by Mothiur Rahman

Created on: December 15, 2009   Last Updated: December 16, 2009

There are many ways of approaching this topic, but one of the ways in which Muslims have attempted to delve into it is by highlighting the many verses in the Qur'an that seem to correspond with the findings of modern science. One such work is by former French, medical doctor Maurice Bucaille, entitled 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Science'; in which he argues that there is nothing in the Qur'an that contradicts established science. Recent years have also seen the rapid rise of another ex-medical doctor; a charismatic public speaker called Zakir Naik. Although his works cover a range of issues in the Islamic world, he too has become famous for his defence of the Qur'an in the light of science. His works are more easily accessible than his colleagues', on sites like YouTube [

Link].

This essay will explain the relationship between the Qur'an and science, from a theological perspective-their epistemological value according to Muslims, rather than sharing the similarities between the Qur’an and science.

The most significant item of knowledge we must all grasp in our attempt to understand the Qur'an's relationship to science, is that—according to Muslims—the Qur'an is the infallible word of God while science is an effort by mankind to understand the world around them, utilizing whatever means they have access to. It therefore logically follows, that whatever is in the Qur'an must by necessity be fact; because the creator of the heavens and the earth must surely know His creation precisely—because He is All-Knowing. Sadly the same cannot be said about science since its findings are the conclusions of methods developed by limited minds, put into practice by limited minds and—whatever it shows—are interpreted by limited minds.

Considering this view, it is the Islamic understanding that knowledge based on science cannot always be conclusive. This is in fact one of the most interesting topics in the philosophy of science, which asks whether we can be sure that what we know now is the final say, or that we will make new discoveries that will disprove prevalent knowledge. After all, such a trend is what we notice when we look into the history of science and how our understanding of it evolved. We learn that there were things people accepted as fact based on what they perceived to be evidence, but were later shown to be either wrong or miscalculations. This was most evident in the middle of the 20th century; possibly due to the introduction

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>