Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm

Misbah, Muhammad; Setyaningrum, Anisah

doi:10.1080/14746700.2022.2051258

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, Muslim perspectives on evolution are typed according to their understanding of that theory: as entailing that all animals were produced via evolution, that only nonhuman animals were so produced, or that at least Adam (the first human) was not generated by evolution. These groups all believe that Islam and evolution are compatible, in contrast to the “Creationists” who reject the evolutionary origins of any animals whatsoever (Malik 2021, p. 111; Pear and Malik 2022, 632).…”

Section: Types Of Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In introducing his 3 × 3 classification scheme, Drees likewise explains, “in practice, most authors focus on one area, a single column, or a single row, or at least have a characteristic emphasis there” (Drees 1996, 44; my emphasis). Malik, for his part, explicitly employs his typology to classify Muslim thinkers (Malik 2021, 113).…”

Section: Using Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alister McGrath's comment is representative: "despite its limitations, the framework set out by Barbour remains helpful as a means of approaching the field of science and religion studies" (McGrath 2020, 12). Some have proposed alternative typologies: Haught (1995), Drees (1999), Stenmark (2004Stenmark ( , 2010, Malik (2021), and Pear and Malik (2022) for example. But in a sense they are all doing the same kind of thing: they carve out the space of logically possible/plausible ways in which religion and science could be related and place various scholars (and non) into those niches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some have proposed alternative typologies: Haught (1995), Drees (1999), Stenmark (2004, 2010), Malik (2021), and Pear and Malik (2022) for example. But in a sense they are all doing the same kind of thing: they carve out the space of logically possible/plausible ways in which religion and science could be related and place various scholars (and non) into those niches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Aims of Typologies and a Typology of Methods

Chin¹

2023

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typologies like Ian Barbour's have been widely used—and critiqued—in religion‐and‐science. Several alternatives have been proposed by, for example, John Haught, Willem Drees, Mikael Stenmark, and Shoaib Ahmed Malik. However, there has been a surprising deficit in discussion of what we wish typologies to do in religion and science in the first place. In this article, I provide a general analysis of typologies in religion‐and‐science by (1) providing a classification of existing typologies as conclusion‐ or concept‐oriented; (2) showing that typologies are used, or expected to be used, as first‐order categorizations of how religion and science are related and as second‐order classifications of scholars/scholarly works; (3) discussing several aims which we might want typologies to achieve in their second‐order usage; and (4) presenting a new kind of typology focused on the methods used by scholars which achieves those aims in a unique way.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Using Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Aims of Typologies and a Typology of Methods

Chin¹

2023

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abū Ḥāmid al‐Ghazālī8 (d. 1111) treats this topic systematically, acknowledging and applying natural science in his Qurʾānic commentary in order to understand the laws of the universe 9. Al‐Ghazālī “mastered most if not all the theoretical sciences” of his time (Malik 2021, 9). He was convinced that the Qurʾān contains the knowledge of all science, from past to future (see Hartmann 1916).…”

Section: Science In Classical Qurʾānic Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Qurʾān and Science, Part I: The Premodern Era

Daneshgar

2023

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the first installment in a three‐part series on the Qurʾān and science, this article begins with the author's personal and scholarly experiences to demonstrate the importance of the twin trends of Qurʾānic scientific interpretation and Qurʾānic scientific miraculousness, including how both serve as Muslims theological tools. It then touches upon the close relationship between theology and scientific knowledge in the history of Islam. The main focus concerns how science is situated and defined in Islamic literature, with particular references to traditional Muslim commentaries and treatises. It also concerns the way Muslim exegetical figures and traditionalists are encouraged or discouraged from taking science into account based on the Qurʾān and prophetic traditions.

show abstract

Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

The Aims of Typologies and a Typology of Methods

The Aims of Typologies and a Typology of Methods

The Qurʾān and Science, Part I: The Premodern Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About