In 600 years time will Islam have matured like a fine Christianity?

[flamingjimmy]

Not exactly true- it was the pursuit of knowledge prompted by the Quran

If it was down to the Quran then why did it stop after a couple of hundred years?

 

Did the Quran change? Did people stop reading it?

 

Surely if the Quran was what prompted this flourishing of knowledge and culture then there would be a pretty constant stream of Muslim proto-scientists and engineers from the days of Muhammed right up until today?

 

One of my colleagues was Usama Hasan- who I studied Arabic from and who remains a close friend.

What exactly is your point? As your friend acknowledges in that article, Muslim evolutionists tend to be an embarrassed minority.

 

"with the theory of evolution, it has only begun to be taught rather recently in the Muslim world, where faith and religious practice is still relatively strong."

 

Surely if there was such a strong compulsion within Islam to seek out new knowledge, as you suggest, then it wouldn't take like 150 years for the Muslim world to seek out this knowledge?

[Baz1]

If it was down to the Quran then why did it stop after a couple of hundred years?

 

Did the Quran change? Did people stop reading it?

 

Surely if the Quran was what prompted this flourishing of knowledge and culture then there would be a pretty constant stream of Muslim proto-scientists and engineers from the days of Muhammed right up until today?

 

Good questions Jimmy. No, the Quran did not change- its meaning and message remains. The Golden Period was indeed beautiful- I wish I had been living it.

 

However, today you have countless people who have a greater understanding of science with their understanding of the Quran- I am one of them. The Quran is a book of 'ayaat' not a book of science- ayaats can be translated as 'verses, signs, instructions etc.

 

When people stop learning the essence of the Quran's message of course they themselves fall in to darkness- and if you look at current Islamic countries- none are totally Islamic- there is no Islamic state.

 

The OP asks a very good question- although no one knows what the world (if it is still in existence) in 600 years time will be like- intellectual Muslims who have studied the Quran and authentic narrations of Muhammad, can conclude that there will be another renaissance- I will probably be long gone by then though as many of us alive today will also have.

 

What exactly is your point? As your friend acknowledges in that article, Muslim evolutionists tend to be an embarrassed minority.

 

"with the theory of evolution, it has only begun to be taught rather recently in the Muslim world, where faith and religious practice is still relatively strong."

 

Surely if there was such a strong compulsion within Islam to seek out new knowledge, as you suggest, then it wouldn't take like 150 years for the Muslim world to seek out this knowledge?

 

I agree with you- when Usama came under the spotlight with his views I was who said 'about time'- that it is about time this sort of thing came to light and Muslims began to think deeper. If they studied the Quran properly they would find that the Quran never claims Adam was the first man.

 

Some Madarrasas (places of study)today have very little involvement in pursuing the type knowledge the early Muslims did- who used their intellect to develop a more deeper understanding of the world and had libraries and text books that the West could only dream about.

 

The Quran encourages seeking ilm- knowledge. The younger generation today (especially post graduates or undergraduates) are seeing that and hence when I watch the influx of young people- non Muslim or Muslim, coming to embrace the horns of knowledge it pleases me. Muslims do need to study the sciences like they once did- not just here but across the worlds in which they once dominated.

 

This may happen when the dictators/corrupt rulers are all forced out and people of integrity, honesty and the desire to bring education to the masses, come to the forefront.

[flamingjimmy]

Good questions Jimmy. No, the Quran did not change- its meaning and message remains.

Ok, unfortunately you answered my two rhetorical questions and not either of the ones I was hoping you'd actually answer. I know the Quran has not changed since then, and people have still been reading it in all the intermediate time, that's precisely what prompted my other questions:

 

If it was down to the Quran then why did it stop after a couple of hundred years?

 

Surely if the Quran was what prompted this flourishing of knowledge and culture then there would be a pretty constant stream of Muslim proto-scientists and engineers from the days of Muhammed right up until today, and they'd still be leading the world?

 

I agree with you- when Usama came under the spotlight with his views I was who said 'about time'- that it is about time this sort of thing came to light and Muslims began to think deeper. If they studied the Quran properly they would find that the Quran never claims Adam was the first man.

Here are five different translations from Muslim scholars which contradict that.

 

Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

 

Some Madarrasas (places of study)today have very little involvement in pursuing the type knowledge the early Muslims did- who used their intellect to develop a more deeper understanding of the world and had libraries and text books that the West could only dream about.

That they did, they were standing on the shoulders of giants like everyone else though. A large basis for the Islamic golden age was the knowledge of the greeks, it didn't just spring up in isolation.

 

I really don't see what any of it has to do with Islam.

 

This may happen when the dictators/corrupt rulers are all forced out and people of integrity, honesty and the desire to bring education to the masses, come to the forefront.

Hey, something we can agree on.

[Baz1]

Ok, unfortunately you answered my two rhetorical questions and not either of the ones I was hoping you'd actually answer. I know the Quran has not changed since then, and people have still been reading it in all the intermediate time, that's precisely what prompted my other questions:

 

If it was down to the Quran then why did it stop after a couple of hundred years?

 

Surely if the Quran was what prompted this flourishing of knowledge and culture then there would be a pretty constant stream of Muslim proto-scientists and engineers from the days of Muhammed right up until today, and they'd still be leading the world?

 

 

I did say earlier that there is a lot one can look at and wonder what caused the decline- I mentioned some possibilities like the Crusades and the invasion of the Mongols- which destroyed many libraries and obviously caused the death of many scholars.

 

So technically, the sources of this knowledge was lost- and a lot of it has not gone back to those earlier periods. Without the books of knowledge- including the Quran (destroyed in these wars) along with the deaths of some of these great scholars/teachers (who had committed so much of it to memory) was lost.

 

After these empires collapsed (example Ottomon) you had different forms of rulers- those who did not allow the pursuit of knowledge that was once the strong point of that particular era.

 

That they did, they were standing on the shoulders of giants like everyone else though. A large basis for the Islamic golden age was the knowledge of the greeks, it didn't just spring up in isolation.

 

I never said it did- however these Arabs translated some of the works of the Greek which I did mention. It was their zeal and commitment that allowed further understanding and development that helped the West access some of this knowledge.

 

Here are five different translations from Muslim scholars which contradict that.Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

 

What you may notice is that the general translation and meaning is not affected- however on this particular verse (surah Nisa) there is a problem amongst some commentators- and that is they use brackets to refer to Adam- but this is not part of the Quran.

 

It is a little off topic but I will add somethings and then leave it there.

 

This specific verse does not in anyway say that the single being was Adam. Even if a Muslim believed in evolution (and many do) they still cannot say that this being is Adam- as the Quran never states that!

 

Similarly, chapter 7 verse 11, in some translations, again the bracket is used and (incorrectly IMO) Adam is added in-but on further study of the verse and the Arabic wording used (sawwarnaakum)- means 'to give shape' (via evolution).

 

The Quran does stir the mind- and it was things like this that helped shaped my knowledge- it is all about how you use it to make understanding greater.

 

Now I am not saying that all the commentators are wrong- as it does not change the actual meaning of the verse as the Quranic Arabic remains the same- one of the fundamental aspect of this book- but the language is very diverse and one word can have different meanings. One has to use their best understanding to come to some meaning- hence refer to other areas of knowledge- the Sunnah and the academic books of course.

 

Unfortunately there are many Muslims today who learn to read Arabic but fail to understand it- if they pondered more over the words and its meaning and used the fields of knowledge available to them through academia, you won't have so many mad Mullahs.

[six45ive]

Here's a video that quickly addresses the differences in approaches to knowledge in the western and Arabic world regarding the scientific method and how it's evolved to be what it is today.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=TzQ1tyCTc04

[Chris_Sleeps]

if they pondered more over the words and its meaning and used the fields of knowledge available to them through academia, you won't have so many mad Mullahs.

So Allah dictated a book that is difficult to understand?

[mj.scuba]

The principal Islamic prophet, Muhammad, was around about 600 years after Jesus.

 

So what does the future hold for Islam in the future? Will it follow the decline enjoyed by that other principal religion, Christianity?

 

In 600 years will it mature with the passing of time? Will it's devotees dwindle in number? Will those future generations look back with embarrassment?

 

Or will it flourish, grow and become a dominant force in the world? What will that world look like?

 

 

 

Finally, before you hit reply, please make sure that you address the OP, not your prejudice or glorification. Thanks.

 

Given the nature Islam, which as far as religion goes was designed with near perfection, it will remain in the dark ages. Even so called moderate Islamic states are far from beacons of tolerance.

[taxman]

Given the nature Islam, which as far as religion goes was designed with near perfection, it will remain in the dark ages. Even so called moderate Islamic states are far from beacons of tolerance.

 

Consider yourself fatwa'd, infidel!

[Balpin]

Given the nature Islam, which as far as religion goes was designed with near perfection, it will remain in the dark ages. Even so called moderate Islamic states are far from beacons of tolerance.

 

We may say, in reality, that it is not a religion, it is a political activity.

[quisquose]

Tim Holland has a new book relevant to this thread, and I have just ordered a copy from Amazon:

 

In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World

 

Christianity and Judaism have loads of books on history and archaeology which expose the twisting of historical narrative by religious groups, political leaders and kings to further their ends. Islam needs it's time in the sun as well.

 

Charles Moore reviews the book in The Telegraph with the opening paragraphs:

 

Most of the attention given to this book so far has, rightly, been favourable. But it has skirted round the key point. Tom Holland is attempting to show that much of what Muslims believe about the Koran is incorrect. Since their belief is rigorously literal – they hold that the Koran is the uncreated word of God recited (the word Koran means “recitation”) directly through the mouth of Mohammed – any Muslim who accepted Holland’s evidence would have to reconsider many aspects of his faith.

 

This painful process of textual inquiry into scripture has been well known to Christians since the 19th century, when the Bible came under similar scrutiny. It has caused anguish, but many have been able to reconcile their faith with the discoveries of scholarship. No such process has taken place in Islam. Indeed, the suppression of questioning has actually got worse. Until 1924, for example, seven different versions of the text were considered canonical, so areas of doubt were implicitly acknowledged. Now there is only one normative text, and it is inconsistent in many particulars, but Muslims dare not say so. Holland is being brave.