Maurice Bucaille

This is an apologetic. It takes scientific discoveries and shoehorns them into Quranic verses by redefining them and using very creative interpretations of what they might mean. Then it attempts to show that it is easier to do this with the Quran than the Bible.

I am Muslim, and I prefer the Quran to the Bible for various reasons (yes, I have read them both in their entirety). However, I have always been annoyed by the apologetics. It's post facto reasoning - we know that some scientific fact is real, and we know the Quran is unerring and should mention it someplace, so the only task left is to find a likely verse and explain it extremely creatively.

This is not a new tactic in faith discussions, and it is only when it comes to science that I find that it really irks me. (For example, feminist reinterpretations of the Quran I find highly convincing. See Mernissi and Wadud for examples.)

I don't think faith should try to use science to bolster itself. Somehow this seems like dishonesty and cheating. I especially think it's funny when one faith says it's more scientific than another (as is true with this book, which is an Islamic self-justification comparing itself to Christianity, which, surprise, comes up short). Faith and science are at odds. One requires proof, the other requires you to accept something without proof.

Anyhow, for the above reason, I disliked this book, which was given to me as a present while I lived in Egypt.… (altro)