Harun Yayha, otherwise known by his born name Adnan Oktar, is setting up a "creationist museum" at the ICNA conference in Hartford, CT, this weekend.
Follow this link to a discussion of the state of Islamic science. A quote here:
(begin quote) If you're a Muslim and you're worried about the military weakness of Muslim countries compared to Western imperialist powers, you're going to see that today's warfare depends a lot on high-tech developments. If you're worried about the Muslim world falling under the thumb of economically advanced Western powers, well, the modern economy depends on technology and science. This is not a controversial statement in the Muslim world. Even the most conservative Muslim realizes that the Islamic world is at a severe disadvantage right now in science and technology. The West has done a much better job. And somehow, Muslims are going to have to do better. (End quote)
Supporting Harun Yayha is not doing better. It's relegating Islamic science to the sub-par ghetto it's inhabited for centuries.
As for my belief, I believe that Allah's spirit moved over the waters and the spark of life ignited in single-cell organisms, that evolution is a design of the creator unwinding across time and throughout history.
Denying evolution is like denying that the Earth is round. It's embarrassing that someone is lavishly funding this guy to haul around some cheesy "museum" that will likely make arbitrary, selective and manipulative use of whatever is inside of it to "prove" evolution wrong. Please stop supporting this guy and giving him a platform.
ICNA could have served the community better by hosting a moderated seminar with knowledgable scientists available to scour the falsehoods out of whatever Oktar and his enablers have to offer.
For more servings of reality on the state of Islamic science from someone less antagonized by creationism than I am, check out the Amazon.com writeup and read reviews of Taner Edis's book "An Illusion of Harmony: Science And Religion in Islam."
What do Muslims say about the rising non-Muslim economic powers of Japan, China, South Korea, India, Thailand, and Vietnam?
These nations were subjugated to imperialism and where at the receiving end of modern technology, but they prevailed!
Dang. Harun Yahya's works make a mockery of both science and religion- but the Salon interview was equally shallow. We're not going to sort out the delicate balances between faith and science, reason and belief by deriding or marginalizing either.
Allah gives victory to whom He wills.
Reply to GustavoMustafa
If Muslims are behind in the world - its either a test of their sincerity or a punishment - both due to the will of Allah
Looking at the amount of Muslims choosing 'progression' over submission to Allah...i'd say its both
i say this because, ironically in all the battles won by the beloved Prophet and his companions (may Allah bless them all), the muslims were always in the minority. Allah helped them because they were committed to Islam as revealed to them by Allah... not Islam according to their flimsy desires.
imperialism or no imperialism, the Muslim world needs to go back to its roots.
of course Allah knows best
daughter of islam,
The problem with the Muslim world is the lack of investment in women's education.
In almost every Muslim majority country, female literacy rates are lower than those compared to men. Only Qatar has a higher female literacy rate.
The problem with the Muslim world is that Muslim oligarchs have not been responsive to their populations needs and wants.
Pakistan has no educational system, instead, in some parts of the country, like the tribal regions where Afghan Pathans live, madrassas are the only form of education available to men, women are excluded from reading and accessing the Qur'an.
People in Pakistan have to pay out of pocket to educate their children, but this is not an option readily available to all.
The problem is, they merely memorize the Qur'an, they do not understand Arabic since they speak Pushtun or Urdu/Hindi.
They are given interpretations to the Qur'an, they are not allowed to ponder the meaning of the verses and their implication for modern times.
Furthermore, Muslim nations lack the infrastructure, educated populations, and vision to attract foreign investors.
The Gulf Arab states have been blessed with fossil fuels, they have yielded and amass a considerable amount of wealth, since many are aware that "peak oil" is upon us, and the world must find alternatives to oil, the Gulf Arabs are investing in other profitable areas.
Mecca is no longer exclusively off limits to non-Muslims. Though non-Muslims cannot enter the Haram still, non-Muslims can live and work in Mecca, not just cheap Asian and African domestic labor, but skilled Western workers with the technical know-how desired by the Saudis.
You seem to have an "Oriental fatalistic" approach to Islam.
I'm part Persian, and Islam in Iran has always been proactive.
When the Shia ulema enter in the fray of politics, they are not imams but politicians. They address issues that affect the people, they do not wait for divine intervention, they act on their political instincts. But to continue their rule, they even yield to popular discontent and will reverse course.
I'd also say that lack of investment in research, the arts, and other fields is also leaving the Middle East dependent on the West in many ways.
Muslim immigrants often encourage their children to become engineers and or enter in some capacity of the healthcare field.
The irony of the scientific method, is that it was initially pioneered by Muslim scholars in the Middle Ages.
But when a Muslim child wants to be a writer or musician, Muslims will say music is haraam.
What Muslim country does not have some form of music or dance?
Even the Saudis have regional forms of Arab music and dance.
The Muslims will say fiction is haram.
What great Muslim civilization did not have poetry or fiction writing?
When you look upon the "early successes" of the Muslim world, you find the arts thrived.
You find that Muslims were not xenophobic to non-Muslim accomplishments.
Concepts of monarchy in much of the Muslim world are based on pre-Islamic Persian concepts of kingship.
Christians played a crucial role in the administrations of the Abbasid caliphate. Greek, not Arabic, for sometime was the administrative language of this Muslim empire.
Jews were once the custodians of the Dome of the Rock (though a Muslim triumphal monument-it is the Holy of Holies for Jews), but we find few examples of peaceful coexistence today in modern Palestine/Israel.
GustavoMustafa,
i hadn't realised you responded to me earlier, so apologies for the late reply.
i agree with you on almost all of these points. the women of the ummah need to be given much better access to education; politicians need to become more accountable to the people whom they rule over...but a brief overview of Islamic history shows that these things ARE the roots of Islam, hence why I said we need to go back to what Allah tells us to do....
for example, i see no point in advocating that women lead men in prayers, not only because it is forbidden but also because generally women are so poorly educated. teach women Islam. invest in the need for more female scholars. don't give us privileges that we have no right to ask for.
also, i see no point in trying to attract foreign investors in Muslim economies, when the native people themselves cannot even access basic healthcare and education. what's the point in increased privatisation, when there is no safety net for the people who already live there?
regarding proactive 'ulema... i never said wait for divine inspiration. My comments were based on 'use-the-knowledge-that-you-have- but-keep-increasing- this' mentality. so, again, to an extent, I agree with you. the sunni scholars can learn a lot from the shia, but if you're saying that the ulema-come politician is a new, flashy 'progressive' thing then you are quite mistaken and my agreement with you stops there. it is basic knowlegde that Islam does not separate itself from any realm, and thus the sincere khalifs of the past, especially Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan and 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all) were in fact scholars and politicians. it's already been done before. long before Khomeini.
Now do you understand why I said go back to what Islam really says? the ummah WAS great. the women of the past WERE knowledgeable. the ummah HAD victories... and the Muslims of the past only needed Islam, nothing more and nothing less... Coincident?
also, where the arts flourished (by arts i mean the non-Islamic type), the ummah was in fact declining. it was at this point that Europe was 'reawakening'. it was not immediately detrimental to the ummah, but the foundation was laid for the European empires. when the empires became strong, the muslim world merely responded by creating a hybrid between Islam and secularism...similar to what most of the people on this website are trying to do. the net result was not a strengthening of the ummah, but a rapid decline. Another coincident?
wassalaam
Post new comment