nd - see http://sunnah.com/muslim/3#38). As for the 2nd hadith, which is still there, that is from Musnad Ahmad number 4424. I've added a ref. Gamma737 (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference I added to the hadith about conception "he is created from both..." was quickly removed for no good reason, but here it is in case anyone agrees it should be added - http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&TOCID=35&BookID=30&PID=4206 Musnad Ahmad: Musnad of Abdullah bin Mas'ood - number 4424. I don't have access to Musallam's book, but Note 49 in this article indicates too that Musallam's hadith was this one in the Musnad.Gamma737 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are actually lots of examples of hadith-Galen correspondances on this specific topic of male and female semens - see Gamma737 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific errors in the Quran" section should be removed
This section should be removed because the sources was originally extracted from "wikiislam" a website known to be criticising Islam. A lot of things it mentions are inaccurate. Examples, Science has proven that Mountains act as stabilisers of the Earth where it was mentioned in Quran. There are others, please this whole section of "scientific errors in Quran" should be removed. Emer321 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Justify your revert plz
As I said in the edit summary, the source is as reliable as you can get. Nidhal Guessoum is an astrophysicist and the book is a mainstream 3rd party published source. The category I put in is well suited for the content. So how are you justifying its deletion? Also, ad-hominem personal attacks on me do not qualify as a valid reason (as in your edit summary.) c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  18:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, the summary in my edit was "rv: articles are not a place to assemble warm-and-fuzzy feelings from fans; the section is scientific topics, not how our wonder is excited". There is nothing personal in that, and no attack—it's entirely about the text added to the article. What, for example, has "the more is our wonder excited, the more is the dazzlment of our gaze" got to do with the section (Scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith)? An astrophysicist is entitled to have personal opinions but is not an authority on scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith unless otherwise qualified. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're not speaking to the content when you call someone a "fan" dismissively. That has nothing to do with the content, it is a comment on the editor, a personal attack i.e. ad-hominem. Secondly, you didn't just delete Salam's quote, you deleted 3 sourced paragraphs, from which Salam's quote constitutes only a single sentence. Thirdly, that statement which you think is just "warm and fuzzy", was made by a Nobel prize winning physicist expressing the encouragement for physics he derived from the Quran. So I'm pretty sure it's completely appropriate in an article titled "Islam and Science." And lastly, an astrophysicist who's written a scholarly book titled "Islam's Quantum Question" is a perfectly reliable source on this topic. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  01:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * p.s. I've moved the content to the overview category, since it is more general. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  01:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing in my edit summary refers to you—"fan" was an accurate description of the scientists whose flowery quotations appear in the text. Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well in that case, the "fan" you're referring to, is one of the greatest physicists in the history of Science, responsible for unifying the Weak force with Electromagnetism, for which he earned a nobel prize. So his views on the encouragement to the sciences that he derived from the Quran are obviously appropriate in this article about "Islam and Science". With that said, if other editors object to that quote (specifically) then I'm fine with deleting/summarizing it but we will need a consensus. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  16:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above: An astrophysicist is entitled to have personal opinions but is not an authority on scientific topics in the Qur'an and Hadith unless otherwise qualified. Further, the section concerns scientific topics, not warm feelings scientists have had. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, those 3 paragraphs are not "personal opinions" from some blog, they summarize some of the research from a  scholarly book on the subject , compiled by a scientist who is actively involved in the area of "Islam and Science." Honestly, I can't believe you are actually trying to argue that Nidhal G. is not qualified to analyze this subject. Who better then a SCIENTIST to analyze SCIENTIFIC TOPICS?! Take a look again at the name of the page you are currently editing. Lastly, about that quote by Salam, I've already stated my case for why that quote belongs here, other editors are free to pitch in their thoughts, so that a consensus can be developed. c Ө de1+6  LogicBomb!  00:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Science in the Qur'an and Hadith (was: Scientific Topics ... )
First, I changed the heading from "Scientific topics ..." to "Science in the Quran ...". Second, I added section headings to the sections on Bucailleism and Taner Edis, because these two paragraphs are exclusively about these two authors. Third, I suggest to delete these two subjects. It's almost irrelevant what the opinions of two obscure authors are without putting them into some context. In fact, Bucaille can easily be refuted, so his main arguments may be mentioned, but so should be the rejection of his arguments. I can do that if I find some time. The section on Taner Edis touches upon a variety of different issues which should all be dealt with one by one. Right now, the section is a hodgepodge of statements, some of which are on evolution which is covered in a separate section. This has to be cleaned up. Any takers? Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientific inaccuracies?
Any chance of bringing this section back? I read the edit reviews, and all anyone says is that there are "many inaccuracies" without citing sources. Don't get me wrong, the section as it was was a mess, but it was still relevant to the discussion.72.93.214.15 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have enough reliable sources? Most of these views are usually sourced from online blogs etc. And how would we manage counter-arguments to those arguments? Would those go in a separate section? c Ө de1+6 TP  12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are plenty of sources. I added some in various places, e.g. in Criticism of Islam. I just have the feeling that some zealots delete everything critical of Islam or the Quran pretty quickly. Peteruetz (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Science in the Quran ...: Conception and inherited characteristics
The section "Conception and inherited characteristics" reads like gibberish, so I will remove it shortly. It talks about the pre-scientific theories of Greek philosophers which have nothing to do with the Quran. There are also a few pseudoscientific statements from the medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim which are great examples of how nonsensical his statements are (scientifically), so they should be properly discussed (and rejected). Peteruetz (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobel prizes
The chapter "Muslim Nobel laureates" says that "However, six predominantly Muslim countries had more Nobel laureates per capita..." This article is about islam and science, and in science there are only three muslim laureates (Abdus Salam, Ahmed Zewail and Aziz Sancar - from Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey respectively) and thus only three countries can have a per capita figure greater than zero. To include peace and literature (and also economics) laureates is in my opinion irrelevant, and I consider the sentence fully off topic (especially as five of the seven peace prizes have been awarded for wars connected with islam or discrimination under islamic rule).

I do not include Serge Haroche who was born by a french-jewish family in the then french Morocco, but who left in 1956 (at the age of twelve) for France when Morocco became independent. Neither should Claude Cohen-Tannoudji be included as he was born by jewish parents in the then French Algeria, and moved to Paris in 1953. Rather one should consider that all the three muslim laureates got their PhDs at western universities (Dallas, Cambridge and Pennsylvania - Sancar got a MD in Istanbul as well however) and not in muslim countries (and, BTW, Turkey is a secular state since 1928, even though islam is by far the largest religion) and two of them had also American citizenships. And when it comes to Salam he was born in then British India and moved to Britain in 1946, so, as Pakistan became independent in 1947, he actually never lived or studied in a muslim country.

--Episcophagus (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Episcophagus: The "six predominantly..." sentence was added 10 May 2015 using List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita as a reference, although using Wikipedia as a reference is not permitted. That alone is sufficient reason to remove the sentence. Another reason for removal is that the factoid has been cherry-picked from a primary source (a list of laureates) whereas a secondary source with some analysis of the implications should be used. I have not checked your findings but what you say is very plausible, so please remove the sentence and make any other adjustments. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RV lede rewrite
I have undone Bless Sins rewrite of the lede, and would kindly suggest that he gain consensus the next time he wishes to change a neutral and scholarly interpretation of the subject into what amounts to a glowingly positive portrayal. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I have restored the shorter version, as it complies better with WP:LEAD. The lead section of a Wikipedia article should be a concise summary of the main points in the body of the article, and the lengthy version you reverted to was not; it even included material that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the body. I kindly suggest that instead of doing a blanket revert, work on improving the existing lead, keeping it concise. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Conception and inherited characteristics
This section is extremely poorly written. How can medieval muslims "rely heavily on their own scientific tradition to interpret these statements", while citing knowledge of the ancient Greeks? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ironic?
Isn't Also, such a proof cannot rely on an argument from authority, citing verse 5:104 rather ironic, given that proof-from-holy-writ is the ultimate "appeal to authority"? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What I really meant by that is that what this article is lacking a decent referenced expostition of the viewpoint that at some point Islam turned "anti science" and has pretty well stayed that way William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Science education in Islamic institutions & countries
Don't know if Wikipedia has article dedicated to 'issues relating to Science education in Islamic institutions & countries' If not would Wikipedia deserve one ?

Here is one interesting article about Do Human Evolution and Islam Conflict in the Classroom?

Pl. dot down similar info. refs so may be Wikipedians can take due note of the same.

Bookku (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Gender of an embryo
The edit on the 31st of May by User:Nasiruzzaman_jote seems a touch off to me. I think it is a little ranty, and it is based off of a single source that seems a little biased. I may be way off base here, but I thought I would see if this was ok. 74.12.159.202 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say but it was a proven fact.i can provide multiple sources about it but in that case it as only one that was necessary. Nasiruzzaman jote (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion
Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at


 * Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)