Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Islam's Amazingly Unfalsifiable Claims--Part Two: Science or Science Fiction?

One of the most popular arguments for Islam is the “Argument from Scientific Accuracy.” Muslims claim that Muhammad uttered scientific statements that were only verified in modern times, and that Muhammad’s miraculous scientific insights are proof that Islam is true.

On the surface, this claim seems to be falsifiable. That is, it seems that Muslims are giving us an argument that we can test by examining Muhammad’s claims and seeing whether they are scientifically accurate. However, just as we learned when we examined the “Argument from Perfect Preservation,” there is usually no real way to falsify Muslim claims, for any evidence that would falsify the claims is either thrown out or radically reinterpreted by Muslims.

The tactic employed by Muslim apologists is (1) to read a simple passage from the Qur’an or Hadith, (2) to twist and stretch the interpretation as far their imaginations will take them, (3) to insert a bunch of scientific terminology into the interpretation, and (4) to proclaim that there is absolutely no way an illiterate, seventh-century leader could have revealed all these scientific insights without the help of God. After hearing such arguments, Muslims typically stand in awe. Others stand there wondering, “Where did the passage say that?”

Consider what happens when a non-Muslim attempts to examine Muhammad’s claims. He opens the Qur’an and reads Surah 86, which declares that semen proceeds from an area between the ribs and the spine. Surely this would falsify the Muslim argument, wouldn’t it? Not at all! Our Muslim friends reply that, since the cells that ultimately form the genitals are a bit higher up during embryological development, there is nothing wrong with Muhammad’s claim (despite the fact that Muhammad clearly wasn’t talking about embryological development). Hence, a passage which is so clear that it should automatically falsify the Muslim claim turns out to be no problem whatsoever.

What does the Qur’an say about embryological development? According to 22:5, 23:12-14, 40:67, and 75:37-39, humans go through a blood clot stage in the womb. Since the developing embryo is never a blood clot, don’t we have a rather obvious scientific error here? “No!” replies the Muslim. “Since the fetus kind of looks like a clot of blood, the Qur’anic description is accurate.” Once again, a clear error presents no problem at all for the Muslim.

We can go on and on with scientific errors in the Muslim sources. For instance, Surah 18:86 tells us that Alexander the Great traveled so far west, he found the place where the sun sets (it sets in a pool of murky water). Surah 67:5 and the Hadith tell us that stars are missiles that God uses to shoot demons when they try to sneak into Heaven (note: when we see shooting stars, it’s because God became angry and hurled a star at a demon). In Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 3320, Muhammad tells his followers that, if a fly falls into their drink, they should dunk the fly in the drink, since one of the fly’s wings has a disease, while the other wing has the cure for the disease.” According to both Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 3326, and Sahih Muslim, Number 6809, Muhammad told his followers that Adam was 90 feet tall, and that people have been shrinking since the time of Adam. In Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 67, we read about a situation in which some Muslims needed water. They asked Muhammad whether it was okay to use water from the well of Buda’ah, which was filled with dead dogs, used menstrual cloths, and human excrement. Muhammad replied, “Truly, water is clean and is not defiled by anything.”

Wouldn’t these and other passages disconfirm the Muslim claim that Muhammad’s miraculous scientific insights prove that Islam is true? Apparently not. Indeed, when we examine Muslim responses to Muhammad’s scientific errors, we find that Muhammad could have said virtually anything, no matter how absurd, and Muslims would accept it without question. I call this the “Miracle of Reinterpretation.”

In order to believe in the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an and the Hadith, we must be willing to reinterpret anything that is scientifically false. But surely it is unreasonable for Muslims to expect us to interpret Muhammad’s statements in the most favorable light imaginable, especially when his reliability as a prophet is what we’re investigating. The Argument from Scientific Accuracy is meant to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, but in order to prove their point, Muslims have to assume that Muhammad was a true prophet and that he therefore couldn’t have made any errors. This makes the Muslim method of scriptural interpretation a classic example of circular reasoning. A short discussion of the argument might go something like this:

Muslim: “There is only one God, and Muhammad is his prophet!”
Questioner: “I have my doubts about that second part. Why should I accept it?”
Muslim: “You should accept the fact that Muhammad is God’s prophet because Muhammad said that he was God’s prophet!”
Questioner: “You’re assuming that everything Muhammad says was true, but how can I know that?”
Muslim: “You can know it because of the amazing scientific accuracy of the Qur’an!”
Questioner: “But what about stellar missiles that hit demons, the sun setting in the ocean, and man forming from a blood-clot? What about all these passages?”
Muslim: “Those passages have to be reinterpreted!”
Questioner: “But why should we reinterpret them? Muhammad didn’t say that he was using figurative language when he said those things. Indeed, he seems to take them quite literally.”
Muslim: “Muhammad couldn’t have meant those verses to be taken literally.”
Questioner: “Why not?”
Muslim: “Because he’s God’s greatest prophet, and a prophet would never believe such things!”

The problem with the Muslim methodology is that it could be used to prove that any ancient figure was a prophet of God, especially when many ancients made claims which, unlike Muhammad’s, actually were scientifically accurate. For instance, Thales of Miletus was able to predict a solar eclipse in 585 B.C. One could use this to argue that he must have been inspired by God. However, Thales also proclaimed that everything is composed of water, an idea that now seems absurd. Nevertheless, by employing Islam’s Miracle of Reinterpretation, we can justify just about any scientific theory in history. For instance, if I were to use Muslim tactics in defending Thales’ position that everything is made of water, I could make the following argument:

The Prophet Thales claimed that everything is made of water. That’s obviously not true, but Thales was a prophet, so he couldn’t have been wrong. So what could he have meant? Well, consider the composition of water. It is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Most of the mass in the universe is in the form of hydrogen, and all living things use oxygen in some way. Thus, we have in Thales’ statement a full description of the universe--the non-living, predominantly hydrogen part, and the living, oxygen-using part! But how could Thales have known these things unless God revealed them to him? Truly this man must be a prophet!

This sort of reasoning will seem comical to anyone who isn’t a committed Muslim, but for some reason, it is almost universally accepted as valid in the Islamic world.

Here we must ask ourselves: What is the difference between the Qur’an (which contains many scientific errors that can only be avoided by resorting to the most absurd reinterpretations) and any other seventh-century book (which will probably contain many scientific errors that can only be avoided by resorting to the most absurd reinterpretations)? As far as the texts are concerned, there’s no difference at all. They both contain scientific errors. The only reason the texts are viewed differently is that Muslims will do anything to reinterpret the errors in their holy book.

Thus, the claim that the Muslim sources are scientifically accurate (much like the claim that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved) is completely, utterly, totally meaningless. Since the “scientific accuracy” of the Qur’an is no different from the scientific inaccuracy of any other book, Muslims who say that science confirms Islam are really saying, “If you examine the Qur’an, you'll see that it contains only true scientific statements, provided you’re willing to radically reinterpret all the obviously scientifically false statements.” But isn't this true of any book? Of course it is. Hence, unless Muslims are willing to grant that every book in history that has ever offered a scientifically true or false statement is revealed by God, they should stop offering unfalsifiable claims as evidence for Islam.

58 comments:

Nabeel Qureshi said...

What I'd like to make clear about our argument is this: David and I are not saying that scientific inaccuracy proves Muhammad to be a false prophet. I don't think prophets need to be thousands of years ahead of their time scientifically to be credible messengers of God.

What is being said is that no Muslim should use scientific accuracy as evidence for Muhammad's prophethood. Since it's blatantly clear that Muhammad uttered many things that are scientifically false, no argument to support his truth based on scientific accuracy is tenable.

Unknown said...

That's a pile of bull. You were already given a sufficient response when you first brought up the issue of Surah 86 which doesn't talk about semen production. Instead of doing what is honest by presenting both sides of the story and letting the readers judge for themselves, you mendaciously mock the Muslim responses so as to give the impression to your insecure Christian readers that Muslims failed to defend their scriptures. I admit that is an effective way of strengthening the faith of some of your brethren who think the only way their religion can be true is if the greatest and most formidable competitor of Christianity-Islam-is false.

Anonymous said...

You forgot to mention that the argument is a modern polemic. The Qur'an contains ~6400 verses. When 0,5% of them can be reinterpreted to make them sound scientifically, then you have 32 scientific miracles.

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

Ibn, why do I get the distinct feeling that if human seemen really did come from the back bone, you would have used it as proof for Divine inspiration?

But in any event. My favorite argument against the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an is the formation of mountains in Surah 16:15, which is obviously fallacious and cannot be re-interpreted. That verse (and other similar verses) clearly says the exact oposite than the scientific data we know to be true: Mountains are not thrown down/placed on the earth to prevent instability as is the claim of the verse, but they are erected as a result of instablilty.

Allah doesn’t even know simple science. This is typically something one would expect from a seventh century illiterate Arab that doesn’t have a clue about the science on mountains.

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Ibn said... «That's a pile of bull....

how!!! What a fantastic argummentation and a cleare afirmation of your dialogue capacities... about the rest off your wordes I only have one to answer: «borieng»...

or maybe more:«sayieng aboute others what is onlie true about ourselfs...» thates a famous psychological defense mechanisme...

thanke you, uonce again, for gibing us a clear notion of your mentality...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Science in the Qur'an resembles so much the scientific postulates of the ancient pre-islamic philosophers, there is no doubt that the Qur'anic author appealed to these ideas.

The fallacy of modern muslim missionaries is to read a whole volume of modern scientific details into these passages rather than appealing to the Qur'an's contemporary sources of close similtude.

Unknown said...

Nakdimon:why do I get the distinct feeling that if human seemen really did come from the back bone, you would have used it as proof for Divine inspiration?

Because you are prejudiced?

Nakdimon:But in any event. My favorite argument against the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an is the formation of mountains in Surah 16:15, which is obviously fallacious and cannot be re-interpreted. That verse (and other similar verses) clearly says the exact oposite than the scientific data we know to be true: Mountains are not thrown down/placed on the earth to prevent instability as is the claim of the verse, but they are erected as a result of instablilty.

When you don't even have a basic reading knowledge of the original language of the Quran and read verses in isolation rather than in the light of other verses, you start making silly claims like the ones quoted above.

Since it is obvious that you have your mind made up about the Book, I won't waste my time giving you a detailed refutation. Instead, I will afford hints by way of which the unprejudiced readers should be able to resolve the so called scientifically contradictory verses pertaining to the formation and function of mountains.

First. The formation of mountains is described in 88:19 as "nusibat" which comes from the verb "nasaba", meaning to erect. So mountains are not thrown ready made from above, rather they are erected which, as you have said, is how mountains are formed.

Second: Regarding the stabilization function of mountains and their roots, this is the description I got from a neutral site:

"Tall land masses like mountains have huge roots pushing down into the mantle to stabilize them."

http://dl.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/telecourses/geology100/IntroLecture2.htm#eight

Keep in mind that "ard" does not necessarily mean the planet itself, but the surface of the earth and a whole load of other objects also.

Nakdimon:Allah doesn’t even know simple science. This is typically something one would expect from a seventh century illiterate Arab that doesn’t have a clue about the science on mountains.

Nakdimon doesn't even know simple science. This is typically something one would expect from an illiterate Christian parading himself as a Jew.

El-Cid said...

Ibn said: "That's a pile of bull. You were already given a sufficient response when you first brought up the issue of Surah 86..."

Ibn, I can with complete confidence say that not a single non-Muslim here found your "response" to be "sufficient".

Ibn said: "I admit that is an effective way of strengthening the faith of some of your brethren who think the only way their religion can be true is if the greatest and most formidable competitor of Christianity-Islam-is false."

Oh, the irony!!! :-)

Hello pot, meet kettle :-D

Nabeel Qureshi said...

At least at face value, Ibn's heart is certainly in the right place, defending who he thinks is God and what he thinks is the Truth.

This is what makes me most angry about Islam - it takes our fellow man and makes them incredibly blind. It's obvious that the "scientific miracles" of the Qur'an are no miracles at all, yet Muslims really can't see that. I know because my family is there, my friends are there, and I used to be there.

Only when absolutely forced with the preponderance of evidence against my position did I fathom leaving Islam, and even then I needed a swift kick from God to do so.

Ibn cannot see his frantic desperation to defend his religion. This, to me, is much more sad than the mere fact that he can't defend his religion. I will pray for him now.

Nabeel

Unknown said...

It is I who should be praying for you Nabeel, considering how mentally unstable you are as evidenced in your debates with Shadid Lewis and Sami Zataari.

La Ilaha IllalLa Muhammadur Rasullah

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Salaam Alaikum Ibn,

Whilst I have been guilty of it in the past on this blog, I've come to realise that the more we pick on people for behavioural errors they have made in the past. The more God chooses to make us stop taking the moral highground by causing us to act in such a way in public.

So attack their ideas bro, just try not to comment on their behaviour, my two cents for you =)

Unknown said...

I am merely giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Nabeel,

This is what makes me most angry about Islam - it takes our fellow man and makes them incredibly blind.

Says an Adherant of the Christian Church!

It's obvious that the "scientific miracles" of the Qur'an are no miracles at all, yet Muslims really can't see that.

Not an argument, so no need to address it.

I know because my family is there, my friends are there, and I used to be there.

Ok, Christians are imbuciles who believe the Universe is 6,000 years old, I know this because my family is there, and my friends are there and I used to be there.

Fernando said...

Ibn in his typiccal offensive ways said to Nabeel: «considering how mentally unstable you are»... Moore wordes for what?

Here we have the perffect example of what islam is... have you noticed? Shameffull...

Nakdimon said...

Ibn said: "Nakdimon doesn't even know simple science. This is typically something one would expect from an illiterate Christian parading himself as a Jew."

Since you are such a smart Muslim (can't have a greater oxymoron, in your case) let me tell you what makes someone a Jew and what makes someone a christian.

One is a Jew BY BIRTH, not by creed! One is a Christian BY CREED and not by birth. So since I have a Jewish mother I am born a Jew who later came to believe that Yeshua is the expected Jewish Messiah.

But I guess your Qur’anic ignorance prevents you from thinking straight.

I will deal with the rest of your post later.

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Yahya said: «»Christians are imbuciles who believe the Universe is 6,000 years old»...

dear Yahya... I don't beliebe you trulli think that all christian think that... do yoy?

I guess you're just trying to say one shouldn't generalize our personnal opinions about one or other muslim faithfull who clearly reveal a way below average intelegince and civility...

I imagine you're right, even though I think that following this path that your brother in Muhammad is following (Ibn) is an appalling exemple to what islam is... but then: coulde I in everyway say thate?

Unknown said...

nakdimon:Since you are such a smart Muslim (can't have a greater oxymoron, in your case) let me tell you what makes someone a Jew and what makes someone a christian.
One is a Jew BY BIRTH, not by creed! One is a Christian BY CREED and not by birth. So since I have a Jewish mother I am born a Jew who later came to believe that Yeshua is the expected Jewish Messiah.
But I guess your Qur’anic ignorance prevents you from thinking straight.

Great refutation of my defense of the Quran!

As for what a Messianic Jew is, this site provides the best explanation www.messiahtruth.com

You know, I once came across a guy claiming to be a Messianic Muslim!

The lengths Christians will go to!
Then again, their deceptive activities are supported by scripture. 1Corinthians 9:19-24

Nora said...

"So attack their ideas bro, just try not to comment on their behaviour. . ."

I wholeheartedly agree. I love reading this blog and reading all the different arguments and counter arguments. When a comment about behavior or mental stability comes up, I find it incredibly distracting, but I don't know anyone personally.

just my two cents.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

dear Yahya... I don't beliebe you trulli think that all christian think that... do yoy?

Nope, No I don't.

I guess you're just trying to say one shouldn't generalize our personnal opinions about one or other muslim

Yep, thats correct.

Fernando said...

By the way, Yahya... you said that when you used to be a christian you trully believed that the earth was 6.000 years olde?

Maybe you didn't had the opportunity to know thw reall christianity...

That was precisely why (not knowing the true Church of Jesus Christ) I left it to Islam before I realized the terrible mistake I dide and found the true Church of Jesus and felt in love with him as my God...

Perhaps in your effords to reffute christianity you will sonner or latter find the true face of God...

I won't say I'll be prayng for you because you have testified before some sensivity and I don't want to urt your feelings, but I wish you my best wishes...

Nakdimon said...

Ibn said: "Great refutation of my defense of the Quran!"

I have checked your source and obviously you have had to search hard to find that source. I found it on an Islamic Forum and this is what it says in full:

The parts of the crust do the same when floating on the mantle. Tall land masses like mountains have huge roots pushing down into the mantle to stabilize them. The taller the mountains the deeper the roots push into the mantle. Valleys on land and oceanic trenches at sea have the most shallow roots.

OBVIOUSLY this is not talking about the stabilization of the earth crust, but the stabilization of the MOUNTAIN! Since the mountain is rooted from under the earth crust, it has no effect on the earth crust itself. Furthermore, this is not talking about ALL mountains, this is only about ONE PARTICULAR mountain, namely Oceanic mountains. Again, you have to re-interpret the passage in order to try to make it stick. But, sorry, no dice and I suggest you try again, because this scientific blunder is still an endictment against the claim of “divine inspiration” of your holy book.

This is the Qur’anic quote:

Noble Qur’an 16:15 And He has affixed into the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you
Khalifa 16:15 And He placed stabilizers (mountains) on earth, lest it tumbles with you,
Pickthal 16:15 And He hath cast into the earth firm hills that it quake not with you
Shakir 16:15 And He has cast great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with you
Sher Ali 16:15 And HE has placed in the earth firm mountains lest it quake with you
Yusuf Ali 16:15 And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you

Noble Qur’an 21:31 And We have placed on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them,
Khalifa 21:31 And we placed on earth stabilizers, lest it tumbles with them
Pickthal 21:31 And We have placed in the earth firm hills lest it quake with them
Shakir 21:31 And We have made great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them
Sher Ali 21:31 And WE have placed in the earth firm mountains lest it should quake with them
Yusuf Ali 21:31 And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them

So we see that, according to your Qur’an, the mountains are set on the earth to PREVENT THE EARTH FROM SHAKING. These are stabilizers! This is nonsensical! Mountains don’t stabilize the earth. So I suggest you go and google some more sources that seem to support the claim of your holy book because the one you provided doesn’t say that at all!

But this is what your translations say and how the translators understand Surah 88:19:

Noble Qur’an: And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm?
Khalifa : And the mountains and how they are constructed.
Pickthal: And the hills, how they are set up ?
Shakir: And the mountains, how they are firmly fixed,
Sher Ali: And at the mountains, how they are fixed ?
Yusuf Ali: And at the Mountains, how they are fixed firm

NONE say that those mountains erect. Are they ignorant? Deceptive?

"As for what a Messianic Jew is, this site provides the best explanation www.messiahtruth.com"

LOL. I have been on that site for years untill I got bounced TWICE after exposing their lies about the application of the Hebrew. You ask the moderators UriYosef and Sophiee, they know what's up. Sophiee acts as though she knows a lot, but she doesn't know anything. I SCHOOLED her on the Hebrew of the Tenach. And UriYosef boasts about the fact that he is a Tsabre (native born Israeli) and that he knows fluent Hebrew, but I caught him lying TWICE about the Hebrew application of the Tenach to someone who came to the forum with a question. Of course they accused me of misconduct and deleted my post and bounced me (once under the alias Nakdimon and once under the alias MaximusB52). I have been debating anti-missionaries for years and I am well familiar with those people.

The only mod that I could get along with over there was Chaim ben Ya'akov, with whom I had an extensive debate for weeks on the CARM Judaism forum about Isaiah 53. A 101 debate that he didn't fare well at!

To give you an illustration of how they got challenged by me, see here: http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/questionablerts.html

Almost all the arguments in this section (actually on the entire site) I have discussed with them. See their arguments and my responses. These are the same people that claim that I'm not Jewish because I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, but if a Jew is an atheist (denying the existance of the God of Israel), a Buddist or even a practices Hinduism, he is still considered Jewish. Talking about consistent argumentation.

"You know, I once came across a guy claiming to be a Messianic Muslim!
The lengths Christians will go to!
Then again, their deceptive activities are supported by scripture. 1Corinthians 9:19-24"


Dude, you are so ignorant it hurts! Let me ask you a question: Did the apostles of Yeshua STOP being Jews after they came to the conclusion that He was the Messiah? Did John stop being a Jew when he declared that Yeshua was the Son of God? Did Paul? Did Peter? If yes, then proof it! If no, then why do you call me deceptive?

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

Ibn said: "It is I who should be praying for you Nabeel, considering how mentally unstable you are as evidenced in your debates with Shadid Lewis and Sami Zataari."

mmmmmmm... something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind here!

You shouldn't be talking about other people being mentally instable. Wasn't it your prophet who was going delusional for a year during his prophetic carreer, thinking that he did things that he didn't do?

Wasn't your prophet the one thinking he was demon possessed when he nearly got squeezed to death by the angel that told him to read but didn't know that he could not read to begin with?

So, in Nabeels defence, if you think that Nabeel is mentally instable because he made a mistake, which everyone does from time to time, then what should we call ur "prophet", who had a nervous breakdown after his "angelic" encounter in a cave so much so, that he wanted to kill himself and became hallucinagetic after magic spells were worked on him, which is unpresedented in prophetic history. However it is comon behaviour in demonic possessed situations. (or with heavy drug abuse, you take ur pick!)

Nakdimon

Mohammad Barack said...

“But what about stellar missiles that hit demons, the sun setting in the ocean, and man forming from a blood-clot? What about all these passages?”

Stellar missiles hitting demons isnt a contraiction we dont know about since demons are invisible.

Sun setting in "ocean" or murky water:- you are a liar and this is the reason why i would never consider Christianity are you saying that they never saw the sun set on the other part of the desert??? you idiot.. Its clearly metaphorical. AND THANX FOR YOUR PROPAGANDA IN CHANGING "MURKY WATER" INTO OCEAN.

DONT EVEN DARE TO DELETE THIS POST.

BlackBaron said...

xiphone,

Reading Surah 18:86 does not sound like the writer is using a metaphor.

v85 "And he followed a road"
v86 "Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring..."

No one has suggested that the sun was never observed as setting. The verse however is clear that the writer has found "the setting place of the sun".

Also, my Qur'an (Pickthall) says "murky spring" and not "ocean".

Just curious, but exactly what would have happened if they would have "DARED" to delete your post?

Nakdimon said...

"Just curious, but exactly what would have happened if they would have "DARED" to delete your post?"

I guess he would have blown the site up???

David Wood said...

DAVID: "The Qur'an contains numerous passages which are scientifically false. Muslims can only rescue the Qur'an by absurd reinterpretations."

IBN: "That's a pile of bull! I already showed that I can rescue the Qur'an with my absurd reinterpretations!"

XIPHONE: "You are a liar, David! Everyone knows that we can rescue the Qur'an with our absurd reinterpretations!"

Please read what I say before you start writing and prove me right.

Bryant said...

Yahya said:

"Ok, Christians are imbuciles who believe the Universe is 6,000 years old, I know this because my family is there, and my friends are there and I used to be there."

I dont get it. Don't Muslims believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 or 8 days? Tell a modern scientist you believe that and he'll wonder why you are calling Christians imbeciles.

Unknown said...

Let's look at a few facts first

(1)The Quran doesn't say mountains prevent the planet from shaking. The Arabic word for "ard" can also mean the earth's crust.

(2)The Quran doesn't say mountains prevent earthquakes. In none of the verses cited by Nakdimon does the word "zilzal", which means "earthquake" in Arabic, appears.

Armed with these facts, let's analyze Nakdimon's claims, beginning with 88:19. Here, all he could do is conveniently appeal to a few translations wherein "nusibat" has not been translated as "erected". That, however, is a weak argument since there are other translations that have rendered "nusbat" into English correctly. For instance, Mahmoun Ayoud translates 88:19 as "at the mountains, how they were erected." (p.70, The Awesome News)

What needs to be shown is that the Arabic word "nusibat" doesn't mean "erected". Considering Nakdimon doesn't know a word of Arabic, he will probably create subterfuges to escape admitting his error.

Now for the function of mountains. The great Quranic commentator, Fakhruddin Ar Razi, explains "like the ship on water......it swings left and right.....until you put much weights in it and it stabilize
the earth (the crust) is like this ship.....the water is the liquid under the crust....and the weights are the mountains"

According to wikipedia's article on mountains, "In order to balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep mountain roots". This indicates that the structure of the mountains are such that they contribute to the balancing of the earth's surface.

One brother I know said the following:The earth is revolving round its axis. This causes everything on it to attempt to slide in a direction opposite to the direction of revolution. Mountians act as anchors/stabilizing pegs for the earths crust preventing it
from siliding constantly and shifting.
Without the stabilizing/pegging effects of mountains the earths crust would have all been lumped in one spot after sliding/shifting almost visibly. THAT is what the verses mean.
Mountains stabilize the earth crust and prevent the effect I described above, but they won't keep it pinned down forever which is what you are trying to make the verses say. An Anchor in a violent sea WILL move, it isnt nailed into the sea bed.

My response to your latest post will depend on whether you acknowledge my defense of 88:19. If you bring up irrelevant questions pertaining to the character of translators, then don't expect me to respond.

Unknown said...

Nakdimon:Dude, you are so ignorant it hurts! Let me ask you a question: Did the apostles of Yeshua STOP being Jews after they came to the conclusion that He was the Messiah? Did John stop being a Jew when he declared that Yeshua was the Son of God? Did Paul? Did Peter? If yes, then proof it! If no, then why do you call me deceptive?

No, that's why their disciples got into a dispute with the followers of Paul, as recorded in Galatians, who taught about the irrelevancy of obeying the Law and therefore being Jewish.

Nakdimon said...

Nakdimon:Dude, you are so ignorant it hurts! Let me ask you a question: Did the apostles of Yeshua STOP being Jews after they came to the conclusion that He was the Messiah? Did John stop being a Jew when he declared that Yeshua was the Son of God? Did Paul? Did Peter? If yes, then proof it! If no, then why do you call me deceptive?

Ibn: No, that's why their disciples got into a dispute with the followers of Paul, as recorded in Galatians, who taught about the irrelevancy of obeying the Law and therefore being Jewish.

LOL! This is truly getting painfully embarrassing. Paul NEVER taught any irrelevancy of the Torah and NEVER repudiated his Jewish identity. Not in Galatians, not in any letter. What Paul is saying is that, as far as GOD’S SALVATION goes, there is no discrimination on God’s part. Jew and Gentile are equally saved, in equal manner, on equal terms! In that case your background is totally and utterly irrelevant. AND THAT IS THE TRUTH: it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or not, God’s grace is extended to all in equal fashion.

You Muslims seem have an itch to make Paul contradict the other disciples. You are referring to a dispute (if you can call it that) between Paul and the other disciples. What was the dispute about? About the Law? If so, then put your money where ur mouth is and prove it! About being Jewish? NO! If so, then put your money where ur mouth is and prove it! It wasn’t even a dispute. Paul rebuked Peter for acting hypocritically. That’s it! Point us to another “dispute” between Paul and the other disciples. There is nothing in the entire NT that will support your “dispute” argument and certainly nothing like the ungodly behaviour of you first generation of Muslims, who were slaughtering each other for power, like Ayesha and Ali!

Nakdimon

Anonymous said...

The earth is revolving round its axis. This causes everything on it to attempt to slide in a direction opposite to the direction of revolution. Mountians act as anchors/stabilizing pegs for the earths crust preventing it
from siliding constantly and shifting.
Without the stabilizing/pegging effects of mountains the earths crust would have all been lumped in one spot after sliding/shifting almost visibly. THAT is what the verses mean.
Mountains stabilize the earth crust and prevent the effect I described above, but they won't keep it pinned down forever which is what you are trying to make the verses say. An Anchor in a violent sea WILL move, it isnt nailed into the sea bed.


Reminds me of the time when one guy on Conservapedia claimed that after the flood, vulcanos helped transporting animals all over the earth.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, FaithFreedom is atheistic, but they have a good article on the formation of mountains:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm

Unknown said...

Nakdimon:LOL! This is truly getting painfully embarrassing. Paul NEVER taught any irrelevancy of the Torah and NEVER repudiated his Jewish identity. Not in Galatians, not in any letter.

Oh really! According to Galatians 3:25, Paul said the law is no longer in charge. What about the metaphor he uses in 4:21-28 in which the sending away of Hagar is interpreted to mean the Old covenant and therefore its concomitant law? What about his statements regarding circumcision in 5:2 and 6:15?

I don't know why you are pretending to be a Jew here since this is primarily a Christian-Muslim discussion blog.

Fernando said...

xiphone said: «DONT EVEN DARE TO DELETE THIS POST.»

Thates what happens when one loses all argumentts... when loosing raeson, one increaes the volume...

I hope you'll get better in a near future, dearr xiphone, or like one says in my dialect: Bay appanh are nahttua peytha phethorhentta...

Fernando said...

Nakdimon respondding to one more mountainne of insultes and ignorance that supportes some muslim argumentations saide:

«There is nothing in the entire NT that will support your “dispute” argument and certainly nothing like the ungodly behaviour of you first generation of Muslims, who were slaughtering each other for power, like Ayesha and Ali!»

Houch!!! thate even hurted me...

Fernando said...

Someonne saide: «Mountians act as anchors/stabilizing pegs for the earths crust preventing it
from siliding constantly and shifting.»
...

Oh my, oh my!!! how the earth standed in equilibre before it had mountaines? Perhaps were the winds that kept it OK... how can someone be so ignorante?

Unknown said...

Nakdimon:You shouldn't be talking about other people being mentally instable. Wasn't it your prophet who was going delusional for a year during his prophetic carreer, thinking that he did things that he didn't do?

That's a circumstantial ad hominem. Lol!

Unknown said...

Fernando:Oh my, oh my!!! how the earth standed in equilibre before it had mountaines?

You don't even know the definition of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a state in which there is no tendency to change.
The fact that mountains have grown is proof that the earth has not been in equilibrium, for if it were in equilibrium, there would be change in form of new mountains. How can you be so ignorant?

Fernando said...

Ibn said: «Oh really! According to Galatians 3:25, Paul said the law is no longer in charge. What about the metaphor he uses in 4:21-28 in which the sending away of Hagar is interpreted to mean the Old covenant and therefore its concomitant law? What about his statements regarding circumcision in 5:2 and 6:15?»

dearr Ibn... I don't know what to sai to you... perhapps the better was to ignore your ignorance... but since you're a fellow human brother that has, as a humen being, a desire for true, I guess I'll trie to say something...

dearr Ibn... the personal drama of Paul was to understand how YHWH didn't mislead him when He revealed himself plenelly in Jesus Christ... nowhere Paul said the law has nonsense ore over... he only said that it had a pedagogical meaning and function that should continue to bee in place to those who haben't still accepted the perfect LAW of love, Jesus Christ in person, that configures the hermeneutical modulations of the law...

Jesus and his disciples were trully jews... it was not the earlie christinas who said: "we are nott jews"... were the jews that didn't accept the revelation in Jesus that saide to them "you're not jews"... since then christians assumed that theire particular interpretation of the jew religion, placed uppon Jesus heart, chose to namme this "interpretation" "christianity"... the path of Christ...

I'll be praying for you mie friend Ibn... now more than ever!!!

Unknown said...

Lol! what's this guy talking about?

Nakdimon said...

Let's look at a few facts first

(1)The Quran doesn't say mountains prevent the planet from shaking. The Arabic word for "ard" can also mean the earth's crust.


And since you are into talking facts name me ONE scientific FACT that states that Mountains keeps the earth’s crust from shaking! As long as you don’t provide that proof, this Qur’anic blunder remains as a testimony for the Qur’an’s HUMAN origins and against the claim of divine revelation. Period!

(2)The Quran doesn't say mountains prevent earthquakes. In none of the verses cited by Nakdimon does the word "zilzal", which means "earthquake" in Arabic, appears.

I know for a fact that Muslims would use these verses if the scientific data would confirm earthquakes taking place, even though the word “zilzal” didn’t appear in the text. All the translations are decisive: they all say that mountains are there to prevent it (the earth crust) from shaking! Khalifa translators even call the mountains “stabilizers”, which means nothing more than that their function is to stabilize. Stabilize WHAT? Stop beating around the bush! What would preventing the earth from shaking mean other than an earthquake? The error is inescapable.

Armed with these facts, let's analyze Nakdimon's claims, beginning with 88:19. Here, all he could do is conveniently appeal to a few translations wherein "nusibat" has not been translated as "erected". That, however, is a weak argument since there are other translations that have rendered "nusbat" into English correctly. For instance, Mahmoun Ayoud translates 88:19 as "at the mountains, how they were erected." (p.70, The Awesome News)

Erected to do WHAT? And all the other verses say that the mountains are thrown down, NOT erected. Only 88:19 seems to say that. But 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6; don’t say that. So they are incorrect on two points, namely, that (1) the mountains are put on the earth and (2) that they are there to stabilize the earth (crust). While 88:19 seems to be right about mountains being erected but is totally incorrect when it claims that it stabilizes the earth crust.

Now for the function of mountains. The great Quranic commentator, Fakhruddin Ar Razi, explains "like the ship on water......it swings left and right.....until you put much weights in it and it stabilize
the earth (the crust) is like this ship.....the water is the liquid under the crust....and the weights are the mountains"


Which is exactly what I’m saying: this is totally FALSE! He might be a great commentator but he shows his ignorance of the function of mountains. I will repeat: MOUNTAINS DO NOT STABILIZE THE EART (CRUST)! Are you even reading! Go run another google search to save your Qur’an from this blunder. You are digging a deeper and deeper hole to put the Qur’an in.

SHOW US WHERE MOUNTAINS STABILIZE THE EARTH CRUST! Until you do, this error stands tall!

According to wikipedia's article on mountains, "In order to balance the weight of the earth surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep mountain roots". This indicates that the structure of the mountains are such that they contribute to the balancing of the earth's surface.

Dude, mountains have many functions, like climate control. But not to stabilize the earth. In fact movement of the earth crust is NEEDED for the existence of life. Therefore mountains cannot stabilize the earth crust, because that would destroy life. Read here: http://www.oso.tamucc.edu/~ianmacd/3351/quakes%20renew%20the%20planet.htm



My response to your latest post will depend on whether you acknowledge my defense of 88:19. If you bring up irrelevant questions pertaining to the character of translators, then don't expect me to respond.

No, no, don’t run from the argument. Your defence has shown to have humungous holes in it and therefore you should try again.

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Ibn sayd: «Equilibrium is a state in which there is no tendency to change. The fact that mountains have grown is proof that the earth has not been in equilibrium, for if it were in equilibrium, there would be change in form of new mountains. How can you be so ignorant?»...

oh mie... dear Ibn...that's your defenition of "equilibrium"... according to it nothin in nature is in equilibrium since everything is in continuos change... so I suppose you think "equilibrium" is a word that has no refference to reallity...

No dearr Ibn.. equilibrium is a balance between distinct forces opperating in a specific system (in this pecculiar point, the "earth")... it is not sinonimous of immutability!!! Everything in the earth (even you... Ibn) and arouding it (with sufficient relevance... specialy the moon...) contributes to keep the eart in "equilibrium"...

other planets in the solar systemme are also «revolving round its axis» and don't have mountains...

please Ibn... I'll gibe you a chance to prove me wrong... please quote a scientific used in any non muslim university/schoolar around the word that says that «Without the stabilizing /pegging effects of mountains the earths crust would have all been lumped in one spot after sliding/shifting almost visibly»...

Fernando said...

Ibn said... «Lol! what's this guy talking about? afterr readding this post I beggin to realise you don't have a clue about tha history of the early christianity... I don't explain trignometry to someone who don't even undestain that 2+2 equals 4... please read:

a) James D.G. Dunn - "The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul";
b) Phillip F. Esler - "The Early Christian World"...

Nakdimon said...

Nakdimon:LOL! This is truly getting painfully embarrassing. Paul NEVER taught any irrelevancy of the Torah and NEVER repudiated his Jewish identity. Not in Galatians, not in any letter.

Ibn: Oh really! According to Galatians 3:25, Paul said the law is no longer in charge. What about the metaphor he uses in 4:21-28 in which the sending away of Hagar is interpreted to mean the Old covenant and therefore its concomitant law? What about his statements regarding circumcision in 5:2 and 6:15?



Yes really!! Finally an argument we can work with, because ur defence of the Qur’an suffices NOT!

Let me explain something to you about the entire letter of Galatians. Galatians is NOT a tirade against the Torah. Galatians is a letter where Paul presses the Galatians not to fall for the trap that the Torah, or anything else besides the Messiah, is a means for salvation.

It is Messiah’s sacrifice that saves us and NOT the Torah (Gal 3:1-5, 25).
It is Messiah’s sacrifice that saves us and NOT circumcision (Gal 5:2)
It is Messiah’s sacrifice that saves us and NOT our ethnic background (Gal 6:15)

AND HE IS RIGHT! If these things saved us from Gods judgement then the Messiah died in vain. (Galatians 2:21)

THAT is the entire purpose of the letter to the Galatians. Only ONE saves us, and that is what Paul is saying to the Galatians: ONE Gospel and none other. (Galatians 1:8) Those who claim otherwise after him (no matter who he is, even if he is someone from Mecca making outlandish claims about himself) they stand CONDEMNED!

And the metaphor in Galatians 4:21-28 is NOT about the Torah but about those who adhere to it for salvation, when the true Saviour had already come to them. It talks about those “children” who are rejected just as HAGAR was rejected.


I don't know why you are pretending to be a Jew here since this is primarily a Christian-Muslim discussion blog.

Again I ask you: Did Ya’akov (James) stop being a Jew when he recognized Yeshua as the Messiah? Or did he “pretend” to be one, as in Acts 21:20, Answer the question!

Nakdimon

Unknown said...

Nakdimon:And since you are into talking facts name me ONE scientific FACT that states that Mountains keeps the earth’s crust from shaking! As long as you don’t provide that proof, this Qur’anic blunder remains as a testimony for the Qur’an’s HUMAN origins and against the claim of divine revelation. Period!

I quoted Frank Press' book via wikipedia. In response to that, you said, "Dude, mountains have many functions, like climate control. But not to stabilize the earth. "

You conveniently ignored my source. Again, my source says that mountain roots are related to the balancing of the earth's surface-a scientific fact confirmed in the Quran. I don't expect you to acknowledge it since that would put your faith in peril, as if you weren't already insecure enough.

Nakdimon:I know for a fact that Muslims would use these verses if the scientific data would confirm earthquakes taking place, even though the word “zilzal” didn’t appear in the text.

As a result of being prejudiced, you think that Muslims will force earthquakes into those verses even though the word "zilzal" doesn't appear therein if modern science were to say mountains prevent earthquakes. Then you make the conclusion that those verses are really talking about the prevention of earthquakes. That's a non sequitur.

The Quran is very specific about the terms it uses. Keep that in mind.

Nakdimon:All the translations are decisive: they all say that mountains are there to prevent it (the earth crust) from shaking!

Where does earthquake appear in any of the translations?

Nakdimon:Erected to do WHAT?

To balance the weight of the earth's surface.

Nakdimon:And all the other verses say that the mountains are thrown down, NOT erected.

Where? I have checked out the verses you quoted in both English and Arabic and for the life of me, I can't seem to find anything about mountains being thrown down.

Nakdimon:Let me explain something to you about the entire letter of Galatians. Galatians is NOT a tirade against the Torah.

That's your erroneous view. One website describes Paul's attitude toward the Law as being very negative

http://people.smu.edu/
dwatson/galatians.htm

Calvin J Roetzel writes in his book, "The Letters of Paul", "In light of his more positive statements about the law elsewhere, Paul's almost totally negative picture of it in Galatians is disturbing."

I think the Paul's likening of the Law to the sending of away of Hagar is sufficient to prove its irrelevancy.

Nakdimon:It is Messiah’s sacrifice that saves us and NOT the Torah

Therefore, it is irrelevant.

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

Ibn: I quoted Frank Press' book via wikipedia. In response to that, you said, "Dude, mountains have many functions, like climate control. But not to stabilize the earth. "

You conveniently ignored my source. Again, my source says that mountain roots are related to the balancing of the earth's surface-a scientific fact confirmed in the Quran. I don't expect you to acknowledge it since that would put your faith in peril, as if you weren't already insecure enough.


I didn’t ignore ur source. Frank Press doesn’t say that mountains stabilize the earth. It says that it balances THE WEIGHT of the earth surface, not to PREVENT it from shaking, which is exactly. Again, the earth crust MUST move to support life. So it can’t prevent movement because that would be devastating for nature! So you clearly read him wrong. Go do another google search!

As a result of being prejudiced, you think that Muslims will force earthquakes into those verses even though the word "zilzal" doesn't appear therein if modern science were to say mountains prevent earthquakes. Then you make the conclusion that those verses are really talking about the prevention of earthquakes. That's a non sequitur.

Well, no. I have seen you guys do some amazing re-interpretations of the Qur’an that sometimes even goes against ur own scholars. There are numerous examples for this all over the Answering Islam website. So I’m not talking from prejudice, but from experience.

Where does earthquake appear in any of the translations?

What else does “lest it shake” mean?

Nakdimon:And all the other verses say that the mountains are thrown down, NOT erected.

Where? I have checked out the verses you quoted in both English and Arabic and for the life of me, I can't seem to find anything about mountains being thrown down.

Oh, we are going to nitpick. With “thrown down” I obviously mean that they are put ON the earth.

Khalifa 16:15 And He placed stabilizers (mountains) on earth, lest it tumbles with you,
Yusuf Ali 16:15 And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you

Noble Qur’an 21:31 And We have placed on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them,
Khalifa 21:31 And we placed on earth stabilizers, lest it tumbles with them
Yusuf Ali 21:31 And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them


That's your erroneous view. One website describes Paul's attitude toward the Law as being very negative

http://people.smu.edu/
dwatson/galatians.htm

Calvin J Roetzel writes in his book, "The Letters of Paul", "In light of his more positive statements about the law elsewhere, Paul's almost totally negative picture of it in Galatians is disturbing."


LOL, MY erroneous view? Wait a second. If anything is inconsistent with Pauls view of the Torah in Romans 7 and 8, where he clearly states that those “walking in the flesh” (i.e. NOT being subject to the Torah), is enmity to God and “walking in the Spirit” (i.e. being subject to the Torah) is pleasing to God (Romans 8:7-8), it is the view of those that think that Paul condemns the Torah in his letters. Au contraire, my friend! Not to mention Yeshua’s specific mention that His coming doesn’t abolish the Torah (Mat 5:17). AND with the prophecy of Isaiah about the day of Judgement, when God will consume those that eat the things he finds detestable in His Torah, as per Isaiah 66:17? Whose view is erroneous in light of that? Theirs or mine?

I think the Paul's likening of the Law to the sending of away of Hagar is sufficient to prove its irrelevancy.

How is that to be understood from the text? What the text is saying is the promise of eternal life is for the sons of the free woman and her children to inherit and not for the bonded woman and her children. Meaning that those that keep putting their trust in the Torah for salvation will not inherit eternal life, these are cast out. But those of the promise will inherit the life. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Paul thinking that the Torah is irrelevant.

Nakdimon:It is Messiah’s sacrifice that saves us and NOT the Torah

Therefore, it is irrelevant.

No it is not. It is still the measuring rod for obedience and disobedience. We are to adhere to it, as Yeshua says in Matthew 7:21-23 and Paul says in Colossians 2:16:17 among other places, but not to rely on it for salvation. You are, again, simply in error!

Nakdimon

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Nakdimon:It says that it balances THE WEIGHT of the earth surface

And that's what the Quran implies when it says "lest it doesn't shake with you", implying the weight has been balanced as a result of these mountains.

If I stand on something that cannot support my weight, both I and the thing will shake.

As for the prevention of shaking, you are thinking that the verses convey the idea that the earth's crust is immovable as a result of these mountains. That's now what the Quran says. Just as a ship can be anchored and yet move, so can the crust be anchored (which BTW is the literal meaning of 'rawasiya' translated as mountains) but fluctuate.

So you are yet to establish your case of a scientific error in the Quran.

Nakdimon said...

And that's what the Quran implies when it says "lest it doesn't shake with you", implying the weight has been balanced as a result of these mountains.


Here we see, again, the re-interpretation of what the Quran is actually saying. I hate to say “I told you so”. LOL

Let me say it again: your source says mountains BALANCE the WEIGHT of the earth surface. THEY ARE NOT ANCHORS. The text is very clear: mountains are put on the earth LEST it shakes. This means clearly that if there were no mountains, the earth would shake all the time. That is simply not true!

Unknown said...

nakdimon:Let me say it again: your source says mountains BALANCE the WEIGHT of the earth surface. THEY ARE NOT ANCHORS. The text is very clear: mountains are put on the earth LEST it shakes. This means clearly that if there were no mountains, the earth would shake all the time. That is simply not true!

No, the text implies that mountains are there to prevent imbalance.
As I said earlier, if I stand on something that doesn't support my weight, both I and the object will shake. If I attempt to move, the object will shake even more.
The Quran is absolutely accurate in saying mountains are there lest the earth's surface shakes with us as they support the earth's weight.

BTW did the ancients know that mountains were erected?

Mohammad Barack said...

Reading Surah 18:86 does not sound like the writer is using a metaphor.

"""""""v85 "And he followed a road"
v86 "Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he
found it setting in a muddy spring..." """"""

The speech in Noble Verses 18:85,89 and 92 is clear that he walked or marched for short distances and did not go to the ends of the earth!
In fact, no where in the entire Quran is "ends of the earth" mentioned!

1- The sun had always risen from the east and set in the west in a constant circular motion. To our human perspective, the sun had always rose from the east, and set in the west, and then goes under the earth to rise back from the east and so on.

2- The sun could not physically set on a lake or Spring, because that area of water could not have space or hole under it where the sun would go through it to then go under the earth so it would rise back up again from the east.

3- If the verses were to be taken literally, then the sun would have to set in the west, and would have to then rise back from the west, and then set in the east and then rise back from the east and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

86. Until, when he reached ("balagha".....it doesn't mean literal arrival. See Noble Verses 6:19, 12:22, 18:61, 18:86, 18:90, 18:93, 24:59, 28:14, 37:102, 46:15 in the next section below. "adraka" or "yudrik" mean literal arrival or reaching as also shown in the next section below) the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: 'O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.'

Tell me if they said it set on the murky water then how does it come back up from the other side???




"Just curious, but exactly what would have happened if they would have "DARED" to delete your post?"

Nothing but I would just repost it every time it gets deleted.








And to David Wood do you think what you are doing will make people come to your religion? never you just help them become atheist thats all. What sort of person would ever go from One God to trinity God except if they are schizophrenic given that something is circle and square at the same time(jesus- God and human)

Given that the bible has hundreds of scientific errors in number heck thousands could be made if the same tactic(cherry picking) is used like yours.

And just another question David Wood. Why do you repeat the same thing when you are refuted on it??? one other interesting observation from me is that you sir are using the Nazi technique of repeating the same false statement again and again at the end people are going to take it as if it were true.

El-Cid said...

Javier said: "Tell me if they said it set on the murky water then how does it come back up from the other side???"

I believe the correct Islamic response to your question is:

"Allah knows best" :-D

Fernando said...

Who's this Jokker clown who writes posts under the name of Javier? he's great!!! le Cirque du Soleil is serching for a new clown...

Fernando said...

Ibn said: if there were no mountains, the earth would shake all the time... thats preciselly what you failled to proove scientificaly dear Ibn...

B said...

David said: He opens the Qur’an and reads Surah 86, which declares that semen proceeds from an area between the ribs and the spine. Surely this would falsify the Muslim argument, wouldn’t it? Not at all! Our Muslim friends reply that, since the cells that ultimately form the genitals are a bit higher up during embryological development, there is nothing wrong with Muhammad’s claim (despite the fact that Muhammad clearly wasn’t talking about embryological development). Hence, a passage which is so clear that it should automatically falsify the Muslim claim turns out to be no problem whatsoever.

Umm no, not every Muslim says this. Go here article
, which actually clarifies what the verse is talking about.

David said: What does the Qur’an say about embryological development? According to 22:5, 23:12-14, 40:67, and 75:37-39, humans go through a blood clot stage in the womb. Since the developing embryo is never a blood clot, don’t we have a rather obvious scientific error here? “No!” replies the Muslim. “Since the fetus kind of looks like a clot of blood, the Qur’anic description is accurate.” Once again, a clear error presents no problem at all for the Muslim.

The Arabic word Alaq in verse 38 really means anything that clings or sticks [The Arabic dictionary Qaamoos Al Muheet defines Alaq as “Blood in its normal state or blood which is extremely red or which has hardened or congealed, a piece thereof; every thing that sticks; clay that sticks to hands; unchanging enmity or love; Zu `alaq is the name of a hill of Banu Asad, where they defeated Rabi`ah ibn Maalik; An insect of water that sucks blood; that portion of a tree that is within the reach of animals.”] and this is accurate since the embryo at this stage obtains nourishment from the blood of the mother, similar to the leech, which feeds on the blood of others. [Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal, Human Development as Described in the Quran and Sunnah, p. 36]

Anyways go Here

David said: We can go on and on with scientific errors in the Muslim sources. For instance, Surah 18:86 tells us that Alexander the Great traveled so far west, he found the place where the sun sets (it sets in a pool of murky water).

The verse doesn’t say that it was Alexander the Great and it is not saying that the sun is actually setting in the pool, but that was the way that Dhlul Qurnayn saw it. Now when someone tells his wife that it would be romantic if they both watched the sun set would that mean that the sun actually set in a literal sense? Of course not, this is just how it appears to them.
Anyways go Here

David said: Surah 67:5 and the Hadith tell us that stars are missiles that God uses to shoot demons when they try to sneak into Heaven (note: when we see shooting stars, it’s because God became angry and hurled a star at a demon).

David fails to differentiate between suprascience and contrascience. What evidence has David shown to show that this is not true?

David said: In Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 3320, Muhammad tells his followers that, if a fly falls into their drink, they should dunk the fly in the drink, since one of the fly’s wings has a disease, while the other wing has the cure for the disease.”

Go Here

Secondly, David himself in one of his online articles states that this hadith could not be used as a valid argument since it is possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was speaking from his own self rather than from inspiration.


David said: According to both Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 3326, and Sahih Muslim, Number 6809, Muhammad told his followers that Adam was 90 feet tall, and that people have been shrinking since the time of Adam.

You as a Christian believe that human beings at one time were able to live for hundreds of years. This indicates that God might have created their bodies different than ours. So why it is so impossible for God to have created a 90 foot tall human being? Also see Here


David said: In Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 67, we read about a situation in which some Muslims needed water. They asked Muhammad whether it was okay to use water from the well of Buda’ah, which was filled with dead dogs, used menstrual cloths, and human excrement. Muhammad replied, “Truly, water is clean and is not defiled by anything.”

First of all, all Muslim scholars are in agreement that if water mixes with any impure substance that changes its color, taste or smell then that water becomes impure. Thus, no knowledgeable Muslim has understood the Prophet’s statement the way David has. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) was saying that in a specific context and he meant that small amounts of impurities couldn’t contaminate a big portion of water. You can also listen to Osama Abdullah’s audio discussion Here


David said: "The Qur'an contains numerous passages which are scientifically false. Muslims can only rescue the Qur'an by absurd reinterpretations."

And who are you to say that our rebuttals are “absurd”? That’s very simple to claim, yet tough to prove.