In a fleeting moment, a reader might misread the phrase “Prophetic Medicine” as “Nuclear Medicine,” and their mind would immediately leap to the latest scientific advances in diagnosis and treatment. But the true meaning soon becomes clear, and we find ourselves facing a striking paradox: a shift from the horizon of advanced experimental science to the invocation of traditional concepts now being presented within an academic institutional framework.
This paradox is not merely linguistic, but epistemological and methodological, and it deserves careful analysis beyond emotional reactions.
First: The Problem of Definition – Is “Prophetic Medicine” a Science?
What is known as Prophetic Medicine consists of a collection of texts and narrations dealing with health, nutrition, and prevention, emerging within a specific historical and cultural context. Regardless of their spiritual or historical value, these texts were not produced within an experimental scientific framework, nor have they been subjected to modern medical research standards in terms of:
- Testable hypotheses
- Laboratory or clinical experimentation
- Reproducibility and verification
- Scientific publication and peer review
Therefore, classifying them as “medical science” represents a conflation between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge—a conflation that weakens both, as it burdens tradition with what it cannot bear and strips science of its rigorous standards.
Second: The Difference Between Studying Heritage and Institutionalizing It as Science
There is no dispute about the legitimacy of studying heritage within its historical or cultural context. The problem begins when such study shifts from being an object of research and analysis to becoming a therapeutic reference or an applied science.
Here, a conceptual slippage occurs: a non-experimental discourse is transferred into a domain that requires the highest levels of scientific rigor. This may lead to:
- Confusing public awareness of treatment standards
- Opening the door to practices not scientifically validated
- Undermining trust in modern medical institutions
Third: The Epistemological Dimension – Mixing Domains
Science and religion are distinct in both method and function:
- Religion answers questions of meaning, values, and purpose
- Science answers “how” through observation and experimentation
When religious texts are used as a source for producing experimental medical knowledge, we do not enrich religion; rather, we place it in a domain it was not designed for, subjecting it to criteria outside its nature.
This may even lead to the opposite effect: when scientific claims fail, the religious symbol itself becomes subject to criticism.
Fourth: A Reading of the Institutional Context
Establishing a center with this designation within an academic institution raises questions about:
- The criteria for accrediting scientific programs
- The boundaries between theoretical and applied disciplines
- Mechanisms for reviewing academic content before institutionalization
An academic institution is not merely a platform for disseminating ideas; it is responsible for defining what is taught as science and what is taught as history or thought.
This distinction is not superficial—it is fundamental, as it directly impacts human health and societal well-being.
Fifth: From Academia to Politics – Why Such a Decision?
Here, we move from epistemological analysis to a broader socio-political reading.
Such decisions may be understood as part of a search for social legitimacy, where religious discourse is used to enhance public acceptance—even within institutions presumed to be scientific.
They may also aim to balance conservative currents, attempting to accommodate or appease perspectives that view modern science as a threat to identity.
Most likely, however, they reflect a lack of clarity in defining the state’s scientific role—when there is no clear boundary between what is scientific and what is symbolic or cultural.
Sixth: The True Defense of Religion—and of Science
Ironically, such initiatives may be presented as a defense of religion, while in essence placing it in a position it does not require.
Religion does not need artificial scientific validation—it is neither a physical theory nor a laboratory experiment.
And science cannot accept untestable references without losing its very essence.
Respecting each domain means preserving its boundaries, not conflating them.
Conclusion
When paths become blurred, truth is lost. The issue is not in invoking the past, but in how it is invoked.
Nations do not progress by reproducing their heritage as science, but by understanding it within its context and building upon it with new tools of knowledge.
When academic institutions become arenas for redefining science based on non-scientific considerations, the danger is not only to the present, but to the future of knowledge itself.
Because the real question is not: Is this heritage we respect?
But rather: Is this science we teach?
Between these two questions lies the fate of an entire nation:
Either it moves forward, or it looks backward—and believes it is progressing.
