There’s a lot of religious woo appearing lately in scientific journals, but this is one of the worst I’ve seen. There’s a new paper in the International Journal of Cardiology by M. Loukas et al., “The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur’an and Hadeeth“(click to download a pdf), that is nothing less than Islamic creationism. What it tries to do is show how remarkably accurate and prescient were the Qur’an and Hadeeth (a post-Mohammed collection of the prophet’s sayings and actions) about the cardiovascular system and how to take care of it.
It’s unbelievable how far these authors stretch the Qur’an and Hadeeth to show how well they comport with modern science. It’s like Al Mohler or Henry Morris wrote this paper. Here are a few examples.
The article says this:
Although there are multiple Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions regarding the spiritual heart, a few but important references have certainly been made about the anatomy and physiology of the physical heart as a vulnerable organ vital to the human being.We first see the heart referred to as a muscle and not in a metaphorical sense in a prophetic tradition, where it is stated, “Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it remains healthy the whole body becomes healthy, and if it is diseased, the whole body becomes diseased. Beware, it is the heart” [32]. This tradition holds true if taken either literally or spiritually.
I missed the part here about the heart being a muscle. But if this is taken metaphorically, referring to the “heart” as the seat of character and emotion, then what does it have to do with science or medicine?. And indeed, if you read that verse in the Qur’an, metaphorical it seems to be:
Narrated An-Nu’man bin Bashir: I heard Allah’s Apostle (sallalahu alayhi wa salam) saying, ‘Both legal and illegal things are evident but in between them there are doubtful (suspicious) things and most of the people have no knowledge about them. So whoever saves himself from these suspicious things saves his religion and his honor. And whoever indulges in these suspicious things is like a shepherd who grazes (his animals) near the Hima (private pasture) of someone else and at any moment he is liable to get in it. (O people!) Beware! Every king has a Hima and the Hima of Allah on the earth is His illegal (forbidden) things. Beware! There is a piece of flesh in the body if it becomes good (reformed) the whole body becomes good but if it gets spoilt the whole body gets spoilt and that is the heart.
Here’s a good one, where the authors conveniently omit discussing a woman’s “impure” menstrual blood:
Blood is also mentioned numerous times in verses discussing food. For instance, the intake of blood is completely forbidden, and all of the blood of a slaughtered animal must be drained at the time of the slaughter as the carotid arteries and jugular veins are severed. There seems to be an acknowledgement in the Qur’an that some blood is impure and can contain and transmit pathogens leading to disease. In addition, during menstruation, women are to abstain from sexual intercourse and the ritual prayer because menstrual blood is considered impure. However, not all blood is impure, as Mohammad distinguishes between menses and blood “…from a blood vessel;” if a woman’s uterine vessels are to rupture causing bleeding, the restrictions placed on a female during menstruation does not apply [22]. Blood is also used when the Qur’an describes the early stages of the embryo as “congealed blood” or “blood clot” (to be discussed later in the paper). Thus, we find several comments of blood in the Qur’an as an impurity, as spreading disease, a sign of lineage, and in relation to women’s health.
And. . . . praying to Mecca is good for the heart!
The Islamic prayer is performed at least five times a day and consists of a series of movements entailing standing, prostrating, and sitting. When performing prayer, the author of the Qur’an discourages lazily performing prayer as performed by the Hypocrites [34]; thus, a lethargic and carelessness approach to prayer neither obtains any spiritual nor physical benefit to the state of health. Also, the amount of prostrations, and thus physical movement, during a prayer varies from one prayer to the next.We find that increased number of prostrations in a prayer (i.e. physical movement) correlates with the time of day when one usually eats, possibly to help digest food and, in the long run, reduce the chances of thrombus formation. In addition, the author of the Qur’an states, “Truly it is in the remembrance of God that the hearts find peace” [35]. It is said that Mohammad advised people not to go to sleep immediately after meals, for that would lead to a hardening of the heart [36]. It was also advised not to engage in strenuous physical activity after eating.
The physical movements during prayer also help prevent deep vein thrombi. . .
I would have thought a few stiff laps around the mosque would be better.
And. . . the Qur’an was accurate about embryology, too!
The Qur’an and the Hadeeth provide detailed, accurate descriptions of the major events that occur during embryological development. . . Although many verses in the Qur’an and prophetic traditions discuss the development of the embryo, only two will be described below. It is remarkable to note that the descriptions presented in these 7th century texts closely resemble the various stages of the embryo.
“We [God] created man from a quintessence of clay.We then placed him as a nutfah (drop) in a place of settlement, firmly fixed, then We made the drop into an ‘alaqah (leech-like structure), and then We changed the ’alaqah into a mudhah (chewed-like substance, somite stage), then We clothed the bones with lahm (muscles, flesh), then We caused him to grow and come into being and attain the definitive (human) form. So, blessed be God, the best to create” [40].
“When forty-two nights have passed over the conceptus, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it (into human form), makes its hearing, sight, skin, muscles and bones…” [41].
Enough—you get the idea. The article is all about showing that the Qur’an and Hadeeth are textbooks of science. And what could that be about except to justify the accuracy—and perhaps the holiness—of these sacred texts? Certainly Islamic scholars made notable contributions to science, but you won’t find them in the Qur’an or Hadeeth.
We’re well familiar with this type of exegesis from “scientific creationists,” who comb verses from the Bible to show its scientific accuracy, like the existence of dinosaurs. What’s absolutely ridiculous is that the same exercise in selective citation, with Islamic texts, is published in The International Journal of Cardiology. It would be interesting to do this exercise in reverse: check out Islamic texts for descriptions that are scientifically inaccurate, or prescriptions that are unhealthy. But of course the authors aren’t interested in that type of science.
UPDATE: Here are some negative reactions by scientists and a letter of protest to the journal’s editor.
h/t: Richard Dawkins, who provides a link if you want to write the journal’s editor (and you should). Here’s Richard’s own letter, used with permission:
Dear Professor Coats
I presume that you have by now been alerted to the fact that the above piece of unscientific drivel has somehow managed to slip through the net of your refereeing process. I trust that is not too late to save the reputation of the International Journal of Cardiology, and I expect that you are already taking the necessary steps to countermand acceptance of this fatuous paper.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins FRS
Emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Science
University of Oxford
and mine
First Name Sender: Jerry
Last Name Sender: CoyneSubject: Loukas et al. paper
Journal ID: 506041
Journal Title: International Journal of CardiologyText of Email:
It is a travesty that your journal published a paper purporting to show how accurate the Qur’an and Hadith are on scientific issues. Not only was the article full of cherry-picked quotes that have to be very liberally interpreted to bring them even close to modern science, but the authors neglect those parts of Islamic “scripture” that CONTRADICT modern science. What kind of “scientific” publication is that? Your journal should be ashamed of itself.Jerry Coyne, Professor, Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago
___
Loukas, M., Y. Saad, R. S. Tubbs and M. M. Sjoha. 2010. The heart and cardiovascular system in the Qur’an and Hadeeth. Internat. J. Cardiol., in press.
66 Comments
The authors finish the paper with the statement:
“…the discoveries and medical revelations in Qur’an should not be
ignored or forgotten.”
Now I can appreciate that there were a number of islamic scientists, mathematicians etc, who contributed to knowledge during the time that the Islamic world was open to progressive ideas but that was really a time period that is much later than the time the Koran was being written. Is there any discovery or ‘revelation’ in the Koran that is anything more than what we might expect by chance? The most oft quoted revelation related to biology is the famous ‘clot of blood’ origin of mankind – a hypothesis that sounds laughable to anyone who knows anything about either embryology or hematology but might sound plausible to desert tribespeople who have experience of things like menstruation, miscarriage etc. What was the editor thinking to accept such an obvious piece of theological apologetics?
“…the discoveries and medical revelations in Qur’an should not be
ignored or forgotten.”
If you do, you are a flaming islamophobe.
Wow. Who knew? Dennett’s coronary dissection was part of a cardio-fatwa.
Ditto PZ’s 5 stents.
the intake of blood is completely forbidden
Huh. Better not let a histologist get a look at that “bloodless” goat meat.
And what about the blood vessels of the heart-lung system.
How can you miss the very image of the FSM here (blessed be his noodly appendages)?
AH! Not for them the delight of a black pudding!
How much of this dread of menses is due to the desert environment in which this religion (& Judaism) evolved? The Old Testament requires quarantining a menstruating woman for 7 days; anyone who touches her garment is to be similarly cloistered.
Followers are quick to paint practices like this – and circumcision – as good hygeine, ignoring the fact that simple washing will achieve the same or better results.
I think it’s mostly fear of vagina, a common ailment in patriarchal religions.
Point taken. But for those who lived in the desert environment, where water was perhaps at a premium, and constant washing perhaps not feasible, those practices were hygienic. For them.
But only for their human females.
Not their precious camels, nor goats?
No, pure misogyny, through and through.
Oh, certainly the misogyny is there. But isn’t it possible (or perhaps even probable) that both explanations played a role? Are we certain more water was allocated for washing camels and goats than for washing human females?
Straw woman
The risks of circumcision in a desert environment with no thought of asepsis were much greater than anything it protected against, and while water may have been in short supply, urine never was.
Interestingly, in The Marsh Arabs, Wilfred Thesiger relates a lot of circumcision infection in the marshes of the delta where water (maybe not very clean) was in abundant supply.
Of course, the sepsis had to do with instruments which were as primitive (and stayed so until the 1950s) and unclean.
Disgusting practice by sadists calling themselves agents of god.
hygiene; i before e, except when it isn’t.
Right now, I’m attending a medical convention…looking at posters, listening to talks. And yesterday, it struck me that the names associated with these presentations were a riotously eclectic mix, associated with a lot of religions. Sood, Chen, McLaughlin, Feldman, and all the rest.
And not once, not anywhere, has anyone insisted that their holy book somehow offers insight into the disease at hand. Not pathophysiology, not etiology, not pathogenesis, not drug targets, not pharmacokinetics, not clinical trial results.
I wish the Koran or the Bible or the Gita or the Book of the Dead provided such insights. Because we seem to be stumbling along a lot of blind alleys. Almost as if we have received no input at all from any deity and were trying to figure things out one step at a time.
If the deity is providing insights, they’re damnably nonspecific.
The Holy Qur’an on Science:
The stupid – it burns brightly, in any language.
The abstract “Descriptions of the human anatomy derived from religious texts are often omitted from the medical literature.”
That’s because that are blasted RELIGIOUS TEXTS!
There is a history of science article in here somewhere on the historic basis for what the authors of the Koran thought they knew about the heart, & indeed what knowledge later islamic scholars contributed to the beginnings of the science of medicine, but this is emphatically not it.
I would like to defend at least one of the authors, Loukas M, who have a large contribution on historical views of human anatomy, offering a geographically (China, India, Europe) and historically (up to the pre-Hippocratic era) wide overview of the perception of the cardiovascular system.
At least this one I would’t suspect to have a particular sympathy for one holy book or any revelations from his work.
Check “Loukas M”[Author] in PubMed and particularly PMIDs: 20965586, 20887391, 19910063, 19709769, 19421695, 19260075, 18164081, 18026961, 17662491, 17541607, 17316844.
The particular article you mentioned is no longer “in press,” but was published in April, 2010.
There is, however, a new Islamic article “in press” for the same journal entitled “Islamic legacy of cardiology: Inspirations from the holy sources” (this time by a Turkish author). Although… it looks as thought it has been sitting “in press” for over a year now. Here is the DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.09.470
This is actually a letter written to the journal in response to the original article. It’s rather strange to see this published, to say the least. Normally ‘letters’ in response to an article either dispute the findings in question or substantially add to the original material. In the case of this particular letter the authors are basically saying – “Why yes, we agree completely with the original article!” There is no way you would get away with this if you are dealing with a scientific topic – especially as getting a letter published in a journal frequently counts as a ‘publication’ and thus something indicative of a substantial amount of work (rather than simply a letter saying “Yay! Isn’t my religion cool!”)
Medical journals have a limited amount of space for articles and letters so what this means is that real science has been prevented from publication on more than one occasion, in favor of theology.
Shame on the editorial team of this journal.
That is quite incredible – even worse than the original article, essentially they are just outlining the basics of their religion then adding a bit about Avicenna (who was the Aristotle of his age). I propose sending an article on the norse “blood eagle” to the Journal of Thoracic & Cardiovascular Surgery – it makes as much sense!
In fact, much more of these sort of ‘articles’ & I will have to consult my copy of Bald’s Leechbook to see if they have a cure for apoplexy!
This reminds me a little of the people who thought the ancient Greeks discovered DNA because the caduceus is a double helix.
With hind sight is easy to go through and cherry pick all sorts of crap from holy texts and present them as ‘proof’ of bible science, but you have to consider that these books had the opportunity to set out all kinds of helpful medical practices like hand washing, germ theory, basic genetics, ban smoking, drinking during pregnancy, all sorts of things that would be helpful. That the Bible spends so much more time considering the proper way to maim a penis and shun a menstruating woman should show that these are not science texts.
The Hindus have been doing this kind of stuff for years too. Since Hinduism allows for an incredibly old earth, it seems to have at least allowed for evolutionary development, unlike most monotheistic systems. But, really, it has to be said that even if, say, the Tanach or the Qu’ran did contain some apparently prescient glimpses into what has been discovered by contemporary science, the likelihood of this having been influenced by Greek philosophical speculations, on the one hand (which actually did anticipate scientific modes of thought), or, through Zoroastrianism, by Eastern wisdom, from Hindu and Buddhist and other traditions, on the other, is probably very high. The Qu’ran itself shows influence from all these sources, so it’s absurd to take it as a text born in isolation. That’s just taking Islam’s claim that the text is, from beginning to end, a revelation straight from god by way of the angel Gabriel. Silly to make that assumption. Silly to suppose that there is any close parallel between ancient texts and modern science, whatever the origin of the texts, except that at least the Greeks did make intelligent guesses, and, in some cases, actually foreshadowed things that the sciences would later confirm, like Anaximander and Empedocles on evolution, the use of electric fish to defibrillate the heart, etc. But stupid to suppose that “holy” texts as “holy” have anything of importance to say on these subjects. Embarrassing that scientific journals are sucked into the religious vortex.
I am sure Shakespeare makes a fine book on cardiology also. How stupid are these journals becoming? We are entering the Grey Ages.
The point is well-taken. We can play these games with ancient texts all day—but do we really need scientific papers on them?
In Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love), Ovid writes that if a man wishes to enjoy his lover’s kiss more thoroughly, he should ask her to clean her teeth. Wow! Now here’s a Roman poet, writing thousands of years before modern dentistry, confirming everything we know to be true about oral hygiene and its benefits to overall health and well-being! Quick, someone help me write up these findings so I can get published in a scientific journal!
Is it from Ovid that we get “ovum,” “ovary,” etc.? Or did Ovid come from an ovum? Ar! Ar!
What is this quintessence of dust? I suppose they will claim Shakespeare was muslim…
No, Hamlet wasn’t about cardiology, it was about evolution. Remember the whole “Methinks it is like a weasel” line? Dawkins just plagiarized that.
Reminds me of this version of a well-known joke:
Muslim: “Muslim scientists have found traces of copper wire in Arabia dating back thousands of years.”
Hindu: “What does that prove?”
Muslim: “That we had telephone networks in ancient Arabia.”
Hindu: “Interesting. Our Hindu scientists found absolutely nothing even after digging our land for years.”
Muslim: “What on earth does that prove?”
Hindu: “That ancient Hindus had wireless technology!”
You have no idea how irritating these arguments can be. I’ve been in a couple Christian/Muslim chat rooms where Muslims have come in and started spewing nonsense about how accurate and prescient Koranic ideas about embryology, cosmology, and anatomy are. When I take apart the wording of the Koran and show how either ambiguous or mistaken or the Koran is, then they try to jump to another passage. When I ask for the best “proof” passage, and that gets destroyed, they usually recommend that I study it further with a more open mind. It’s remarkable what the human mind can perceive to be miraculous in order to confirm its strongly held beliefs.
For a great Christian example (which I’ve heard directly from several Christians) check out the following:
(Start from 2:00) There’s apparently some cross-shaped protein in our body. Anyone want to guess what that might indicate?
The fact a scientific journal can publish such nonsense shows how biased and sympathetic leftist academics are towards islam. As far as i know, i have never seen a scientific journal publish cristian or jewish apologetics!
Don’t read much here or Pharyngula,have you?
Already forget about the illnesses that Jesus healed and how parting of the Red Sea was possible?
Is ‘Pharyngula’ a respected scientific journal? I think not!
*sigh*
I meant the article referred to on Pharyngula.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/parting-the-red-sea/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/but_what_if_she_had_vapors_or.php
Most folks who write and comment on blogs like this ARE leftist academics – and have NO sympathy for Islam. Indeed, many of us (if I may be so bold) claim it is the MOST dangerous religion out there.
It is certainly the most extreme religion as its priciples are acted upon more than the others. I supose i can only speek from my own experience but where i live, islamic causes and beliefs are repected far more than any other religion. Why should islam not be challenged as much as the rest?
Islam is translated as “submission.” Would it more accurately be translated as, “Can’t leave you well enough alone.”
Islam is only “the most extreme religion” because its adherents aren’t slackers, like the Christians and Jews. Believe me, if Christians acted about the Bible the way Muslims act about the Koran, we’d all be talking about Christian terrorists and invading the Vatican.
Srsly?
It’s hard to believe the whole thing is not a parody – but scientific journals don’t do parody. (Do they?)
Words fail me.
Next up in any physics journal –
`QQT : Quranic Quantum Theory, A Comprehensive Introduction’
Don’t forget The Tao of Physics.
At least no respectable physical science journal was willing to publish Capra’s supercilious thesis.
It seems letters of protest were coming thick and fast since early this year –
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/refutation-of-the-heart-and-cardiovascular-system-in-the-quran-and-hadeeth/
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/roy.cfm
Disgraceful.
Marvellous letters both! Thanx for posting.
This would be fun if it were not so moronic – just try advanced search in PubMed with ‘Jesus’ in title & abstract. I had no idea there were overtly religious ‘journals’ like Journal of Religious Health – how naive I am!
Among others –
Eur J Heart Fail. 2009 Aug;11(8):729-31.
Did Jesus die of a ‘broken heart’?
Omerovic E.
Just think: the clowns who wrote that mountain of mohammed’s crap may be practicing cardiologists!
What ignorance is on display – claiming that it is forbidden to consume any blood whatsoever and that somehow all blood can be removed from animal flesh by simple means. Those morons should have failed all their basic biology classes.
Well, to be quite fair, they probably don’t eschew non-Koranic science in their medicine. And they’re certainly not alone in this regard.
My otolaryngologist graduated from Loma Linda School of Medicine. Loma Linda is run by the 7th Day Adventists, and its students are practitioners of that religion. The 7th Day Adventists teach a literal reading of the bible, including a 6000 year old universe and instant creation in their present form by god of all creatures inhabiting the planet.
He’s a good otolaryngologist nonetheless — though I don’t trust him with much more than extracting impacted ear wax.
Same thing here. I suspect these are probably very good cardiologists, who hold some specific religious views that do not interfere with their practice of medicine.
I only have one reaction:
Wha???
Are the authors claiming that these verses are evidence of the Qu’ran’s veracity?
Surely we’ve all noticed that many observations about hygiene and general health, and how certain activities have an injurious corelation w an individual’s health, have made it into scripture. I’m convinced STD’s are why sex is treated so problematically in scripture. This does not in any way imply that the scripture is true.
Isn’t it obvious that these sorts of passages are unsophisticated observations, of the exactly the sort we’d expect from ancient humans – not divine revelation?
“According to the Quran and Hadith, God created disease and God also created a treatment for every disease.”
Un-f*&^$#g-believable!!! How can any medical journal publish drivel like this?
Yes, The Old Man could have saved himself the trouble- by creating neither.
I remember reading a similar article in the journal Virology, “Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time” (http://www.virologyj.com/content/7/1/169) published in July 2010. They had to retract it as well.
You’d think they will learn something after the first one….
Oh and I thought the one about influenza is hilarious. They authors considered “demonic forces” as a likely diagnosis.
Yet if these idiots had teir way we would be living in darkness!!! Thank you for that depressing – I will show these to all the doctors I know. ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ’ – 😮 …what can one say?
“their” + “depressing news”. They got to me. 😥
My cardiologist in Alabama was a YEC who didn’t think antibiotic resistance is any danger.
What??? I would’ve found another doc as fast as my feet would carry me.
Not if he incidentally told you while lying on the operation table, you wouldn’t.
Scary man (m/f) indeed.
“We find that increased number of prostrations in a prayer (i.e. physical movement) correlates with the time of day when one usually eats, possibly to help digest food . . . It was also advised not to engage in strenuous physical activity after eating.”
Is there therefore not increased danger of public flatulence? Seared nasal hairs from direct blasts?
I would have thought a few stiff laps around the mosque would be better.
“When forty-two nights have passed over the conceptus, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it (into human form), makes its hearing, sight, skin, muscles and bones…” [41].”
As Douglas Adams said, the answer is “42.”
I decided to send a note to the editor. For what it’s worth, here it is:
I am undecided on this.While it’s astonishing that this nonsense got published in the IJC, I don’t see it as hidden religious propaganda, rather a stupid “historical” account of medicinal themes in the Quran.And while that is a waste of everybody’s time, I don’t know if it’s really stealth islamic apologetics.
It’s not “stealth” apologetics.
It’s straight-up overt blatantly open apologetics.
This is what apologetics “is”.