1.1 Ziauddin Sardar

In 1985, the British-Pakistani author Ziauddin Sardar (b. 1951) published the article “Between Two Masters: Qur’an or Science?” (Sardar Reference Sardar1985). In this piece,Footnote ⁵ Sardar, an astute and versatile cultural critic with a background in physics and information science,Footnote ⁶ takes issue with interpreters of the Qur’an who are convinced that one can identify scientific notions in its verses. This approach is known as iʿjāz ʿilmī (henceforth: iʿjāz) or “miraculous scientific content of the Qur’an” or “scientific miraculousness.” Its underpinning idea is that, if scripture demonstrably carries scientific information unavailable to humans at the time of revelation, this is evidence of its divine origin. Sardar observes that the popularity of this approach was boosted by the 1976 book The Bible, the Qur’an and Science by the French physician Maurice Bucaille (1920–1998).

Sardar appreciates that most authors, including Bucaille, embraced this approach motivated by good intentions. Additionally, he acknowledges that the Qur’an invites humankind to observe nature. However, he identifies several problems carried by extreme versions of this approach, which he calls “Bucaillism.” Egyptian author Muhammad Jamaluddin El-Fandy claims, for example, that the Qur’an is “the best example of scientific expression,” yet this, comments Sardar, is “an unsuitable claim as the ideal form of scientific expression is a mathematical equation; and there certainly are no equations in the Quran.” The same author tries to find astronomical discoveries and theories in the Qur’an, also superimposing scriptural/religious imagery onto scientific notions; he claims, for example, that gravity, centrifugal force, atmosphere, and light are like “pillars.” Additionally, he speculates on the possible appearance of extraterrestrials, whose existence, he argues, is indicated by the Qur’an. “All this,” points out Sardar, is “bad science.”

Sardar notes that this approach strives to demonstrate the truth of the Qur’an, that, however, Muslims should simply assume; and that

Another risk is that “by raising science to the level of sacred knowledge, Bucaillism effectively undermines any criticism of science,” but “science is not the pursuit of Truth,” writes Sardar, and he continues: “Its ‘discoveries,’ and ‘facts’ do not, and cannot have the same validity as the verses of the Qur’an. Science is a problem-solving enterprise: it is a method, a technique, for solving problems within a given paradigm and worldview” (Sardar Reference Sardar1985).

Sardar keeps in mind that science is value-laden; in fact, he sees it as laden with Western values and deplores that the advocates of Bucaillism uncritically glorify it. He calls Bucaillism “apologia of the worst type” and Bucaille’s book “essential reading for Muslims with larger than life inferiority complexes” (Sardar Reference Sardar1985). Sardar does not use the term “pseudoscience.” However, he strongly criticizes Bucaillism as an approach that wrongly invokes science, or that relies on a misled and misleading conception of science. There are earlier critics of the “miraculous scientific content,” for example, the Egyptian Amīn Al-Khūlī (1895–1966) and ʻĀʾishah ʻAbd al-Raḥman (1913–1998) (see Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023a: 2; Naguib Reference Naguib2019). However, Sardar’s essay is a good starting point considering that he is, by education, familiar with science; he is conversant with the philosophy of science; he writes when iʿjāz is being propelled to global success; and he explicitly mentions “bad science.” At the time of writing this Element, Sardar confirmed that he regards “Bucaillism” and “pseudoscience” as synonyms (Sardar, personal communication, May 16, 2024).

1.2 Pervez Hoodbhoy

In 1991, the Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy (b. 1950), an MIT alumnus, published the monograph Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality (Hoodbhoy Reference Hoodbhoy1991). In this book, Hoodbhoy lambasts several attempts at merging Islam and science. Hoodbhoy explains that iʿjāz, which he calls “pseudo-scientific” (68), is the projection of modern science onto the Qur’an by interpreters facilitated by the complexity of Qur’anic language; Muslims, according to Hoodbhoy, tend to revere someone like Bucaille because he is a “white man” (67). Similarly to Sardar, Hoodbhoy emphasizes that such an approach is pointless even from a religious perspective, since it “proves” the divine origin of the Qur’an that Muslims take for granted; additionally, it makes eternal truth dependent on changeable scientific theories; finally, it allows no prediction of unknown physical facts (67–68).Footnote ⁷

In the book’s appendix, titled “They Call It Islamic Science” (140–154), Hoodbhoy decries an international conference held in Islamabad in 1987, as well as the articles published in a journal supported by the Pakistani scientific establishment. In both venues, scientific and technological notions were allegedly found or derived from Qur’anic verses (e.g., an engineer deduced from the sacred text how to build ammunition [142]); and religious notions were interpreted in allegedly scientific fashion (e.g., a researcher presented a formula to quantify hypocrisy in society [142–143]).

Hoodbhoy explains that

Regarding the distinction between “true science” and “nonscience,” Hoodbhoy writes,

Hoodbhoy labels the ideas that he criticizes “Islamic science,” and writes that such an approach

Finally, Hoodbhoy observes that “Islamic science” is popular among Muslim migrants in the West. He interprets it as a “a form of psychological defence against the continuous battering by modern science in its many manifestations” and as a persisting phenomenon; additionally, he sees it as “a refuge from the challenge of doing difficult science,” “an extension of the domain of religious law into the area of natural phenomena, and thus a means of challenging the growing dominance of secular science. For the ruling elite, however,” adds Hoodbhoy, “it is part of a calculated and cynical manipulation of religious sentiment”; the very elite that sponsors Islamic science privately scoffs it, and resorts to modern methods, for example, solving medical problems (150).

Hoodbhoy strongly advocates the separation of religion and science; he depicts the discourse on Islam and modern science as largely constituted of erroneous ideas regarding the method and the history of science. After publishing the monograph, Hoodbhoy continued his engagement with the subject over the years by publishing popular press articles denouncing pseudoscience and scientific malpractice in his native Pakistan (see Hoodbhoy Reference Hoodbhoy2015).

In a 2017 interview, Hoodbhoy defines pseudoscience as “statements about nature that are spurious and do not pass the test of scientific validity.” He acknowledges that science fares well in countries like Iran and Turkey due to their special tradition and culture. He emphasizes, however, that, generally, “science resolutely refuses to take root in Muslim countries” and that, therefore, “it’s much harder there to summon forces against pseudoscience.” Regarding Pakistan, Hoodbhoy blames two factors: “First, the insistence that religion must be brought into everything – including science – puts certain critical faculties to sleep. Second, kids are taught science as though they were memorising a holy text. The student is asked to reproduce facts of science, not to use them in a manner that demands reasoning.” To this, Hoodbhoy adds the lack of role models for young Pakistanis. As examples of pseudoscience in Pakistan, he mentions the case of someone who claimed he had invented a car running on water (and received governmental endorsement), “Islamic cures such as bleeding, cupping, or snails that suck blood,” faith healers, and theories about the exploitation of jinn as energy sources (mentioned in the Qur’an, jinn are creatures whose behavior and nature are variously interpreted; for a comprehensive discussion, see El-Zein Reference El-Zein2009). Additionally, Hoodbhoy deplores that Pakistani university professors and schoolbooks “flatly deny” evolution. Finally, he observes that “the support for pseudoscience in Pakistan does not come largely from the state any more. Instead, there are private TV channels that propagate so-called Islamic healing and miracles, and rail against evolution” (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2017b).

1.3 Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad

In 1992, the Palestinian-American astronomer Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad (b. 1948) published Signs in the Heavens: A Muslim Astronomer’s Perspective on Religion and Science (Ahmad Reference Ahmad1992). The book sets out to show that the incompatibility of religion and science is a myth born of Western history and that in the “classical Islamic era … much progress was made in scientific research and techniques” although contemporary Muslims largely neglect the principles that were conducive to such progress (Ahmad Reference Ahmad1992: xiv–xv; Ahmad lists such principles on p. 37 and elaborates on them over the following pages). Ahmad thinks that “monotheism and reason are allies against pagan superstition” and that historically “Muslim astronomy … paved the way for a scientific model in which all creation is equal under God” (Ahmad Reference Ahmad1992: xv–xvi). An expanded edition of the book followed in 2006. Here, the author extensively uses the term “pseudoscience” in a chapter added before the last one, significantly titled “The Incoherence of Muslim Pseudoscience” (Ahmad Reference Ahmad2006: 159–166).

Ahmad remarks that “there are among the Muslims, literalists who, while sincerely believing themselves to be enthusiasts of science, are laying the groundwork for an anti-science backlash by repeating the mistake of the medieval Church, i.e., marrying their interpretation of scripture to current scientific theory” (Ahmad Reference Ahmad2006: 159). In the 1992 edition, one finds a few largely positive references to Bucaille; Ahmad describes Bucaille’s 1976 book as a “fascinating” one: “While some of his statements on astronomy are open to question,” he writes, “I found his observations on biology and physiology (Bucaille is a physician) compelling” (Ahmad Reference Ahmad1992: 48n21).Footnote ⁸ In the second edition, Ahmad retains the references to Bucaille, but he adds to the first footnote about the French physician that his work “has inspired a wave of Muslim pseudoscience” (Ahmad Reference Ahmad2006: 55n87).Footnote ⁹ The author of The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, writes Ahmad, “correctly insisted that the Qur’an is not a scientific textbook. He never suggested that one could derive scientific knowledge from the analysis of the Qur’an. Yet, Bucaille’s imitators have argued that the theory of special relativity, and even the precise speed of light, can be deduced from the Qur’an” (Ahmad Reference Ahmad2006: 160–161, original emphasis).

Ahmad mentions Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby, an Egyptian physicist, who allegedly calculated the speed of light from a Qur’anic verse, and suggested that his analysis validated the special theory of relativity. Ahmad remarks that the numbers used by that author do not work: His mistakes would have been detected if his paper had been examined by experts, but “pseudoscience does not undergo peer review” (164). Additionally, he emphasizes that, if Muslims marry the Qur’an and a specific scientific theory, they turn such a theory into a dogma and “set themselves up to persecute any scientist who questions that theory as Galileo was persecuted.” But, he contends, “a theory about the physical universe stands or falls on its power to help us understand the universe and its success in doing so. An interpretation of a verse of scripture stands or falls on its ability to bring us closer to the Divine and into submission with His Will” (164).

Another major shortcoming of such an approach, according to Ahmad, “is that it misrepresents science as a body of facts instead of the process that it is”; he adds that it “draws on the educational system now dominant in the Muslim world in which knowledge in general is a body of facts to be memorized rather than a human construction that tries to bring all known facts into a coherent whole” (164–165).

Ahmad deplores that Hoodbhoy calls “Islamic science” the pseudoscientific attempt at turning the Qur’an into “a scientific textbook,” thus neglecting that, historically, Islam fruitfully inspired the scientific method (160). More generally, points out Ahmad, the existence of pseudoscience that “turned ‘Islamic science’ into a sad joke” empowers the harshest critics of Islam (165).

1.4 Taner Edis

In 2007, Taner Edis (b. 1967) published An Illusion of Harmony in which he systematically deconstructs the integration of Islam and science. Edis, a university professor of physics, was born and raised in Turkey but has lived in the US since the time of his master’s degree. He is an atheist who deems religious beliefs incompatible with science. Edis, however, advocates a fair treatment of Islam, acknowledging that it comprises a wide spectrum of positions; additionally, he understands that the West has its own “illusions of harmony” about religion and science (250–251).

Edis takes issue with Islamic forms of creationism (115–146) and with iʿjāz. The latter, he points out, contains myths which are “easily dispelled by elementary factchecking” (e.g., stories about Western scientists converting to Islam after appreciating the match between Qur’an and science [94]). However, such “fake news” (to use a current expression) isn’t the only reason identified by Edis to describe iʿjāz as pseudoscience. The advocates of iʿjāz exploit “vague and general” Qur’anic verses (96) and overlook the fact that the Qur’an reflects ancient, prescientific medical theories and cosmologies (96–99). Additionally, they sometimes neglect “traditional interpretations of verses and important doctrines just to find some science” (100) or rely on “ideas that are speculative or that arise from the fringes of science” (101).

Edis concludes,

In An Illusion of Harmony, Edis uses the term “pseudoscience” several times; he doesn’t define it but rather lets the meaning emerge from the context. Edis uses “pseudoscience” in reference to Islamic creationism (120, 125, 126, 134, 143, 202), but he also suggests that there exist “varieties of pseudoscientific ideas in the Islamic world” (9; see also 240) including “pseudoscientific apologetics” (25).

Edis similarly uses the term in the Element Islam’s Encounter with Modern Science (Edis Reference Edis2023: 31, 33, 57); there, he also labels as “pseudoscientific” the “enterprises [that] attempt to combine … traditional medical practices with an image of modern expertise” (5). In both books, Edis briefly remarks on the similarity between Islam-related pseudoscience (and other forms of harmonization of science and religion he criticizes) and Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist discourses (Edis Reference Edis2007: 106–107; Edis Reference Edis2023: 10).

Finally, Edis advances critical suggestions for the identification of pseudoscience in a 2018 article that doesn’t specifically deal with Islam but discusses the scientific status of economics. “How far should analyses of pseudoscience extend?” asks Edis. He states that “We do not have a ‘scientific method’ with more substance than generalities that amount to saying that it is good to have some reality testing and that we regularly need to refine our understanding by subjecting claims to criticism,” and adds, “Pseudosciences fail to be science, but that is not because they do not conform to a set of rules that are etched in stone” (Edis Reference Edis2018: 141). Taking creationism as an example, Edis lists shortcomings that qualify it as pseudoscience: It is “bad science” since “our geology is not shaped by Noah’s Flood, fossils are not hydrodynamically sorted, and evolutionary biologists are not concealing a crisis brought on by a lack of transitional forms” (142). Edis emphasizes that “[the creationists’] mistake … is not a violation of any rules that dictate methodological naturalism. … Instead, it is how they are not able to recognize the failures of their preferred approach” (142). Additionally, he points out that pseudoscience can be detected by the way in which an institution promotes certain concepts and ways of thinking:

Edis concludes, “we still have much work to do to understand pseudoscience in a wider context of possible institutional failings. Without such an understanding, outside of conversations about paranormal beliefs, accusations of ‘pseudoscience’ will risk becoming an empty rhetorical device” (147).

1.5 Nidhal Guessoum

The Algerian astrophysicist Nidhal Guessoum (b. 1960) articulates a rich approach to Islam and modern science for which he claims inspiration from Ibn Rushd (1126–1198). He emphasizes that the scientific method is universally and objectively defined and that it yields the best explanations for the physical world. Guessoum specifies that he subscribes to “methodological naturalism”: Science should only resort to hypotheses, descriptions, and explanations based on natural causes and effects. He is careful to distinguish this position from “ontological naturalism,” a philosophical position according to which natural causes and effects are all there is (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2008: 861–863).

Guessoum, who has extensive experience as a university professor in the Arab/Muslim world, wants to avoid conveying to Muslim students a perception of science as a “cold endeavor” at best or as intrinsically materialistic/atheistic at worst (314). He acknowledges that Muslim students have expectations and ideas about the overlap of Islam and science; this, he writes, manifests the Muslims’ tendency to regard Islam as a “complete system” (322). As things stand, Guessoum prescribes treating Islam and science as SOMA or “softly overlapping magisteria,” carefully unpacking problems and items at their interface (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2012a). In some cases, science can profitably work with/for Islam – for example, in establishing the exact start of Ramadan (Cartilidge Reference Cartilidge2011). Other times, correct knowledge and appreciation of science inspire the rejection of some approaches (for an overview of Guessoum’s ideas, see Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 151–177).

Guessoum’s first general-public book in English, Islam’s Quantum Question: Reconciling Muslim Tradition and Modern Science, dates to 2010. Here Guessoum uses the adjective “pseudo-scientific” once (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2010a: 218). He does so in passing, while referring to cosmologies that dubiously blend religion and science: either by embracing a cosmological theory because it seems to support theological views or by injecting theological concepts into cosmology (Guessoum has in mind Muslim cosmologies but also Christian ones; see 213–214). In the same book, however, he criticizes other approaches including iʿjāz (chapter 5, 141–172), Islamic creationism (314–324), and, briefly, “Qur’anic healing” (5–7).

In the 2010 book, Guessoum advances a detailed criticism of iʿjāz, remarking that, despite the methodological proclamations of some of its representatives, such an approach never became rigorous and credible. Guessoum points out the following flaws: (i) iʿjāz representatives elevate some scientific models (including erroneous ones) over other ones due to their alleged harmony with the Qur’an (157); (ii) they rely on a supposedly neat (but scientifically untenable) distinction between “fact” and “theory” (159); (iii) they assign to the Qur’an “precedence and veto power over scientific discoveries and truths” (159); (iv) they take the fact that a phenomenon hasn’t been explained by science as a sign that the phenomenon in question has divine origin (161); (v) they propagate the idea that in some areas, no matter how much scientific evidence is accumulated, knowledge remains conjectural (162); (vi) they misunderstand scientific information (162); (vii) they do not rely on scientific literature (162–163); (viii) they collect pieces of “scientific” information, pair it with Qur’anic verses, and hastily suggest that the Qur’an foretold them (163). Notably, Guessoum also drew support for his criticism of iʿjāz from an article by Saud bin Abdelaziz Al-‘Arifi, a religious scholar (Al-‘Arifi Reference Al-‘Arifi2007) (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2010a: 159–160).

Guessoum has confirmed his position through a steady production of academic and general-public articles as well as YouTube videos. His YouTube channel, created in December 2015, is in Arabic; it often addresses topics relevant to Islam and the Islamic culture. Currently, it has more than 500,000 subscribers and contains more than 300 videos.Footnote ¹⁰ In the 2017 book The Young Muslim’s Guide to Modern Science, Guessoum states that the “scientifically literate person” should possess the ability to “distinguish science from pseudo-science such as astrology, quackery, and schemes that aim to fleece people by taking advantage of their ignorance, their fears, and needs in their lives” (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2017: 12). One of the crucial developments marking the birth of modern science, he writes, is “the emergence of a ‘philosophy of science’ that attempts to put science and its methodology on firm grounds and filter out ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘non-science’” (37; see also 38). Guessoum includes in the book a list of “mental checks … to apply whenever we come across some ‘scientific’ information, to make sure we are not fooled (or fooling ourselves) or simply mistaken” (157–158).

Guessoum is also critical toward health-related approaches that are popular among Muslims, including cupping (a form of bloodletting) and herbal medicine. Muslims who appreciate such techniques are inspired by the Prophet’s implementation or praise. However, Guessoum identifies a fundamental mistake between the Prophet’s reference to practices common in his times and the universal validity of such practices. Muslims also extol the benefits of foods mentioned in the Qur’an and in the traditions. Guessoum points out that enthusiasts exaggerate the benefits or ignore the negative side effects of such practices and foods that haven’t been subjected to rigorous testing. To be sure, some practices may seem to work, but Guessoum remarks that one should consider the placebo effect in which the patient feels better (for a while) upon being administered a fake treatment or inactive substance. He additionally points out that Muslims who are fond of the approaches in question are convinced that they are reverting to their original identity or to nature, thus breaking away from the “West.” Guessoum suggests that this way of thinking is based on erroneous dichotomies: Often, modern medicine stands in continuity with ancient ones – for example, scientifically identifying and distilling the active ingredients from herbs. Finally, Guessoum deplores that roqyia (i.e., allegedly therapeutic Qur’anic recitation) turned into a massive scam, with charlatans selling expensive services through “clinics” (including in Europe), TV stations, and pay-per-call phone numbers (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2011a; Guessoum Reference Guessoum2012b).

Analyzing the landscape of Islam and science after the COVID-19 pandemic, Guessoum writes that pseudoscience has become “a regular fixture of the Islamic discourse” (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2021: 1).Footnote ¹¹ Guessoum mentions a definition of pseudoscience by philosophers Caleb W. Lack and Jacques Rousseau: “Any claim, hypothesis, or theory that is presented in the language and manner typical of scientific claims, but that fails to conform to accepted standards in science regarding openness to peer review, replicability, transparent methodology, and the potential for falsifiability is highly likely to be a pseudoscientific claim, hypothesis, or theory” (Lack & Rousseau Reference Lack and Rousseau2016: 39, cit. in Guessoum Reference Guessoum2021: 5). To this, Guessoum adds a description of pseudoscience by psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld, according to whom pseudoscience “comprise[s] an absence of self-correction, overuse of ad hoc maneuvers to immunize claims from refutation, use of scientific-sounding but vacuous language, extraordinary claims in the absence of compelling evidence, overreliance on anecdotal and testimonial assertions, avoidance of peer review, and the like” (Lilienfeld Reference Lilienfeld, Kaufman and Kaufman2018: xiv, cit. in Guessoum Reference Guessoum2021: 6).

During prior epidemics, notes Guessoum, the secretary-general of the International Commission for Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an and Sunnah issued recommendations blending religious and health-related acts (e.g., ablutions) and included dietary prescriptions (e.g., consuming honey twice daily) that he presented as derived from the Qur’an and aligning with scientific information (adding, however, that one should always refer to medical specialists). During the COVID-19 pandemic, such a trend resurfaced, with pseudoscience being relied on “to promote Islamic rituals (ablution, fasting, etc.) or traditions (e.g., eating seven dates) as having great value in the prevention or the treatment of COVID-19” (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2021: 9).

Guessoum also points out that pseudoscientific literature often resorts to anecdotes, the argument from authority, the usage of scientific jargon, and the cherry-picking of cases (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2021: 7); additionally, he emphasizes the significance of social media in its diffusion (9). Finally, Guessoum understands that some may consider pseudoscience harmless (provided that practices like bloodletting are performed with care), or even beneficial due to the placebo effect, and preferable because of its low costs, yet he states, “Those of us who understand science and why modern medicinal treatment can be trusted much more than those traditional methods … know that the real harm of those pseudoscientific practices lies in the fact that they keep the patients from real, effective treatments (leaving aside intellectual pollution and confusion)” (7).

1.6 Mohammed Basil Altaie

In a 2014 interview, the Iraqi physicist Mohammed Basil Altaie (b. 1952) states that pseudoscience is “the biggest problem” in the debate on Islam and modern science. He takes issue with authors who claim they derive scientific data from the Qur’an (e.g., the speed of light) and remarks that the advocates of such an approach are not specialized in the fields they make statements about. Other examples of pseudoscience he criticizes include confusing the phenomenon of Mars’ retrograde motion (Mars seemingly moving away from earth) with a hadith,Footnote ¹² according to which, on doomsday, the sun will rise on the West;Footnote ¹³ and the alleged discovery, supported with photoshopped pictures, of a giant human skeleton confirming the hadith in which Adam stood sixty cubits tall (around thirty meters).Footnote ¹⁴ (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 90–91; it should also be remarked that the very existence of “human giants” of that size is a biological impossibility – see Ross Reference Ross2023).

Interviewed at the time of writing this Element, Altaie specified,

Altaie also published a book in Arabic refuting the views of an author who used pseudoscience to claim that the Qur’an contains notions related to particle physics (Altaie Reference Altaie2019) (Altaie, personal communication, January 10, 2024).

Altaie’s statements warrant some discussion. To begin with, he does qualify as a critic of iʿjāz, but the criticism he expresses is rather moderate and diplomatic: He doesn’t perceive all of iʿjāz as wrong, but only what he regards as exaggerations. Second, he points out that the advocates of iʿjāz lack specialization in relevant fields. However, this isn’t always the case since several authors do in fact have credentials in the fields they elaborate on. Moreover, one should be careful not to slip into an appeal to authority; in principle, anyone who abides by a rigorous and scientific methodology may significantly contribute to a field. Finally, Altaie is reluctant to adopt the term “pseudoscience”; he fears that it ends up being applied indiscriminately, including to metaphysical or methodological principles that govern science without being the object of science. In sum, Altaie does not want to be mistaken for a representative of scientism, the idea that only science is the key to the truth of reality.

1.7 Stefano Bigliardi

I have been studying Islam and modern science since the late 2000s when I was a postdoctoral researcher. At first, I explored the debate guided by colleagues who embraced a historiographic or ethnographic approach, so I tried to map out the discussions as a neutral, external observer. However, my observations ended up incorporating critical evaluations, including the use of the term “pseudoscience.” Generally, I was inclined to formulate critical assessments of ideas (as opposed to mere reconstructions thereof) due to my philosophical education. However, despite having specialized in the philosophy of science, I had not focused on the problem of pseudoscience. I was influenced by authors like Hoodbhoy and Edis, as well as by the public criticism of pseudoscience in Italy, my native country, offered by the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Pseudosciences (CICAP), a widely known skeptical association that later I would work with. I used the term “pseudoscience” in exchanges with Muslim interlocutors while collecting the conversations published as Islam and the Quest for Modern Science (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014). Notably, as we have seen, interviewees like Altaie and Guessoum embraced the term while articulating their own assessments of certain approaches. In the book’s concluding thoughts, I used the adjective “pseudoscientific” in reference to iʿjāz and creationism (180 185). Currently, I consider the analysis of creationism and iʿjāz offered in that book (see, in particular, 185–186, 192–193) overall convoluted and, in some regards, far-fetched. This Element clarifies and rectifies my prior position.

Eventually, having moved to a teaching position in Morocco, I became increasingly focused on such approaches both in my scholarship and in my pedagogy. I frequently encountered iʿjāz and creationism while interacting with students (and colleagues) who appreciated them. I came to the realization that such approaches rely on and convey to young students oversimplified or even fully wrong ideas about science, fostering a mindset that I consider at odds with critical thinking.

In this spirit, in a 2017 article for the journal Zygon, I describe iʿjāz as largely incorporating pseudoscience, emphasizing its similarities and intersections with conspiracy thinking. In a nutshell, conspiracy thinking, as opposed to the genuine analysis of real/historical conspiracies, is a flawed style of thought and argumentation that explains some events or phenomena in reference to a plan designed, carried out, and sustained by an occult agent. The events or phenomena in question are usually the source of pain, preoccupation, and frustration for those who discuss them through conspiracy thinking; such a style of thought is a way to mitigate or rationalize the negative feelings that said events and phenomena elicit, while suggesting simplistic solutions to the problems they pose. Representatives of conspiracy thinking are usually nonexperts in the field they discuss; they overinterpret real facts or make up factoids to allegedly demonstrate the existence of conspiracies; yet even the absence of proof is taken by them as suggesting a cover-up. To use a recent example, the COVID-19 pandemic was the object of conspiracy thinking, with myriad commentators from all kinds of background denying the very existence of the virus, or describing it as scientifically engineered and artificially spread, and as a tool of mass manipulation by the powers that be (or of occult ones). (Scholars intensely scrutinize and debate conspiracy thinking; for an introduction, see Byford Reference Byford2011. For a collection representing the diversity within the academic debate, see Dentith Reference Dentith2018).

Similarly, advocates of iʿjāz are often nonexperts in the fields they make statements about (e.g., scientists stepping outside of their field but also scientific amateurs); they overinterpret certain facts (e.g., that Qur’anic verses refer to natural phenomena) and make up other ones (e.g., stories about Western scientists converting after appreciating iʿjāz); their theories fulfill the psychological need to bridge a (perceived) gap between Islam and science (or, more generally, between the Muslim world and the West); finally, they may resort to conspiracy theories to explain why iʿjāz isn’t widely accepted by the global scientific community (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2017a: 159–162). Incidentally, conspiracy thinking is also used by creationists to denigrate evolution (see Section 2.2.1 in this Element). I also suggest that iʿjāz be critically tackled by educators and science writers; the latter could create encyclopedic websites with entries dedicated to the debunking of single cases of alleged “miraculous scientific content” (while de-emphasizing specific advocates of this approach) (Bigliardi 2017: 165).

Finally, I discuss Islam and pseudoscience in a 2018 general-public book in Italian whose title translated into English reads: The Crescent and the Splitting Moon: Islam, Pseudoscience, and the Paranormal (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2018). The book was published by the aforementioned skeptical organization CICAP; it followed a 2016 general-public lecture in Italian on the same topic, organized by CICAP in Turin, as well as the publication of a collection of articles on Islam and pseudoscience in a 2017 issue of CICAP’s magazine. The title alludes to a widespread narrative according to which the Qur’an (54:1) refers to a miraculous splitting of the moon that occurred in the Prophet’s time and that NASA astronauts found evidence for. The book tackles iʿjāz, Islamic creationism, Qur’anic healing, and Prophetic medicine, but it also takes a broader look, covering the intersections between Islam and “fringe sciences” such as “ancient aliens” theories (according to which Earth was anciently visited by extraterrestrials who affected human development and history), contemporary Islamic geocentrism, and other topics. One idea I defend in the book is that, if one looks at the logical structure (broadly conceived, i.e., including fallacies) of Islam-related pseudoscientific views, one notices a strong resemblance with Western pseudoscientific narratives and myths. In some cases, pseudoscience has demonstrably been imported from the West. Being written in Italian, the book had no impact internationally and, as far as I know, it engaged non-Muslim Italian skeptics more than any other readership.

1.8 The Iranian Scene: Mohammad Reza Tavakoli Saberi versus Mehdi Golshani

Although I have no direct access to literature in Farsi and I need to rely on direct communication with authors, I elaborate on the Iranian arena not only because of the quality of the publications produced but also considering the importance of Iran in science and technology.

Mohammad Reza Tavakoli Saberi (b. 1947) graduated in pharmacy from Tehran University and obtained a doctoral degree in medicinal chemistry from De Montfort University, as well as a postdoctoral degree from Exeter University. He has been active in writing books and articles as well as translating scientific books for fifty years. He defines pseudoscience as “a claim without logical base or experimental evidence” and describes the Iranian situation as follows:

Tavakoli Saberi continues,

He further explains that, in Iran,

Tavakoli Saberi published three books in Farsi, the titles of which respectively translate to Supernatural World (Tavakoli Saberi Reference Tavakoli Saberi2017; two more editions followed in 2023 and 2024), What Is Science? (Tavakoli Saberi Reference Tavakoli Saberi2019), and What Is Pseudoscience? (Tavakoli Saberi Reference Tavakoli Saberi2023). While he doesn’t engage with the latest philosophical discussions in these books, he is aware of the demarcation problem and suggests that the line between science and pseudoscience is represented by falsifiability, testability, reproducibility, and predictability (Tavakoli Saberi, personal communication, June 8, 2024).

Tavakoli Saberi contends that the Islamic world needs a new, specific word for modern natural science to replace elm (in Arabic ʿilm), similarly to what happened in Europe when “science” replaced “natural philosophy.” His own proposal for Farsi is the term daneshvarzi, which he explains as follows:

He specifies,

An important participant in the debate on Islam and modern science is the Iranian physicist Mehdi Golshani (b. 1939). He articulates, in a rich scholarship, a constructive stance on Islam and science. Briefly put, he points out that science is governed by metaphysical principles and that such principles can be taken from religion – and from the Qur’an in particular. In other words, Golshani emphasizes that science cannot be separated from metaphysics; it has to rely on concepts that do not derive from experience and on principles that are not the facts that science itself studies. In the Qur’an, one finds emphasis on sensory knowledge, intellect (transcending the senses), causality, and unchangeable patterns underlying natural phenomena. (For an overview of Golshani’s ideas, see Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 53–70).

Golshani is critical toward iʿjāz, especially if someone argues that scientific information can be derived from the Qur’an: “The Qur’an,” he points out, “has ordered us explicitly that we should explore nature through experimentation and intellectual work” (Golshani, personal communication, February 29, 2024). Golshani also warns that science changes so that comparison with scriptural passages is risky; however, he makes cautious iʿjāzi statements – for example, pointing out that Q 51:49 reads, “We created everything in dual form” and that “at the present stage of physics we think that everything appears in nature in the form of pairs. We have electrons and we have protons. We have man and we have woman. … Once you see this, you become overwhelmed and it can give some impetus to scientists to look more for this kind of property in nature” (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 56).

In 2020 Golshani published a book on pseudoscience with two colleagues (Golshani, Jamali and Khatiri Reference Golshani, Jamali and Khatiri2020). Its title, translated into English, reads Science and Pseudoscience, and it contains three chapters. The first one surveys the positions on science and pseudoscience advanced by authors like Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Larry Laudan, and Carol Tavris; Golshani and his coauthors emphasize that such positions show no consensus. The second chapter discusses metaphysics and moral values in science. The third chapter covers traditional medicine, recommending “that the proponents of modern medicine should have interactions with proponents of traditional medicine to enrich their own science as has been done, e.g., in China” (Golshani, personal communication, December 25, 2023).

Examples of techniques that Golshani regards favorably include acupuncture and cupping to treat COVID-19, Iranian traditional massage or the Fateh Method to treat chronic low back pain, Persian herbal medicine to treat COVID-19, date palm pollen to treat male sexual dysfunction after coronary artery bypass graft, as well as bloodletting and cupping to treat severe acute urticaria and angioedema. Prompted to provide examples, Golshani consulted Dr. Mehrdad Karimi, an expert in both modern and traditional medicine at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Dr. Karimi sent him articles describing how he successfully used traditional medicine alone or with a combination of modern and traditional medicine (Golshani, personal communication, March 17, 2024). I infer the list of techniques from such articles. They were published in journals such as Integrative Medicine Research, Advances in Traditional Medicine, Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and Journal of Pharmacopuncture.

Golshani “consider[s] traditional medicine as science (in its premodern view), not as pseudoscience. Because [he has] witnessed personally that many of its prescriptions are effective.” He adds, “If modern physicians do not understand its theories, it does not mean that it is pseudoscience. At the present time, the standard quantum theory in physics agrees with all present experiments. But, although many eminent physicists of our time confess that they do not understand this theory, they don’t call it pseudoscience.” In sum, Golshani suggests that “it is the duty of the modern physicians to see, by experimentation, why the prescriptions of traditional medicine are effective” (Golshani, personal communication, February 29, 2024). It must be remarked, however, that what is presented as “research” on traditional medicine is often methodologically flawed; additionally, an illusion of effectiveness may be created by the placebo effect (all this is discussed in Section 2.3.2). In his books, Tavakoli Saberi is critical both of Golshani’s religious metaphysics for science (that he thinks should be abandoned), and of Golshani’s support for traditional medicine that, he claims, “caused a burden for the medical system” (Tavakoli Saberi, personal communication, January 10, 2025).

1.9 Other Critics and Definitions of Pseudoscience

In this section, I mention definitions of pseudoscience advanced by some participants in the debate on Islam and modern science who have interesting contributions but haven’t dedicated extensive publications to pseudoscience specifically.

The Algerian astrophysicist Jamal Mimouni (b. 1956) offers this (admittedly informal) definition of pseudoscience:

The American (based in Saudi Arabia) David Solomon Jalajel (b. 1970), a scholar and lecturer in Islamic theology and law, who, regarding evolution, articulates a position called “Adamic exceptionalism” (see Section 2.2.5), defines pseudoscience as follows:

Regarding examples of pseudoscience, Jalajel states,

In the monograph Islam and Evolution: Al-Ghazālī and the Modern Evolutionary Paradigm, a Pakistani scholar in science and religion, Shoaib Ahmed Malik (b. 1988), briefly touches on pseudoscience. Malik, who holds a PhD in chemistry and chemical engineering, emphasizes that, although the demarcation problem is a vexing one, this “should [not] be taken to mean that everything goes in science. Currently, no one treats astrology – the study of horoscopes – as a science because it lacks scientific appeal. It doesn’t give us specified predictive power, simplicity, an explanatory or research scope, and falsification criterion among others.” Malik concludes, “Prudentially, all this indicates is that each discipline is assessed on a case-by-case basis before it is welcomed under the umbrella of science” (Malik 2021: 220).

Finally, I am aware of one scholarly article in Indonesian that criticizes the presence of pseudoscience in the discourse on Islam and science (Muslih Reference Muslih2014). A book on pseudoscience exists in Turkish (Tutar Reference Tutar2014). The author is a university professor specializing in management. There is a translation into Arabic of an English book whose title is the Arabic term for “pseudoscience” but whose original title reads Bad Science (Goldacre 2008; the author is a physician and science writer). Such books, however, do not focus on the combination of pseudoscience and religion. Notably, a Google search for “Islam and pseudoscience” (including variants and translations) yields very few results, and even fewer are found in Google Scholar.

1.10 Web Pages, YouTubers, and Skeptical Organizations

Most authors surveyed so far are academic specialists (in different fields) who debate pseudoscience both in scholarly publications and in general-public work, including articles, conferences, and videos. Ideas and approaches to Islam and science, including pseudoscientific ones, are widely propagated and consumed at a popular level, and those authors are aware of the importance of reaching audiences beyond their academic peers. In this section, I look at other general-public-oriented online resources criticizing pseudoscience, including web pages and videos. Such items can be produced and widely disseminated relatively rapidly, but they can also be substantially modified or even vanish in a click. All this admittedly makes for a certain amount of volatility. However, the items in question are important in that they can reach very wide audiences. I focus on a selection of such media.

Wikipedia entries on “pseudoscience” currently exist in the languages of Muslim countries, including Arabic, Farsi, Indonesian, Kurdish, Malay, Moroccan colloquial Arabic, Turkish, and Urdu. Such pages, however, mostly exemplify pseudoscience with homeopathy and astrology; the closest they come to criticizing the combination of pseudoscience and religion is occasional mention of intelligent design.

An important website in Arabic is Anā uṣaddiqu l-ʿilm (I Believe in Science), created by the Iraqi/Turkish Ahmet Alrayyis (b. 1992), who has a master’s degree in geology.Footnote ¹⁵ I Believe in Science was launched as a Facebook page in 2011; it became an independent page in 2013. Throughout the years, it has relied on more than 1,000 volunteers (250 at the time of writing this) to translate and adapt scientific articles from English into Arabic. So far, around 30,000 articles have been published, including those translated, with permission, from the American Skeptical Inquirer (published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry [CSI], prior to 2006 known as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal [CSICOP]). The pages that scrutinize pseudoscience do so in reference to ideas, not to specific authors, and include pieces critiquing cupping, the use of camel urine for medical purposes, the alleged discovery of Adam’s giant skeleton, the iʿjāzi interpretation of a Qur’anic verse mentioning two “barriers” in the sea (Q 25:53) as referring to specific marine phenomena, the narrative according to which NASA confirmed the splitting of the moon, and the idea that Mekkah is the center of the universe (Alrayyis, personal communication, January 21, 2024).

Another interesting website is Al-ʿulūm al-ḥaqīqiyya (The Real Sciences), which since 2014 has been managed by the Iraqi Omar Meriwani (b. 1989) (other original founders are no longer part of the enterprise).Footnote ¹⁶ Meriwani is by education a data engineer. Al-ʿulūm al-ḥaqīqiyya is rooted in Meriwani’s (and the other founders’) experience with internet forums between 2006 and 2011. One of the authors who influenced Meriwani is the Egyptian Khaled Mountasar, who offered arguments against iʿjāz (Mountasar Reference Mountasar2005) (Meriwani, personal communication, January 24, 2024). This website relies on a net of volunteers (more than 170 between 2012 and 2024, with most being engaged between a few weeks and a few months), and a small group of more active members (Meriwani, personal communication, March 16, 2024). Pieces published include translations and original texts; they criticize iʿjāzi claims, as well as Qur’anic healing, Prophetic medicine, beliefs about magic and evil-eye, but also Western approaches and beliefs including those advanced by the so-called anti-vaxxers. Meriwani feels that creationism does not call for urgent debunking because it does not affect daily life and requires an educational background that not all people have (Meriwani, personal communication, January 24, 2024).

Several YouTubers contribute to popularizing science and debunking pseudoscientific ideas. An interesting example is the Indian Pranav Radhakrishnan (b. 1991), who launched his YouTube channel Science Is Dope in 2017. Radhakrishnan has an engineering degree. His videos include criticism of Islamic creationism advocated by the popular Indian “televangelist” Zakir Naik (b. 1965). Currently, Radhakrishnan’s video criticizing Naik’s arguments (Radhakrishnan Reference Radhakrishnan2021) has more than 306,000 hits. (For a discussion of Naik’s impact on creationist views among Muslims, see Moran Reference Moran2019).

Another science popularizer and “myth buster” is the Moroccan Najib El Mokhtari (b. 1981), a telecommunication engineer by education. He launched his YouTube channel (named after him) in 2015. His videos are in Moroccan colloquial Arabic and include science-based criticism of traditional sorcery (El Mokhtari Reference El Mokhtari2017b), as well as of geostationary views argued on a religious basis (El Mokhtari Reference El Mokhtari2015). El Mokhtari also elaborates on the differences between natural science and other forms of knowledge including religious ones (El Mokhtari Reference El Mokhtari2017a). He chose Moroccan colloquial Arabic, feeling “it had the least frictions or barriers for the audience.” He specifically set out to target the general public, including people untrained in French and classical Arabic, but he also assumed that most of the audience in Morocco would instinctively associate French and classical Arabic with the school system – that is, with an environment they feel uncomfortable with (El Mokhtari, personal communication, April 25, 2024).

In Malaysia, pseudoscience is criticized over Facebook pages in Malay such as Medical Mythbusters Malaysia (created in 2016)Footnote ¹⁷ and Ini Sains Beb (“This is Science, Baby,” created in 2017).Footnote ¹⁸ Medical Mythbusters Malaysia is registered as a nongovernmental organization (NGO), founded with the objective of countering medical misinformation and run by medical doctors. Erroneous beliefs it rectifies range from simple ones, such as that taking a bath at night will cause pleural effusion, to major ones such as vaccine misinformation. Other topics Medical Mythbusters Malaysia focuses on include safe birth practice, the dangers of unregistered supplements, vaping and tobacco control, and vaccine hesitancy. Over time, their modus operandi shifted from online dissemination to more groundwork, be it public (community outreach) or behind the scenes (policymaking and policy communication) (Dr. Amirul Amzar Bin Megat Hashim, Deputy President of Medical Mythbusters Malaysia, personal communication, May 9, 2024). Ini Sains Beb has also been registered as an NGO since 2020; it is composed of academicians and professionals, including university lecturers, engineers, medical doctors, a dietitian, an architect, and a plant physiologist. Its members appear in mass media and debunk myths and misconceptions focusing on the ideas, not on those who propagate them; the fields they cover include architecture, biochemistry, chemistry, molecular biology, health sciences, engineering (electrical, mechanical, and aeronautical), natural product chemistry, entomology, genomics, and cancer therapeutics (Ini Sains Beb member Dr. Che Puteh Osman, personal communication, May 17, 2024; see also Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2025b).

Additionally, atheist/ex-Muslim YouTubers strongly defend evolution and criticize iʿjāz and superstitions (e.g., about jinn). An example is the Egyptian Sherif Gaber (b. 1992/1993), whose videos (in Egyptian Arabic) receive hundreds of thousands of views (Bigliardi et al. Reference Bigliardi, Chouhbi, Ghafil, Sounani and Tikrout2024). Currently, each one of Gaber’s videos criticizing iʿjāz (Gaber Reference Gaber2016a; Gaber Reference Gaber2016b; Gaber Reference Gaber2022a; Gaber Reference Gaber2022b) has between 1.4 million and 757 K hits. A video discussing jinn (Gaber Reference Gaber2021) has 976,000 hits. (For a discussion of Arab freethinkers on YouTube and their focus on science, see Elsässer Reference Elsässer2021).

Finally, it is interesting to look at skeptical/pro-science/rationalist associations the world over. I ran searches for the terms “Islam,” “Islamic,” “Muslim,” “Qur’an,” “Qur’anic” (and their equivalents in other languages) in the web sites of such organizations (including online archives of their respective publications). For the US, I obtained thirty-nine results for the Skeptical Inquirer (CSI/CSICOP’s magazine), including articles on Islamic creationism, faith healing, medical notions in the Qur’an, and bad scientific/scholarly practice in Muslim countries. For Italy, I obtained three results in Query (the magazine of CICAP), including an article on the creationist Harun Yahya (translated from the Skeptical Inquirer) and comprehensive coverage of pseudoscience in the Muslim world. The magazine exists in a paper version and online (Query Online), run by different teams.Footnote ¹⁹ However, the articles on Islam and pseudoscience were published on both. In the interest of transparency, I must add that I am the author of a cover article (on Harun Yahya) in the Skeptical Inquirer and of all the articles in Query: I originally approached both magazines with proposals for such articles. Similar searches in the web pages of publications and organizations in other countries, as well as email exchanges with organization representatives in major countries, including those hosting significant Muslim communities, yielded fewer results or even no results.

1.11 The Perception of “Pseudoscience” by Advocates of Creationism and Iʿjāz ʿIlmī

“Pseudoscience” is also used as a term of reproach by the advocates of positions that the critics I have so far discussed regard as pseudoscientific. In The Evolution Deceit, the Turkish creationist Harun Yahya (pen name of Adnan Oktar, b. 1956) writes, “The book will help you realise that Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a pseudo-scientific dogma upheld in the name of materialist philosophy, despite counter evidence and outright refutation” (Yahya n.d.: 29).Footnote ²⁰ The Jordanian pharmacologist Eyad Qunaibi (b. 1975), who is professionally active as a university professor and runs a YouTube channel in which he systematically discredits evolution, refers to popular atheists like ethologist and author Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), or physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss (b. 1954), as “priests of pseudoscience,” claiming that, in order to earn money and fame, they falsify science, take advantage of people’s ignorance, and sell lies and superstitions (Qunaibi Reference Qunaibi2019a). Yahya and Qunaibi do not argue that if an author promotes a materialist worldview/philosophy based on evolution and presents all of such a worldview/philosophy as “science,” the author in question is promoting a form of pseudoscience. Yahya and Qunaibi rather suggest that evolution per se is pseudoscience (more on their arguments in Section 2.2.1).

I once brought up the concept of “pseudoscience” in conversation with the Egyptian geologist Zaghloul El-Naggar (b. 1933), one of the most popular producers and propagators of iʿjāz (which he calls “scientific precision”; Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 118), but also a creationist. I pointed out that Muslim critics of his approach label it as bad science as well as pseudoscientific. In regard to bad science, I mentioned that El-Naggar is blamed for exceeding his area of competence. He responded that overspecialization is detrimental to a religious comprehension of the world (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 114). When I mentioned ideas that were criticized as pseudoscientific, such as the proposal to use jinns to produce energy (see Hoodbhoy Reference Hoodbhoy1991: 144), he replied, “in any human society you are bound to find deviations, in any human community. I have met people in the West who believe in many funny ideas – this is not only in our community. And you can never ever group people into one area of conviction” (Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2014: 115).

2.1 Science and the Qur’an

Nidhal Guessoum produced an extensive review and critique of iʿjāzi literature (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2008; Guessoum Reference Guessoum2010a). The historian Majid Daneshgar inspected more than a 100 works belonging to the genre (Danehsgar Reference Daneshgar2023a; Danehsgar Reference Daneshgar2023b; Danehsgar Reference Daneshgar2023c). Both show that the idea that the Qur’an predicted modern scientific notions stemmed from an earlier interpretive approach relying on modern science while explaining Qur’anic verses. In other words, a historical shift occurred from tafsir ʿilmī (“scientific interpretation”) to iʿjāz ʿilmī. Tafsir ʿilmī had important medieval precedents (Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023a: 8–13) but flourished in the nineteenth century while Muslim readers of the Qur’an fascinated by science took a modernizing turn. Iʿjāz ʿilmī started emerging when Qur’anic interpreters began feeling the need not only to catch up to, but also to compete with Western science while emphasizing the miraculous origin of the Qur’an (Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023b). In the last quarter of the twentieth century iʿjāz became globally visible (and remunerative); apologists used it to promote Islamic theism and creationism, or to show that the Qur’an is superior to other sacred scriptures (Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023c). Interpreters also found support in the Qur’an’s numerous references to ʿilm, a term that can be interpreted as referring to “knowledge” but also “science” in a narrower sense (see Guessoum & Bigliardi Reference Guessoum and Bigliardi2023: 7–9), and also in the idea that the Qur’an contains everything, suggested by a verse like Q 6:38, “We have not neglected anything in the Book.”

Seemingly, however, tafsir ʿilmī and iʿjāz ʿilmī are joined at the hip. Daneshgar describes them as “twin trends” and “dual trends” (Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023a: 1, 4). It is not a coincidence that the two approaches are merged, indeed confounded, in crucial work like Bucaille’s (see Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023c: 10; Guessoum Reference Guessoum2010a: 150nv, 154). Ultimately, the “miraculous scientific content of the Qur’an” triumphed globally. Daneshgar observes that this is the trend the vast public is familiar with, and that “the distinction between the two [approaches] is subtle” (Daneshgar Reference Daneshgar2023c: 19).

In addition to criticizing iʿjāz, Guessoum prescribes a multilayered reading of the Qur’an; modern science can be mustered to bring forth the meaning of certain verses, provided that one relies on accurate information and is familiar with the philosophy of science (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2010a: 166–172). These views influenced authors such as Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (b. 1980), who retracted his previous appreciation for iʿjāz (Tzortzis Reference Tzortzis2019a).

2.2 Resisting Evolution

Over the past years, the debate on Islam and evolution has been intensifying, with explorations and contributions being offered from different angles. Solid scholarship exists reconstructing the historical reception of Charles Darwin’s (1809–1882) theory among Muslims (e.g., Ziadat Reference Ziadat1986; Howard Reference Howard2011; Elshakry Reference Elshakri2013; Guessoum Reference Guessoum2016) and studies on evolution education in Muslim countries (e.g., Aroua et al. Reference Aroua, Coquidé and Abbes2009; BouJaoude et al. Reference BouJaoude, Asghar, Wiles, Jaber, Sarieddine, Alters, Tasar and Cakmakci2009; Burton Reference Burton2010; Peker et al. Reference Peker, Comert and Kence2010; Yassin & Bastide Reference Yassin, Bastide, Portier, Veuille and Willaime2011; Clément Reference Clément2015; Muğaloğlu Reference Muğaloğlu, Deniz and Borgerding2018). Muslim scientists have been elaborating on the importance of teaching evolution (e.g., Dajani Reference Dajani2015; Guessoum Reference Guessoum2017: 113–120). Shoaib Ahmed Malik has produced a detailed analysis and theological assessment of Muslim stances on evolution (Malik Reference Malik2021a).

In this section, I first identify the objections routinely used by Islamic opponents of evolution and then briefly respond to them. Eventually, I discuss three intertwined questions. Is it accurate to label the positions articulated through such objections as creationism? What makes creationist positions specifically Islamic? Which creationist arguments technically qualify as pseudoscientific? Finally, drawing on the answers, I critically elaborate on “Adamic exceptionalism,” a recently advanced position.

2.3 Hygiene-, Nutrition-, Health-, and Illness-Related Approaches

3.1 Scholarly, Editorial, and Pedagogic Malpractices

In the introductory Element to this series, Nidhal Guessoum and I touch on a 2017 doctoral thesis in Tunisia proposing flat-earthist, geostationary, and geocentric (but also “young-earthist”) arguments including religious ideas (Guessoum and Bigliardi Reference Guessoum and Bigliardi2023: 1, 60n77). The doctoral candidate and her supervisor even published their alleged results in The International Journal of Science & Technoledge [sic], a predatory journal (from which it was soon withdrawn, but copies were downloaded and preserved). To be sure, this episode is not discussed here in order to suggest that geocentric and “flat-earthist” views are widespread in the Muslim world (there are no surveys to that effect). However, it is significant because it represents various malpractices.

To begin with, what happened indicates significant deterioration or neglect of established best practices for the construction and dissemination of scientific/academic knowledge. A doctoral thesis is usually written under the guidance of one academic supervisor, and it involves, at different stages, other experts in complementary but crucial roles such as providing critical reviews. In this case, senior academics or experts must have neglected correct exchange, including the very transmission of best practices to a PhD candidate.

Additionally, this episode reminds one of publication-related malpractice. It is no wonder that a predatory journal provided a venue for articles such as the one based on the Tunisian thesis. While some producers of pseudoscience create their own outlets, including journals, websites, and whole publishing companies, other ones take advantage of publications that do not abide by academic standards while looking academic. Bad science and pseudoscience sometimes land in legitimate academic journals due to occasional lack of compliance with standard peer review, but more often they exploit low-quality journals or pay-to-publish ones. Cases exist of iʿjāzi articles that fall under such categories (e.g., Al-Habbal and Al-Juwarey Reference Al-Habbal and Al-Juwarey1998; Khenenou et al. Reference Khenenou, Melizi, Bennoune, Benazaoui and Messaouda2013; Loukas et al. Reference Loukas, Saad, Tubbs and Shoja2010).

It goes beyond the scope of this Element to scrutinize all factors that negatively impact scientific research (e.g., the lack of proper scientific education in the school system, which ends up affecting university students). Suffice it to say that, in the current, largely market-driven, ranking-obsessed, and intensely competitive world of higher education, recently established universities in developing countries, including those in the Muslim world, can be especially vulnerable to such factors. Administrators and faculty under pressure may feel tempted to cut corners, but also embrace malpractice for lack of proper training.

Pervez Hoodbhoy is particularly critical of such risks, including attempts at building academic institutions without proper infrastructure and pedagogy; the creation of (international) “citation cartels” to inflate citation counts; and the adoption of rote learning for scientific subjects. Finally, Hoodbhoy criticizes universities that invite speakers (with irrelevant or nonexistent academic credentials) to elaborate on paranormal subjects or lecture against science (Hoodbhoy Reference Hoodbhoy2015; also see Bigliardi Reference Bigliardi2017b).

3.2 Islamizing Science

A sophisticated academic vogue (explored in Guessoum and Bigliardi Reference Guessoum and Bigliardi2023) is the pretense to reform science by infusing it with Islamic principles including methodological ones. This was the case of the ideas advanced by the Palestinian-American philosopher Ismail Raji Al-Faruqi (1921–1986). Other times this idea was advanced in the form of an alleged revival of ancient forms of science produced in the Muslim world; such is the position of the aforementioned Seyyed Hossein Nasr and his followers. One may certainly infuse a scientist’s worldview or ethics with religious principles; however, tampering with the scientific method will result in irremediably distorting science itself, producing bad science or pseudoscience. A specific problem with the philosophy promoted by Nasr and his followers is that the historical cosmologies that they wish to reinstate include supernatural agents and forces that are at best scientifically elusive (Guessoum and Bigliardi Reference Guessoum and Bigliardi2023: 17–20).

3.3 Resisting Vaccines

In some cases, Muslim religious authorities and other Muslim figures discouraged Muslims from using life-saving vaccines while resorting to religious concepts.

In 2008, the Majelis Ulama Indonesia (the country’s top Islamic body) issued a fatwā (legal ruling) against a meningitis vaccine, declared haram because of swine-derived elements; inconsistently, two other brands were approved as halal by the same council in 2010, ignoring that experts declared that no vaccines could be pig-free (AsiaNews.it 2015). Declaring the vaccine haram also created problems for 200,000 Indonesian pilgrims who were about to travel to Mekkah since vaccination was a requisite for the Saudi visa and the Indonesian government had to procure a more expensive vaccine (Webster Reference Webster2013).

In Somalia, polio vaccines were rejected in 2013 over rumors spread by Islamic extremists, including claims that it carried AIDS, could harm female fertility, and was manufactured by “Christian countries” as part of a conspiracy (probably fearing spies disguised as humanitarian workers) (Guled Reference Guled2013).

In the Indonesian provinces of Aceh and West Sumatra (notable for the density of Muslim inhabitants), a low-level diphtheria outbreak including fatal cases occurred in 2015 after vaccination had been resisted over decades. The Indonesian Pediatric Association attributed the dramatic drop in vaccination to myths propagated in local mosques, including allegations that vaccines were used by a “Jewish conspiracy” or haram in that they contained swine-derived elements. The Indonesian Ministry of Health encouraged Muslims to prioritize safety over religious debates.

Anti-vaccine arguments were spread also by a Lebanese medical doctor, A. Majid Katme (based in the UK), who, in addition to other allegations (vaccines are toxic, the practice is unscientific and discredited, etc.) stated, “The case against vaccination is first an Islamic one, based on Islamic ethos regarding the perfection of the natural human body’s immune defence system, empowered by great and prophetic guidance to avoid most infections” (Katme Reference Katme2016).

However, examples also exist of Muslim authorities and scholars encouraging vaccination, not only reassuring Muslims that vaccines are halal but also emphasizing that protecting children’s health aligns with Islamic duties – for example, in Ethiopia (Gebreyesus Reference Gebreyesus2014) and Nigeria (Vanguard News Reference News2017).

3.4 Resisting Modern Astronomy

The Islamic calendar is based on the phases of the moon. According to Prophetic traditions, Muslims are to observe by the naked eye the new crescent that marks the beginning of the Islamic months. Naked-eye moon gazing, however, is vulnerable to human error and the whims of environmental factors. False sightings occur when gazers are convinced that they are seeing the new crescent, but it is actually not there – something else is often being sighted – for example, Venus, a plane, etcetera. Delayed sightings can occur when the new crescent is, in principle, available for observation but de facto hidden from sight because of sky brightness, adverse weather conditions, or other atmospheric factors. Other human weaknesses and power dynamics (e.g., the haste to be the first ones to spot the crescent or the leading authority who announces Ramadan) can significantly interfere with the process too (see Guessoum & Meziane Reference Guessoum and Meziane2001). Lunar motion, however, can be studied scientifically, and the moon’s position can be computed with high accuracy.

Several Muslim astronomers advocate adopting a scientific approach to the Islamic calendar, also pointing out the embarrassments and inconveniences caused by the refusal to do so. Cases have been recorded in which government announcements systematically misaligned with astronomic computation due to reliance on some traditional approach (that in fact included arbitrary criteria) (Guessoum Reference Guessoum2010b; Sheikh Reference Sheikh2010: 11–14). Countries like Morocco integrate a traditional approach with a scientific one, relying on scientific computation but waiting for naked-eye observation to confirm it. When such a mixed system is adopted, Ramadan, for instance, cannot be announced on a day when, according to astronomical computations, the new crescent is not physically available for inspection. However, astronomic computation is not deemed sufficient and must be integrated with naked-eye observation. Following this procedure, delays are always possible due to luminosity and weather conditions, leading to official announcements released at short notice.

The very fact that different Muslim countries adopt different systems causes lack of synchronization across their respective calendars, and there are even cases of Ramadan starting or ending on different days in the same Muslim country, where, astronomically, the new crescent is simultaneously visible over the whole territory (Boone Reference Boone2015; Express Tribune 2012). Scientifically detectable mistakes, delays, and short notice were of little or no importance in the ancient Muslim world. However, in a globally interconnected world (including professional interaction with non-Muslim countries), misalignments and delays do create practical problems.

It is worth mentioning, however, that the issue of Islamic calendars and astronomy also impinges on delicate jurisprudential questions. On the one hand, it can be argued that the very obligation to wait until the sighting of the new crescent is a lesson in patience, self-discipline, and submission. On the other hand, one may argue that a precise computation is essential, for instance, to avoid wasting time that can be used for expiation (Sheikh Reference Sheikh2010: 23).

3.5 History of Science and Anachronisms

The historical contribution to science by Muslim scientists was often belittled or neglected in the West; arguably, it continues to be insufficiently explored and taught even in the Muslim world. The opposite phenomenon also exists, however: the interpretation of Islamic-era science aimed at extolling it without solid historical evidence and careful analysis. A case in point is the 1001 Inventions touring exhibition (an initiative promoted by the UK-based organization of the same name, which also produced shows, films, books, and other resources). Launched in 2010, 1001 Inventions was hosted by prestigious institutions including London’s Science Museum, the New York Hall of Science, the California Science Center in Los Angeles, and the National Geographic Museum in Washington, DC. It received endorsements by figures such as Hillary Clinton and the Prince of Wales (now King Charles III).

Taner Edis and historian of science Sonja Brentjes examined 1001 Inventions and detected exaggerations and distortions, including the narrative in which a ninth-century Andalusian, Ibn Firnas, successfully designed, built, and implemented a flying machine with muscle-powered wings made of eagle feathers. In addition to being physically impossible, point out Edis and Brentjes, Ibn Firnas’s mythical flight is only succinctly narrated in a chronicle written 700 years later (Edis & Brentjes Reference Edis and Brentjes2012: 2).Footnote ⁶⁹

Edis and Brentjes observe that the greatest flaw of 1001 Inventions is the neglect of “major differences between medieval and modern science.” “1001 Inventions,” they explain, “translates medieval science and technology into the scientific and technological idiom of today, suggesting closeness, similarity, or even identity between medieval scientific results and technological products and today’s sciences and technologies” (Edis & Brentjes Reference Edis and Brentjes2012: 5). “A Golden Age myth,” they continue, “suggests that instead of adopting a significantly different way of thinking about nature, Muslims need only to reinstate medieval conceptions of nature and medieval habits of thought in order to become creatively engaged in cutting edge science and technology.” “That,” they conclude, “is exactly the wrong thing to do” (Edis & Brentjes Reference Edis and Brentjes2012: 5; see also Brentjes et al. Reference Brentjes, Edis and Richter-Bernburg2016). Dr. Brentjes reported that the 2012 article and the 2016 book were responded to by the organizers and by scholars who for various reasons defended 1001 Inventions. Responses ranged from willingness to engage in a scholarly conversation (whose actual repercussions on other editions of the exhibit remained unclear) to calumny against her (Brentjes, personal communication, May 13, 2024).

3.6 Conspiracy Thinking Applied to Scientific Topics

Earlier, I defined conspiracy thinking and explained how it bears analogies to iʿjāz (Section 1.7). I listed conspiracy theories among the arguments that are invoked to oppose evolution (Section 2.2.1), and we observed that they can be used by advocates of “traditional” medicine (Section 2.3.1). While a fully fledged discussion of conspiracy thinking goes beyond the scope of this Element, I advance two suggestions regarding its relationship with Islam-related pseudoscience. First, conspiracy theories can tap into or feed on antagonism with the West, often influencing debates on Islam and science. Second, conspiracy thinking makes for an easy strategy to dismiss, by distorting it, the fact that certain ideas (e.g., evolution) are widely accepted by the scientific community, or the fact that alleged “discoveries” (e.g., the “evidence” for the splitting of the moon discovered by NASA) are not widely included in scientific conversations and publications. In sum, conspiracy thinking draws on deep-seated sentiments of cultural rivalry, and it makes for an easy caricature of scientific consensus.