Showing posts with label Miracles of the Qur'an. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miracles of the Qur'an. Show all posts

Friday, November 3, 2017

Answering Islam 8: Are There Scientific Mistakes in the Qur'an?

Here's Episode 8 of our "Answering Islam" series, where I answer the question: "Are there scientific mistakes in the Qur'an?" For the rest of the series, click on the playlist.


Here's the full text of the video:

Are There Scientific Mistakes in the Quran?

One of the most popular arguments for Islam is what we might call the “Argument from Scientific Accuracy.” Muslim apologists claim that the Qur’an contains numerous scientific insights that couldn’t have been known by Muhammad apart from divine revelation and that were only verified centuries later. Now I’ve debated Muslims on this argument, and I find it very strange, because the Qur’an is a scientific disaster. Everything Muhammad could get wrong, he got wrong.

The Qur'an claims that semen is formed between the backbone and ribs (Surah 86, verses 6-7), that the earth is flat (Surah 88, verse 20), that there are seven earths (surah 65, verse 12), that the sun and the moon chase each other around the earth (surah 36, verses 38-40), that human embryos are blood-clots (surah 22, verse 5), that the sky would fall on the earth if Allah didn't hold it up (surah 22, verse 65), and that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot demons who try to sneak into heaven (surah 37, verses 6-10, and surah 67, verse 5).

But I don’t want people to think I’m making things up, so let’s read a few verses. Passages about stars being missiles are interesting. Surah 67, verse 5:
And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps [lamps are the stars], and We have made such lamps (as) missiles to drive away the Shayatin (devils), and have prepared for them the torment of the blazing Fire.
Stars are missiles that drive away demons. How does this work? Surah 37, verses 6-10:
Verily! We have adorned the nearest heaven with the stars (for beauty). And to guard against every rebellious devil. They cannot listen to the higher group (angels) for they are pelted from every side. Outcast, and theirs is a constant (or painful) torment. Except such as snatch away something by stealing and they are pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness.
Demons who sneak into heaven to steal some information are “pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness.” Muhammad explained in the Hadith that this refers to shooting stars. When you see a shooting star, it’s because Allah or the angels caught a demon trying to steal something and hurled a star at the demon.

Now this is silly on multiple levels. Shooting stars aren’t really stars. They’re rocks that burn up when they enter the earth’s atmosphere. And how many Muslims really believe that when a rock hits the earth’s atmosphere, it’s to stop a demon from getting away with valuable information? Muslims today know more about stars than the author of the Qur’an did.

Let’s look at another passage. Surah 18, verses 83 to 86:
And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: “I shall recite to you something of his story.” Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people.
Dhul-Qarnain was apparently Alexander the Great. But whoever he was, the Qur’an says that he traveled so far West, he found the place where the sun sets. The sun sets in a muddy or warm pool.

Modern Muslims are embarrassed by this passage, so they say that what it really means is that Dhul-Qarnain saw the sun’s reflection in a pool, and it appeared to him as if the sun was setting in the pool. This obviously isn’t what the text says. But it’s important to note that Muslims who want to explain the passage this way are claiming to understand the Qur’an better than Muhammad, because Muhammad himself claimed that the sun sets in a pool. Let’s read Sunan Abu Dawud 4002. This is a sahih narration.
It was narrated that Abu Dharr said: “I was riding behind the Messenger of Allah while he was on a donkey, and the sun was setting. He said: ‘Do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said: ‘Allah and his Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘It sets in a spring of water.’”
Notice, this hadith doesn’t say anything about Dhul-Qarnain, so it’s not telling us about what he saw. This is Muhammad telling one of his companions where the sun goes when it sets, and Muhammad says that it sets in a pool. So the obvious meaning of the Qur’an is confirmed by Muhammad, and Muhammad and the Qur’an are simply wrong.

When we put the Quran’s scientific claims together with the scientific claims in the hadith, we get a really silly picture of the universe. Muhammad believed that there are seven earths, all of them flat, stacked on top of each other like pancakes, except with a long distance between them. Out on the edge of the top earth, which is our earth, is a pool where the sun sets. There are also seven heavens above the earths, and they’re like domes that will fall on us if Allah doesn’t hold them up. In the lowest heaven are the stars, which Allah uses to hurl at demons. And all of this is sandwiched between a giant fish at the bottom and eight giant goats on top. What did Muhammad get right?

Muhammad’s view of human reproduction is just as bad. According to Muhammad, semen forms between the backbone and ribs (that’s wrong), then it joins with the female semen (wrong), and whichever parent’s semen is discharged first determines which parent the child will resemble (wrong). The child spends forty days as a drop of sperm (wrong). Then the child spends another forty days as a clot of blood (wrong). Then the child becomes a lump (wrong). Then the child becomes bones (wrong). Then the bones are wrapped with flesh (wrong). After the final shape is determined, Allah finally decides whether the child will be male or female (wrong).

So here again, what did Muhammad get right? If this is the greatest evidence for the prophethood of Muhammad, we can only wonder why anyone believes in Islam.

Friday, February 28, 2014

Are Stars Missiles That Allah Shoots at Demons?


Our Muslim friends tell us that the Qur'an is confirmed by its miraculous scientific insights, which have only been confirmed recently by scientists.

Then we open the Qur'an, and we find some of the silliest scientific claims ever offered by anyone.

Take, for instance, the Qur'anic claim that stars are missiles that Allah uses to shoot at demons who try to sneak into paradise:

Qur’an 37:6-10—We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars—(for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (so) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming Fire, of piercing brightness.

Qur’an 67:5—And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and We have made such (lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

How can non-Muslims ever take the "Argument from Scientific Accuracy" seriously after reading these verses? At this point, our Muslim friends introduce us to another Qur'anic miracle: the Miracle of Reinterpretation. Amazingly, whenever the Qur'an says something that's obviously absurd (or obviously immoral), the Qur'an turns out to mean something completely different from what it actually says (even though the Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear and fully explained).

Unfortunately for Islam's modern reinterpreters, Muhammad's companions explained what 67:5 means, and they learned the Qur'an (and its interpretation) from Muhammad himself.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3198—Abu Qatada mentioning Allah’s saying: “And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps . . .” (v. 67:5) said, “The creation of these stars is for three purposes, and they are: 1) as decoration of the nearest heaven, 2) as missiles to hit the devils, and 3) as signs to guide travelers. So, if anybody tries to find a different interpretation, he is mistaken and just wastes his efforts and troubles himself with what is beyond his limited knowledge.”

Hence, Muslims who want to say that the Qur'an doesn't claim that stars are missiles must first convince us that they are higher authorities than Allah, Muhammad, and Muhammad's companions.

Good luck with that.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Zakir Naik: 25 Errors in Less Than Five Minutes

Ever notice that in Christianity, our top apologists are brilliant scholars with solid arguments, while in Islam, the top apologists are people who can sound good while spouting absolute nonsense?

Miracles of the Qur'an: The Female Honey Bee

Here's another so-called miraculous scientific proof that the Qur'an is the Word of God:



And here's what happens when Muslim arguments are forced to confront reality:

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe (Debunked)

The Qur’an and the Expanding Universe

The ‘cosmological expansion’ has within the last century become a theory that has broken considerable ground, I am thinking of the famous Sir Arthur Eddington and his classic ‘The Expanding Universe’ published by Pelican Books already in 1940 (which I am right now holding in my hand) to a number of modern works; particularly some of my favourites, like the numerous works of Stephen Hawking and the lesser known Simon Singh in his book ‘Big Bang’, to George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation, 1993: 42-65 and John Gibbin’s, Science: A History, 1543-2001, 2002: 572-612, to another magnificent written work: ‘The Five Stages of the Universe’ by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin.

Due to the popularity of the concept it ought not to surprise us that a range of Muslim exponents, have as usual attempted to create links between this modern concept and certain Qur’anic statements.

However, these are not easily correlated. If we bother studying the scientific postulate, the ‘expansion’ includes time, space and matter expanding from an almost infinite hot cosmological state of fused matter and energy, that emerged through the time-length of a 300.000 year long process from one or possible two preliminary Big Bang type events, namely: the expansion of a highly hypothetical singularity state to another highly hypothetical inflation that evolved the present universe from its pre-conditional state of an orange size chaos state.

Yet, contrary the claim of this Qur’an=Modern scientific enterprise movement, this is not the cosmological concept described in the Qur’an at all.

The Qur'anic description of Cosmological Structure

Looking at the sequences of the cosmological event described in Sura 21 and 41, we indeed find the concept of expansion, but only the expansion of matter, not space. In fact Sura 21: 30 reveals merely that the heaven was separated from the earth and verse 32 states that the heavens are placed like a roof:

‘And we made the heavens as a canopy well guarded’.

Here Yusuf Ali translates it ‘canopy’, while Pickhtal translates it ‘roof’

see Arab Gateway:

Qur’an Online, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/quran.htm#english:

‘And we made the sky a roof withheld (from them)’.

Yet nothing suggest that this particular roof is the edge of time, space and matter, which initially separated from the earth. In fact in modern science, the heavens never separated from the earth.

Sura 41: 11-2 provides us with slightly more insight, depicting the primordial heaven in a state of smoke, from which Allah creates the seven heavens.

Yet verse eleven states only that the heavens were created in two days and does not indicate expansion; certainly not continuous expansion. Hence the universe according to this passage, if it refers to the universe in its entirety as its structure, does not expand. Yet again this smoke reveals nothing as to space itself, not even the stellar matter, which only appears after the smoke has been divinely structured into the heavenly seven levels.

Hence the heavens in Sura 21: 32 may only reveal a matterlike structure. Obviously the smoke in Sura 41, which hoovers around the earth, is along with the earth already existing in a sort of emptiness vacuum. It's this particular vacuum that interests me in this article.

Hence, this is the vital point: the smoke in Sura 41: 11-12 does not apply to space but only matter; this is even in the Hadith literature since the seven heavens are referred to as stratums, as habitations of heavenly beings, including the prophets. This is, hence not related to cosmological expansion but the creation of cosmological structure via matter.

On the other hand there is a reference to ‘the raising of the canopy’ which indeed might relate to expansion of space, as referred to in Sura 79: 27-8; yet this verse becomes ambiguous, for several reasons, firstly that of contradiction, since verse 30 states: ‘And the earth, moreover hath he expanded’; which implies that the canopy was created prior to the earth, which indeed
Yusuf Ali in his footnote (5937) points out: Moreover: or more literally after that. See also 4475 to 41: 11 (The Meaning of the Hoy Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Amana Publications, 2001: 1596).

This completely contradicts Sura 21: 30-3, in which the authors depict the heaven as separating from the earth. Unless of course vacuum was brought into existence prior to matter. But Zakir Naiks famous correlation between the Qur'an and the primordial nebula are at risk.

Here in Sura 41: 11-2, the authors appear to imply that the structure of the heavens was brought into existence after the earth was made inhabitable.

Is this reference to first 1) void 2) then earth, 3) and finally the heavenly structure. I am doubt many scientists will confirm the possibility of this.

Or is it possible that the raising of the canopy merely describes the structure of the universe not the vacuum itself, but in that case we have a contradiction.

Even Kathir might be referring to this as a contradiction, in Tafsir Ibn Kathir volume 8, 2000: 519, concerning Sura 79: 27: 30:

‘So he mentioned the creation of the heavens before the earth’. As to Sura 41: 9-11, he writes: ‘Here he mentioned the creation of the earth before the creation of heavens’.

(Let me quickly summarize this, before we move on: The problem concerns the relation between Sura 79 and 41, in terms of structure and space. The possibility remains, that Sura 79: 27-6 refers to space, while Sura 41: 11-2 along with Sura 21: 30 refers to structural matter within this expanded or expanding space; but then. But then again why does Sura 41 describe the seven heavens within this context? Is it not presumable that edge of the universe was included within such a structure?)

The confusion, which the Qur’anic authors found themselves in, is obvious and highly understandable when we consider all the pre-islamic concepts he had to draw from.

If we cast aside the cosmological structure and focus on space alone, and if the Qur’an correctly is correlated to modern science and references related to space, it is probably Sura 51: 47 which becomes most significant. In the translation of Pickhtal we read: ‘We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)’.

Some Muslim propagandist, e.g. Osama Abdallah have asserted in the article: ‘Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran that He is “Expanding” the Universe, that the passage predicts the modern postulate of continuous universal expansion.

Abdallah asserts that the passage should read:

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."

This interpretation is however disputed! Dr. Abdul-Kalaam Panglos, a writer on the humanist website Freethought Mecca (http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm) in a refutation to the claim states that the particular Arabic word moosi’oon is the plural word for moosi, which usually is translated ‘rich’ or ‘wealthy’ (see: Sura 2: 236).

In other words ‘enriching;’ while the root of the word is awsa´a, which indeed can mean expanding, stretching and enriching, the correct word for ‘expanding’ would be noosi´u and ‘continuous expansion’ would read noosi´uhaa.

Hence ‘continuous expansion’ is excluded:

The Qur’an and the Big Bang: http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/bigbang.html.

While Panglos might have a point here, there is another matter of consideration, namely that the issue of ‘space and matter’ was brought up and debated even centuries before Islam, and hence might derive from the ancient thinkers or texts that preceded the Qur’an.

Interestingly, Panglos points to the possible derivation from Jewish Old Testament sources, particularly, the book of Isaiah, chapter 42: 5:

‘This is what God the Lord says—he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life two those who walk in it’

(see also Isaiah 40: 22 and 42: 5).

This resembles Sura 51: 47-8 remarkably, both in context and terminology:

‘With the power and skill did We construct the firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space. And We have spread out the (spacious) earth; how excellently We do spread out!’

Considering the proximity and interaction between the early Muslims and the Jews, as well as Jewish converts to Islam, the particular similarity might be a clear indicator; see:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html

In his essay, Panglos points out that the Hebrew of Is.42: 5 can indeed be translated ‘continuous expansion’:

‘…the words ‘YHWH bore ha-shamaim v'noteihem’ most literally means "YHWH is creating the heavens and expanding them." For example, the verb noteh is the present tense (hoveh) conjugation of the verb lintot, which can mean stretch, bend, expand, et cetera.’

Even Henry Morris, a Christian writer on modern science who tends to object to the view of ‘cosmological expansion’ concedes that these Old Testament passages and the modern concepts of cosmological expansion could be correlated. Morris also points to another Old Testament concept that may suggest such a cosmological occurrence, the Hebrew word raqia for ‘firmament’ is correctly translated ‘expanse’ or ‘perhaps better, “spread out thinnes”’ (Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, p. 154)

Furthermore, the flourishing concepts of the Greek and Roman philosophers do also show awareness of cosmological expansion and structure. Lucretius in 50 AD claimed that nature consists of the two-fold nature of matter and space which do not mix (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.42).

The ancient philosophers therefore wondered how matter could have expanded in a dimension that contained no space.

There were several possibilities: did space expand with matter? But then again did matter coexist with or create more void than it was able to regulate? This relates closer to the Big Bang theory and even Lucretius, and this was indeed the concern of Aristotle who elaborated on the correspondence between place and body (Aristotle, 1999: p. 69).

Others, such as Hesiod concluded that the chasm was put in the system prior to matter (Aristotle, 1999, p. 79); based on the above information, if Sura 79: 29-30 and Sura 51 would describe an incident or cosmological factor separate from Sura 21 and 41 (which themselves appear contradictory in their structure), the Qur’an might refer to the Cosmological process of Hesiod, who postulated space prior to matter!

However, if Sura 21 and 41 include the canopy, then we are dealing with firstly with an irreconcilable contradiction and secondly a cosmos that hardly appears to expand. In any case the Qur’an clearly from Sura 21 and 41 describes the heavenly structure which might include the canopy, e.g. space to have emerged from or after the full creation and formation of the habitable earth--which is everything but scientific!

Yet even if the Qur'an proposes cosmological expansion, this hardly reveals miracolous inspiration.

Lucretius, despite that his work also appears unclear and contradictory (e.g. Lucretius, p. 55, in which he depicts the universe as unconfined, not bounded in any direction and bottomless), seems to make a great deal out of cosmological expansion; first and most his cosmogony implies that the mass which separated from the earth, raised the heights of the heaven and composed the outer walls of the great world and all the intermediate material, such as the stars, the sun and the moon:

‘…they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world.’

(Lucretius, 1957: 184-5).

Interestingly, much like the Qur’an, Lucretius refers to the outer walls beyond the stars, sun and moon. Was this a reference to the seven heavens, referred to in the Qur’an and which the the Jews and the church fathers also referred to prior to Islam? Or is Lucretius referring to the seven orbits of the seven planets orbiting the earth, also mentioned in the Qur’an and elaborated on by the pre-islamic philosophers?

Hence as deplorable as reality might strike to these Islamic exponents, yes the ancient writers did view and depict a structured universe that expanded from the earth, much like the Qur’an, but hey, is such a concept scientifically correct anyway?

To Lucretius space appears to be a dimension created and expanding alongside the separated matter.

Furthermore, Lucretius states: ‘If there were no empty space…they could not possibly have come into existence’ (Lucretius, 1957: 37). What he means is basically:

if there were no space, everything would be one solid mass’ (Lucretius, 1957: 42).

In other words without space all matter would be compressed into one solid entity.

In fact Lucretius describes this solid state of the universe, a chaotic state of atoms:

At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know – nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort.’

Quite identical to early cosmological nebula, which contrary to Zakir Naik is not mentioned in the Qur'an (the Qur'an depicts earth and smoke side by side within a vaccum; while the Nebula consititutes of energy and matter compressed within the whole of existence; the earth did not exist at the time). But how did Lucretius' knowlege exceed that of the Qur'an and even prior to the Qur'an? Is it possible that Lucretius was he a prophet? No, in fact Lucretius was an atheist.

The fact is, even though Muslims were ever to find traces of modern science in the Qur’an, this would hardly accomplish anything of greater significance, any more than the ideas referred to by Lucretius 600 years earlier!

The Big Crunch and the Cyclic Universe

Furthermore, Lucretius believed in a reverse of all matter; he identifies the world as a whole, and proposes that as the sky and the earth have ‘had their birthday’ the inauguration, they also ‘will have their day of doom’ (Lucretius, 1957: 184-5). This doom is depicted as a cosmological crash, when the heights of heaven, the earth and all the intermediate material are brought to together:

‘These three bodies so different in nature, three distinct form, three fabrics such as you behold – all these a single day will blot out. The whole substance and structure of the world, upheld through many years, will crash…I am well aware how novel and strange in its impact on the mind is the impending demolition of heaven and earth…that your own eyes will see those violent earthquakes in a brief space dash the whole world to fragments…may reason rather than the event itself convince you that the whole world can collapse with one ear-splitting crack!’ (Lucretius, 1957: 174).

It remains a fact that Lucretius does refer to earthquakes and a progressive demolition of the earth, yet at the same time he suggests that ‘whole substance and structure’ of the world which has been ‘upheld’ will ‘crash’ and ‘collapse’. His terminology implies that in a brief space dash the entire world will be turned into ‘fragments’; in a ‘one ear-splitting crack’.

This was also the idea of a cyclic universe, in which the universe reverses back to its original state and repeats its creation. This was a predominant view among the pre-Islamic philosophers (see: Arthur Fairbanks: Anaximander, Plut. Strom. 2 ; Dox. 579; and Aet. Plac. i. 3: Dox. 277, 1898: 15-6. Concerning the concept of Pythagoras see description of Ocellus Lucanus in Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie’s, The Pythagorean Source Book and Library, Grand Rapids Michigan, Phanes Press, 1987: 20).

Hence it should not surprise us that the Qur’an follows the same concept:

‘The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed), –even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it (Sura 21: 104).’

Ibn Kathir purports even that creation will be repeated, much like the view postulated by pre-islamic writers:

‘…means, this will inevitable come to pass on the Day when Allah creates His creation anew. As He created them in the first place He is surely able to re-create them’ (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol.6, 2000: 506-7).

Indeed a range of Islamic authors propose the possibility of a repetitive cycle of creations:

‘After another seven hundred fifty quadrillion years, the universe will become an infinitely small point of infinite density and infinite temperature. What next? Who knows! The universe may continue to oscillate between Big Bangs and Big Crunches for all eternity. Or, the Big Crunch may be the end of everything. One thing is certain, however. If a new universe were created, it would have no memory of the old one. It could develop without regard for anything that happened before’

Mustafa Mlivo, Qur’an and Science: http://www.quranm.multicom.ba/science/1e-astronomy.htm

To conclude the expansion issue, we may conclude that the Qur’an is not clearly depicting a continuous expanding universe. Indeed the Qur’an refers to the universe has having expanded, but such hardly proposes a miraculous prediction of modern science, since such ideas flourished prior to the rise of Islam. Furthermore, the Qur’an appears to describe the heavens as having emerged from a separation from earth and the heavens, describing the structure of a seven levelled universe. This is certainly not the world of science.

It is difficult to propose from the Qur’anic text from which space itself originated, possibly, the Qur’an follows Hesiod’s view, that space was created prior to the earth, whereupon the heavens and its host were created by their matter separating from the earth, a view that also flourished among the ancient writers. But such is difficult to conclude. In any case such concepts are hardly ideas that correlate with modern science.

I would be happy to get some criticism, I am rather certain that I have overlooked some hidden details.

see more here:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/quran-and-expansion-of-universe.html

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Scientific Flaws in the Quran:
Shooting Stars at Demons

Recently, I received an email from a Muslim friend who was adamant that there are no scientific errors in the Quran. I responded by saying that there is no plausible defense for the shooting star dilemma.


If this issue is new to you, allow me to explain. The Qur'an teaches that stars are fires set up in the sky to guard Heaven against demons. The demons want to hear what God is saying so they try to sneak up to heaven. If they are found, the guardians of heaven will hurl stars at them to chase them off.


In case you didn't catch it, there's a huge problem with this teaching: stars and shooting stars are not the same thing! Stars are giant balls of gas burning millions of miles away, and "shooting stars" are meteorites, or galactic debris that has entered the earth's atmosphere (i.e. much much much much smaller than stars!).


Truly, this is the book Muslims defend as scientifically miraculous! Don't believe that the Qur'an could actually say such horribly unscientific things? Look at the four passages below.


15:16-18

It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders; And (moreover) We have guarded them from every evil spirit accursed: But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).


37:6-10

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars, (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.


67:5

And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.


72:8-9

(Demons are speaking)'And we pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. 'We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.


My Muslim friend denied that the Quran was speaking about shooting stars, and he adamantly defended the fact that regular stars fit the bill for these ayaat. He said: "I can't possibly understand why you would state that the verse refers to shooting stars, meteorites, asteroids, comets or whatever else, unless you were not aware of this fact regarding stars (i.e. that stars move)."


Well, there are two reasons.


First, the ayaat support this interpretation. Let's take a look at 67:5. It says: "we have made such (Lamps [stars]) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones" On face value, this seems to say that stars can be used missiles made to drive away satans (demons). This implies shooting stars.


Why would God want to shoot demons? Surah 15 ayaat 16-18 explains that the stars were made as adornment for the skies, but also as a guard against jinn; if a jinn were to somehow "gain a hearing by stealth" then it would be pursued by "a flaming fire." Again, at face value, it seems that these stars serve at least two purposes: for adornment and for launching at jinn, and the second happens because the jinn attempt to hear something. 


Well what are the jinn trying to hear? Surah 37 tells us they are trying to hear "the Exalted Assembly". In surah 72, we see the jinn admit that they were trying to listen to "the secrets of heaven", but when they attempted to listen, they found guards with fires (stars), and those fires are now hurled at them if they try to litsen (presumably by the guards).


So, just reading the Qur'an for what it's worth, it seems as if it's saying that God (or angels) hurls stars (the ones that adorn the night skies) at demons when they try to hear the secrets of heaven. This implies that the stars go from being stationary to being launched, as we would expect a missile to work. The only thing that resembles a launched star is a meteorite.


Second, Muhammad supports this interpretation. Sahih al-Muslim #5538 informs us:


As we were sitting during the night with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), a meteor shot gave a dazzling light.  Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:  “What did you say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)?”  They said:  “Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position), but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been born and a great man had died,” whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:  “(These meteors) are shot neither at the death of anyone nor on the birth of anyone.  Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, issues Command when He decides to do a thing.  Then (the Angels) supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in the heaven of this world.  Then those who are near the supporters of the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne:  ‘What your Lord has said?’ And they accordingly inform them what He says.  Then the dwellers of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches the heaven of this world.  In this process of transmission (the jinn snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with meteors.


From this hadith in Sahih al-Muslim, we see that Muhammad agrees entirely with all the conclusions we drew from the Quranic ayaat, including that the stars in question are shooting stars.


What have we seen so far? We've seen:


1 - The ayaat, on face value, seem to say that the guardians of heaven hurl stars at demons. This equates stars with meteors.

2 - The hadith supports this interpretation.


Thus, the Quran is scientifically flawed, at least in regards to the issue of shooting stars. The hadith support this conclusion. This is incontrovertible and any argument against this conclusion twists the obvious interpretation and ignores Muhammad's own words.


* NOTE = After posting this, the Muslim friend with whom I was dialoguing took offense to my representation of his point of view. He says he was only commenting on 67:5, not all the verses, when made his conclusion. This note serves to clarify his position.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

"Miracles of the Qur'an" Part 2:
The Numerical Miracle

An astounding number of Muslim websites propose that the Qur'an is demonstrably miraculous due to its "Numerical Miracles".

For the uninitiated, I will provide an example of the general form of this argument: Muslim X provides the number of verses of some chapter, divides or multiplies it by another number, and compares the result to some third number (which is ascribed significance by some means or another).

Here is an example posted by Muslim apologist Osama Abdallah in response to a recent blog:
The sum of the Noble Chapters (Surahs) in the Holy Quran is 6555 (1+2+3+....+114= 6555). The total number of Noble Verses in the Holy Quran is 6236. When we added each Chapter's number with its Noble Verses' total, we found out that the SUM of the ODD results = 6555. And When we added each Chapter's number with its Noble Verses' total, we found out that the SUM of the EVEN results = 6236

Now, I don't know what these numbers mean. But I do know that such amazing accuracy is ABNORMAL, and could not have been done by a human, especially 1,400 years ago.
This is not the only "numerical miracle" that Muslims provide. It is one of many similar examples, which you can find here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Now that we have seen what the "numerical miracles" are, let's examine the flaws of these assertions.

Problems with The "Numerical Miracles" Argument

1 - Non-Sequitur Logic
The gist of the logic can be seen in the last two sentences of Osama's post. It's basically: "These numbers work together so well that there must be a miracle here!" But this is simply false; interesting numerical patterns in no way whatsoever necessitate a miracle! It may be true that extreme improbabilities require an explanation other than chance, but even this form of soft evidence does not vindicate this Muslim argument, as we shall see in the next point.

2 - The Widespread Existence of "Miraculous" Patterns in Texts
Interesting numerical patterns exist in many instances of media, and searching for patterns will often yield results similar to the Quran's "miracles". Searching for numerical patterns in books such as Moby Dick have been demonstrated to actually provide accurate prophecies of the future! In fact, the article which mentions this was written specifically to show that one can often find word patterns if he simply looks for them. Read that article here.

3 - The Existence of Similar "Numerical Miracles" in the Bible
Finally, countless "numerical miracles" have also been proposed from within the Bible. If the argument used by Muslims were applied to the Bible, they would have to accept it as equally divine in origin as the Qur'an!

In an effort to explain this problem to Osama Abdallah, I provided a link to this site and summarized their "numerical miracle" as follows:
The number 153 is a special number, since it is the only number associated with a miracle after Jesus' resurrection.

It just so happens that if you sum up all the numbers from 1 to 17, you get 153! And 17 is important, because it's the date of Jesus' resurrection (not to mention Noah's ark!) 

On top of that, the Greek word that's used for "fish" in that verse is used exactly 17 times in the Bible! 

Not only that, but if you apply the trinity to these verses, then we see the numbers are even more miraculous! 3 x 3 x 17 = 153!!

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The trinity is present again if you raise each of the THREE digits in "153" to the THIRD power, including the number THREE!!! Look, there are three three's, so much emphasis on trinity!
1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 = 153!

Trinity in the digits, trinity in the math, trinity in the miracle itself!!! So much trinity!
Clearly, the Muslim standard of "Numerical Miracle" is met here in this exploitation of John 21:11. Must they not then conclude that the Bible is equally inspired? They must, unless they are being inconsistent in their methodology. Which leads me to the last problem.

4 - Inconsistency in the Application of the "Numerical Miracle" Argument
Any Muslim who espouses this argument must necessarily be inconsistent in his application, because the same argument would prove the Bible to be divinely inspired.

In summary, the first argument for the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is about as abysmal as any argument can be. It's non-sequitur, it ignores similar phenomena in countless other books, and it would even necessitate a divine origin for the Bible! To top it off, the last problem means that Muslims who espouse this "miracle" must be inconsistent if they are providing this argument against the Bible.

Hopefully there will be good dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in the comment section of this post. Upon conclusion of the discussion, keep your eyes open for the next blog in this series: examining the alleged "Literary Miracle" of the Qur'an.