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.

Fun Islamic Facts 10: The Sun Sets in a Muddy Spring

While Muslim apologists often claim that the Qur'an contains miraculous scientific insights, the Qur'an is actually a scientific disaster. For instance, the Qur'an claims that the sun sets in a muddy spring, and that Alexander the Great visited the spring. Let's take a closer look.

Fun Islamic Facts 9: Muhammad's Fly-Wing Medicine

Houseflies spread diseases such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery, anthrax, salmonella, and tuberculosis. Shockingly, Muhammad told his followers to dip flies in their food and drinks, based on his absurd belief that fly wings carry the cures for the diseases carried by flies.

Islamic Dawah: Not So Easy After All?

Here is my latest video I did with my good friend Vladimir Susic reviewing a video released by the "Dawah is Easy" YouTube channel. We show that perhaps Islamic Dawah is not so easy after all.

Allah and Muhammad on the Setting of the Sun

According to Allah (Qur'an 18:86), the sun sets in a pool of water. Muslims try to reinterpret this to mean that Dhul-Qarnain simply saw the sun's reflection in a pool of water. While this obviously isn't what the text is saying, Muslims face an additional problem. Muhammad is the greatest interpreter of the Qur'an, and Muhammad also said that the sun sets in a pool of water. Since Dhul-Qarnain isn't mentioned in this hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud 4002), Muslims can't say that Muhammad was only referring to Dhul-Qarnain seeing a reflection. Muhammad believed that the sun sets in a pool. Hence, if Muslims want to believe that the Qur'an means something other than what it says, they're claiming to understand the Qur'an better than their prophet did.

For more on Islam and the setting of the sun, watch this:

Muhammad Explains Human Reproduction (Islam and Science, Part Two)

If you weren't convinced by Muhammad's detailed description of the structure of the universe, check out his explanation of how babies are made.

Muhammad Explains the Universe (Islam and Science, Part One)

Many Muslim speakers and apologists assert that the Qur'an contains scientific miracles, and that Muhammad made claims about science that were not verified until centuries after his death. However, when we actually examine the Muslim sources (the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, and the Tafsir), we find that Muhammad was wrong about almost everything he said concerning science. The only scientific statements Muhammad got right would have been known by virtually anyone in seventh-century Arabia. Hence, the "argument from scientific accuracy" fails rather miserably.

Senior Saudi Cleric Al-Fawzan: The Sun Revolves around the Earth Because the Qur'an Says So

But science confirms that the Qur'an is true, right?

Muhammad's Deadly Teachings about Personal Hygiene

Muhammad's followers often went to him for advice on various topics. His advice, however, wasn't always sound. According to Muhammad, it's perfectly safe to use water that has human waste or dead animals floating in it. Muhammad promoted dunking flies in one's food, in order to get the cure for the diseases that flies carry. Needless to say, these teachings are quite dangerous. Fortunately, most modern Muslims don't take them seriously.

)

Here are the sources I quoted in this video:

Sunan Abu Dawud 67—I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah: Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual cloths and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.

Sunan Ibn Majah 520—It was narrated that Jabir bin Abdullah said: “We came to a pond in which there was the carcass of a donkey, so we refrained from using the water until the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: ‘Water is not made impure by anything.’ Then we drank from it and gave it to our animals to drink, and we carried some with us.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 5782—Allah’s Messenger said, “If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (into the vessel) and then throw it [i.e. the fly] away, for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is healing (antidote for it) i.e. the treatment for that disease.”

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).

On a side note, since Muslims want to argue that there's something miraculous about Islam, perhaps they can make an argument based on Muhammad's teachings about personal hygiene. A Muslim could always argue that it's a miracle that Muhammad and his followers survived his teachings about personal hygiene, and that Allah must have been miraculously preserving Muhammad and the early Muslim community!

Gabriel Explains Human Reproduction to Muhammad

Muhammad was once asked, as a challenge to his prophethood, why a child sometimes resembles the mother's side of the family and sometimes resembles the father's side of the family. Muhammad said that he received the answer to this question from the Angel Gabriel. The answer, however, is scientifically false. So if Muhammad got a false revelation from the same "angel" that was giving him Qur'anic revelations, how can we believe the Qur'an?

)

In case you want to read it for yourself, here's the hadith we were quoting:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3329—Narrated Anas: When Abdullah bin Salam heard of the arrival of the Prophet at Al-Madina, he came to him and said, "I am going to ask you about three things which nobody knows except a Prophet:

(1) What is the first portent of the Hour?
(2) What will be the first meal taken by the people of Paradise?
(3) Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its maternal uncle (mother's brother)?"

Allah's Messenger said, "Jibril (Gabriel) has just now told me of their answers." Abdullah said, "He (i.e., Jibril), from amongst all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews." Allah's Messenger said, "As for the first sign of the Hour, it will be a fire that will collect (or gather) the people from the east to the west; the first meal of the people of Paradise will be extra lobe (caudate lobe) of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her." On that Abdullah bin Salam said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of Allah."

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.

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991

Several people have asked for a hard copy of Sunan Abu Dawud 3991, since Muslims don't want to believe Muhammad actually said that the sun sets in a pool of water. Here's a scan of the page:

The Hadith in question reads:

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

This means, of course, that Muslims aren't allowed to reinterpret the Qur'an's obviously false claim that Dhul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets, and found the sun going down into a pool of muddy water:

Qur’an 18:83-86—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.

For a full discussion of these passages, see my video:



See also Sam Shamoun's article, "Muhammad and the Sun’s Setting Place."

Former Muslim C. L. Edwards: The Qur'an Says the Sun Orbits the Earth

C. L. Edwards was a devout Salafi, and he's quite familiar with the Muslim commentaries. Here's his analysis of one of Muhammad's major scientific blunders.



For more from C. L. Edwards, visit his website "Calling Muslims."

Late Muslim Reinterpretations of Surah 18:86

Kim is now defending Muhammad's massive blunder by quoting Bassam Zawadi, who in turn cites several Islamic interpreters from centuries after Muhammad's time in order to show that there's no error in the Qur'an.

How late are these scholars? Ar-Razi lived more than five centuries after Muhammad. Al-Baidawi and al-Qurtubi lived more than six centuries after Muhammad. Ibn Kathir lived more than seven centuries after Muhammad. Thus, they lived in a time when Muslims actually knew something about the comparative sizes of the sun and the earth.

So here's a rough outline of Kim's argument.

(1) Muhammad delivered a revelation to his followers. The Qur'an states (quite clearly) that Dhul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets, and that when he got there, he found the sun setting in a murky pool. The Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear, so any reinterpretation is cut off from the start. As if this weren't enough, we have a Sahih narration in Sunan Abu Dawud, according to which Muhammad told one of his companions that the sun does indeed set in a pool of water.

(2) Several centuries go by, and Muslims conquer lands all the way to Europe. As Muslims conquer these lands, they start learning about the universe from the works of actual scientists. By the time of ar-Razi, al-Baidawi, al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir, Muslims (like everyone else on the planet) are well aware of the fact that the sun is quite massive compared to the earth. Thus, Muslim scholars were forced to reinterpret the Qur'an in light of actual scientific knowledge.

(3) Since these scholars interpret the Qur'an in a manner far more consistent with a scientific understanding of the world, we will ignore what the Qur'an actually says (along with its claims of perfect clarity), and we will ignore Muhammad's silly views of where the sun sets. That is, we'll throw out both the Qur'an and the Hadith. We will instead cling to the reinterpretations of late Muslim commentators who based their understanding of the universe on actual science rather than on the Qur'an.

(4) Hence, there's no scientific error in Surah 18:86.

Make sense? I didn't think so. Here are Kim's comments:

Imam Al-Baidawi notes,

He probably reached shore of the ocean and saw it like that because there was but water at the furthest of his sight that's why He says "he found it set" and does not say "it sets". (Al-Baidawi, Anwar-ut-Tanzil wa Asrar-ut-Taw'il, Volume 3, page 394. Published by Dar-ul-Ashraf, Cairo, Egypt)

Imam Al-Qurtubi states,

Al-Qaffal said: It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it - according to his vision - setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, "he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun." (Holy Qur'ân 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on.

Al-Qutabiy said: Probably this spring is a part of the sea and the sun sets behind, with or at it, so the proposition takes the place of an adjective and Allah knows best. (Al-Qurtubi, Al-Game' le Ahkam-el-Qur'an, Volume 16, page 47. Published by Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt. ISBN 977-5227-44-5)

Imam Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Razi states,

When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea. (Ar-Razi, At-Tafsir-ul-Kabir, Volume 21, page 166)

Imam Ibn Kathir states,

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun" means he followed a certain way till he reached the furthest land he could go from the west. As for reaching the setting of the sun in the sky, it is impossible. What narrators and story tellers say about that he walked for a period of time in earth while the sun was setting behind him is unreal, and most of it is from myths of People of the Book and inventions of their liars.

"he found it set in a spring of murky water" means he saw the sun according to his vision setting in the ocean and this is the same with everyone ending to the shore seeing as if the sun sets inside it (i.e. the ocean).
(Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur'ân Al-'Azim, Volume 5, page 120. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt)

I believe this is adequate to refute the missionaries' imposed interpretation. And to Allah is the Judgement in all affairs.

From www.call-to-monotheism.com

Taking 1 hadith out of context aint gonna cut it. Neither is making youtube videos with your own interpretation.

So there you have it. Muslims from half a millennium after Muhammad reinterpret the passage because they know that, taken at face value, Surah 18:86 is obviously false. Science forced them to abandon the perfect clarity of the Qur'an. Science forced them to throw out a Sahih narration from the Hadith. Science forced them to commit innovation. Therefore, there's no error in the Qur'an.

Are you starting to understand how desperate and illogical Muslims are? Do you see how they will do absolutely anything to avoid the obvious problems in their book?

Notice how Kim throws her prophet under the bus. She writes:

Taking 1 hadith out of context aint gonna cut it. Neither is making youtube videos with your own interpretation.

Did anyone here take a hadith out of context? Let's look at the entire hadith:

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

That's it. That's the entire hadith. So how did we rip the hadith out of context, Kim? I'll be generous. I'll let you invent a context, and I won't even demand evidence for it. Give me some context, any context, in which this hadith would make sense. If you can't come up with one, then you've just mocked your own prophet and thrown out a Sahih narration. If you're throwing out Sahih narrations, you don't know what the Shahada is. You don't know what the five pillars are. You don't even know how many times per day you should pray.

On a related note, we should ask ourselves what happens when we turn to a much earlier commentary. Kim has quoted Muslim scholars who come centuries after the time of Muhammad. Let's read the commentary of Muhammad's companion Ibn Abbas:

(They) the people of Mecca (will ask thee) O Muhammad (of Dhu'l-Qarnayn) about the event of Dhu'l-Qarnayn. (Say) to them, O Muhammad: (I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him) I shall recite to you an explanation of his event.

(Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave unto every thing a road) the knowledge of the roads and constellation.

(And he followed a road) he set out on a road,

(Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun) where the sun sets, (he found it setting in a muddy spring) a blackened, muddy and stinking spring; it is also said that this means: a hot spring, (and found a people thereabout) these people were disbelievers: (We said: O Dhu'l-Qarnayn!) We inspired him (Either punish) either kill them until they accept to believe that there is no deity except Allah (or show them kindness) or you pardon them and let them be.

Ever notice that, the closer we get to Muhammad, the less reinterpretation we find? Is this a coincidence? Not at all. Muhammad and his companions believed that the sun sets in a pool. Much later, Muslims realized that this is false, so they were forced to reinterpret the Qur'an's clear teachings. Now Muslims tell us that we must follow these radical reinterpretations of the text, and then they turn around and tell us that the Qur'an must be the word of God because of it's amazing scientific accuracy!

Welcome to Islam.

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

Does the Sun orbit the Earth According to the Qur'an?

I was hoping some Muslims could educate us about these passages.

“(God is) the one Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion” (Sura 21: 33).

I find it rather obvious from what this passage depicts that the day and night depends upon the orbit of the sun and moon. In other words, contrary to what Muslim apologists exclaim about the sun's galactic orbit, the passage appears rather to describe the sun and the moon in parallel orbits.

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)(Sura 36: 40).

That the Qur'an refers to parallel orbits is further clarified in this passage, which states that the sun and the moon do not catch up each other.

Think of it: what sense does this make if the Qur'an described a galatic orbit since the moon is already attached to such an orbit, and since the orbit relates not to the galaxy but the day and night? Furthermore, notice that this passage states the impossible task of the sun to catch up the moon.

Yet why can't the sun catch up the moon, is due to its inability to do so? Not really! The passage makes it perfectly clear that the sun is not permitted to do so. We might deduce from this that the sun has indeed the ability to catch the moon, hence the switch from day to night, since both travel in parallel orbits; yet their abilities to catch up is simply not permitted.

I might here agree with some that the passages are metaphorical, much like Sura 91: 1-2:

By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour; By the Moon as she follows him…(Sura 91: 1-2)

I must say I have no real problem with the metaphorical language of this passage, and I am inclined to believe that this simply describes what is observable from the earth.

Yet there are two following problems here:

The first, which I will refrain from looking at at this point (I intend to do so later), is the very language utilized by the Qur'an in describing the orbits, which appear to be in a close similtude with the pre-Islamic thinkers and hence in line with the observation of people who due to their lack of tools also lacked sufficient insight into our solar system.

The second problem derives from the interpretation of Muhammad himself:

Sahih Al-Bukbari clearly confirms some of these as scientific facts (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421: Narrated Abu Dharr):

The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.
And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’" (36.38)

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-sun-orbit-earth-according-to-quran.html

The Qur'an and the (supposed) Big Bang Theory: In Comparison to Ancient Philosophy and Pre-Islamic (pagan) Religions

This post includes an essay on the Qur'an and Cosmogony with a focus on the Big Bang theory, which I wrote five years ago. The purpose was obviously to debunk the various exponents of Islam (e.g. Bucaille, Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah) who propagate their wishful imagination to what they deem as scientific evidence for the Qur'an.

Since then I have greatly expanded my insight into the matter and am currently preparing a more detailed work, which I may post in small parts or in a lengthy essay in near future.

Notice that my intention here is not to debunk the improbability of the Qur'anic view (that will derive in a later post) but to point out that the Qur'anic picture of the cosmological origin was a view that flourished centuries prior to the rise of Islam, and which the authors and composers of the Qur'an appear to have borrowed from circulating teaching or sources, sometimes (possibly) even word for word.

To assess the cosmology of the Qur’an our study has to begin with its concept of cosmogony, the origins. Here Muslims usually refer to Sura 21: 30:

‘Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? (Sura 21: 30)’

The joining and separation of the heavens and earth is according to a range of Muslim writers a prediction of the modern the Big Bang theory; Bucaille, expounds upon this:

‘The reference to a separation process (fatq) of a primary single mass whose elements were initially fused together (ratq). It must be noted that in Arabic ‘fatq’ is the action of breaking, diffusing, separating, and that ‘ratq’ is the action of fusing or binding together elements to a make a homogenous whole.’ (1)

Yet the text itself does not follow Bucaille’s overall line of thought! The phrase: ‘Have not those who disbelieve known…’ implies that the Qur’an describes and refers to a concept that was already familiar in the era prior to Islam (2); hence in all correctness we may need to leave out any notion of modern scientific discoveries, and consider what ancient science and belief had already concluded.

Cosmogony in Ancient Religions:

A range of ancient religions e.g. the Hermopolitan (3) appear to describe the origin of the universe as a primordial universal egg. In the Hindu writings, the Laws of Manu, creation begins with a seed placed in water. The seed grows into a golden egg, which divides into two halves, which initially forms into heaven and earth. (4) In the Upanishads, existence suddenly begins, gradually grows into an egg and when the egg has remained still for a year, it is split open, out of which the two parts appear, which initially became the heaven and the earth. (5)

The resemblance is obvious; yet interestingly, the Laws of Manu and the Upanishads provide a description which is much closer to modern science than the Qur’an, as both describe a chronology which includes the state from singularity to inflation. (6)

Following the thought of Bucaille therefore, the Qur’anic cosmogony depends upon an external and much more detailed theory, which reveals further scientific predictions; this does not render the Qur’an as necessarily being miraculous.

The ancient Mesopotamian and Babylonian writings contain the same concept, as is the case with Gilgamesh: ‘…when the heavens had been separated from the earth and the earth had been delimited from the heavens.’ (7)

Furthermore, the Emma Elish, describes the god Marduk creating the heaven and earth by separating the women Tiamat in two halves, which become the vault of the sky and the earth; next he fixes the courses of the stars in the sky. (8)

Cosmogony in Ancient Philosophy:

Yet the concept of one primary entity separating was not confined to the world of mythology only; the Greeks and the Romans speculated in the same lines but transferred the concept to the category of science. Aristotle (384-322 BC) in describing the proposition of Anaxagoras (500-428 BC), writes:

‘That is why they make statements like ‘everything was originally mixed together…others talk in this context of combination and separation…So the reason they say that everything is mixed in everything is because, in their view, everything comes from everything. (9)

This is certainly in line with Bucaille and Haruna, who applied the terminology of mixing and fusing and then separating. (10) If the earth was not presented in the original entity, the Qur’an might have been closely in line with Anaxagoras; yet the separation of the earth does not indicate that, or else the passage would render a clear description of a mere entity exclusive of its reference to heaven and earth.

Hence in the Qur’an it is not a cosmological globe that separates but the actual heaven and earth. This nevertheless highly contradicts even the most simple about obvious cosmological observations.

The plausibility is also that the reference to the heavens while still smoke in Sura 41: implies that the earth originated from the same material. Yet nothing in the passage explicitly reveals so; furthermore we would assume then that the earth would distance itself from the smoke, yet the earth and smoke are brought to together, leaving us with no explanation for its occurrence.
In addition to a fused universe Anaxagoras and the Greeks also considered this mixing of the universe to occur in one place, as one entity before they separated.

Interestingly, Anaxagoras refers to the mixture as being comprehended by air and an element called aether.’ (11) Aether, was the mysterious matter of the universe, often referred to as fire or fiery fume (12); whether this can be interpreted into terminology such as gas or primordial gaseous clouds, (13) if we really wish to speculate, is probably overstating the matter, at least when considering the thought of Anaxagoras. (14)

Interestingly however, according to Zeller, various ancient philosophers considered this element, usually fire and air to be mixed inside a fiery universal glob. The globe exploded and the fire collected in fiery circles from which the stellar bodies derived. (15) According to Anaxagoras the earth was implausible at this stage, rather the separation occurs from rotation in which all matter gets included starts forming and are brought into orbit. (16) Compared to modern science, the analogy is still distant but yet surprisingly accurate. (17)

Yet, the most significant philosopher when it concerns the cosmology of the Qur’an and its use of ancient science is Lucretius. (18) His postulate involves the mixture and separation of the universe, but also in details describes a theory in which the role and contribution of the atoms is separating the heaven and earth and so expanding the cosmos.

As to the Big Bang, Lucretius describes a time in which nothing existed except for a congregated mass of atoms, compressed into one small entity:

‘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.’ (19)

Lucretius further describes a state of chaos and turmoil in which the atoms collide:
‘From their disharmony sprang conflict, which maintained a turmoil in their interspaces, courses, unions, thrusts, impacts, collisions and motions.’ (20)

It is vital to consider that Lucretius envisages this early state of the universe to be a ‘newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort’; in other words a previous cause must have brought this congregated mass into its shape and function. Yet at this point the universe is still a congregated mass which contains the entire universe, the earth, the heaven, the stars, the sun and the moon, and possibly its space.

The next stage of the universe is the combination of atoms with other atoms which causes what Lucretius calls the ‘main features of a world’ to be composed. This might explain why the Qur’an refers to the heaven and earth rather than a cosmological globe. According to Lucretius, it is from this primordial state, that the separation of heaven and the earth and the expansion of the space between them take place:

‘…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.’ (21)

Lucretius therefore describes the separation of heaven and earth as being caused by the composition of the primordial universe; particularly by the atoms.

The similarities between these sources and the Qur’an are significant; yet the Qur’an provides little insight into to the state of this primordial entity and the cause of separation.
Later commentators e.g. Kathir suggests the air between the heaven and earth was the cause, (22) while Mujahid suggests that the heaven began as smoke gusting out of the earth. (13) If is the case, then the Qur’an does not follow in line with Anaxagoras’ exclusion of the primordial earth. Following Mujahid however, and the reference to the earth and smoke (Sura 41: 11), the Qur’an certainly follows a range of philosophers on the centrality of the earth and its contribution to the cosmological structure. In addition the reference to smoke also suggests that the Qur’an is depending upon the earlier Greek theories of the elements, rather than the atomic theory of Lucretius. (24)

Yet again I suggest Harun Yahya, Osama Abdallah among others to remove from their websites their distorted attempts to apply modern science as a means to prove the Qur'an as miracolous and furthermore, I hope these Islamic proponents will also reveal the honesty to admit that Qur'anic science did not originate with the Qur'an but pre-Islamic sources, such as the 'Separation of the heaven and earth' which is not a prediction of the Big Bang but which the contemporaries of Muhammad by the use of the same wording applied to an actual separation of the heaven and earth, typically with the earth as the main cosmological centre.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography and sources:


1. Bucaille, 1975: 139; see also Harun Yahya, The Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an, Al-Attique Publishers, 2000:21-2. Yahya elaborates on Bucaille’s theory by suggesting that the verb fataqa implies the destruction or tearing apart of something to create something new. See also Muhammad Assadi, The Unifying theory of everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony (http://members.aol.com/silence004/koran.html)

2. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged Vol. 6, Abridged by a group of Scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore, Darussalam, 2000: 440.

3. The Hermopolitan cosmogony is depicted in several versions, one being a cosmological egg which was placed on the Primeval Hill by a goose from which Re appeared; see Mircea Eliade, A History of Religious Ideas: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries, vol.1, St James’s Place, London: Collins, 1979:17-8)

4. G. Buhler (translation), Sacred Books of the East, XXV: 'The Laws of Manu,' 1, 5-16 (Oxford 1886), pp.2-8
(http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/057.html)

5. S. Radhakrishnan (editor and translator), The Principal Upanishads: Chandogya Upanishad, III, 19, 1-2, New York: Harper & Row, 1953, PP. 151-2, 399, 447-9 (http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/058.html).
See also Dr. E. Zeller, A History of Greek Philosophy: From the earliest Period to the Time of Socrates, Vol. I, London: Longmans Green and Co, 1881: 115; the Greek myth in which Chronos-Heraclis produces a giant egg which is divided, from which the heaven and earth originate.

6. Alan H. Guth & Paul J. Steinhardt, ‘The Inflationary Universe’ in (ed.) David H. Levy, The Scientific ‘American: Book of Cosmos’, London, Oxford and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000:361-62; the theory implies that the universe in a brief period of suddenly by some ‘extraordinary’ cause expanded, while the entire universe in its pre-inflationary state had been compressed into to a tiny volume.

7. Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the netherworld: 1-26 (Version A, From Nibru, Urim and elsewhere) in Babylonia and Ancient Near Eastern Texts, by Kenneth Sublett, Piney.com, Hohenwald, Tennessee; the text describes a multiple number of heavens and excludes the usual mythology (http://www.piney.com/BabGilgEnkid.html)

8. Mircea Eliade, AHistory of Religious Ideas: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries, vol.1, St James’s Place, London: Collins, 1979:71-2

9. Aristotle: Physics, A New Translation by Robin Waterfield, Oxford: University Press, 1999:17

10. see Sura 21: 30; the theory of Bucailleism implies that the passage predicts fusing and separation

11. Arthur Fairbanks, ed. and trans. The First Philosophers of Greece, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1898: 235 (Hanover Historical Text Projects) http://history.hanover.edu/project.html

12. See Aristotle, he applies the same terminology to a mysterious cloudy material, such as vapour and ether, similar to the Qur’ans reference of dukhan, which Muslim authors claim predicts primordial gasseous clouds (Aristotle, Aristotle Meteorologica, I. iii, translated by H.D.P. Lee, London: William Heinemann, Ltd & Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962: 19-23, 31.

13. Fred Adams & Greg Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity, USA, New York: The Free Press, 1999: 34-40; the entire galactic host of the Universe was originally composed and formed in clouds of hot gas.

14. This resembles the claim that the Qur’anic reference to dukhan is a prediction of the primordial gaseous clouds; the main problem however remains that the gaseous clouds did not derive from a central earth, but the other way round.

15. Zellar, 1881: 267; this was the view of Anaxagoras, but other philosophers, such as Plutarch and Hippolytus held the same view. Anaximander, however, applied this concept upon the earth and the heaven; he envisaged the sun, moon, stars and their circles to have originated from a fiery sphere that split from the earth; see Arthur Fairbanks, Plut. Strom. 2 ; Dox. 579, 1898: 14, 16

16. Arthur Fairbanks, 1898:241

17. Adams and Laughlin, 1999:35; the theory proposes matter that was pulled together into galactic structured by gravity, and then endowed with rotation.

18. Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, (translated by R.E. Latham), Penguin Books 1957, ‘The Nature of the
Universe’ was written 50 BC, slightly nearer the ear of Islam, and reveals a cosmogony that has been significantly developed since Anaxagoras and Aristotle, as ancient postulates and the atomic theory are combined. See also 184-5; while earlier cosmogonies typically described the world being created from the elements; Lucretius rejects this view and combines the atomism concept with the concept of separation.

19. Lucretius, 1957: 184; Here Lucretius alludes slightly to Anaxagoras who proposed the inauguration of a small rotating motion, while Lucretius describes an atomic mass effected by a raging hurricane; considering modern science, this ancient postulate is remarkable. Furthermore Lucretius predicts an original fused entity. Comparing the picture to modern theories the picture does not resemble cosmological singularity but apart from earths existence, rather the later proposed cloud of radiation, from which the atoms and particles suddenly exonerated. See also Heather Couper & Nigel Henbest, To the ends of the Universe, UK, London: Dorling Kindersley, 1998: 24-7). The Qur’an makes no reference to the nature of this entity, such as Lucretius; yet the principle remains the same, this entity is combined by heaven and earth.

20. Lucretius, 1957: 184; According to modern scientific postulates this closely resembles the interval period between the Big Bang and the Cosmological Inflation; Couper & Henbest, 1998; 20-3: see also Carl Sagan, Cosmos, UK, London: Book Club Associates, 1981: 218-235, despite from the fact that the earth was not present at that stage of the universe.

21. Lucretius, 1957: 184-5; this is where the Qur’an comes in having excluded all the details; hence the reference of Sura 21: 30 refers to a already detailed description of cosmogony. Here it have to be noted however, that Lucretius’ postulate is only an option among many

22. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged Volume 6, Abridged by a group of Scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore, Darussalam, 2000: 440-1

23. Mujahid commented on Allah’s statement 41: 9-12 which reveals the earth to be created and made inhabitable prior to the forming and rising of the heavens (compare to 21: 30-2). Based on Sura 41 Mujahid states that the earth was created first: ‘...and when He created the earth, smoke burst out of it.’ According to Mujahid this is why Allah turned to the heaven ‘when it was smoke’ Sura 41: 11’ Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol.1, 2000: 180

24. Most Greeks held on to the a universe consisting of the basic elements, Democritus (470-380 BC) Epicurus (341-270 BC) and later Lucretius (95-55 BC) held on to the atomic universe; they rejected the significance of the elements; yet this theory remained a minority view and almost vanished until early fourteen century, when it became superior; see Isaac Asimov, Exploring the Earth and the Cosmos, UK, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd: 1982: 265-8 93. See also Lucretius who stated that the elements are depended upon the atoms, and mocked those who believed the raw material to be air, water or fire (Lucretius, 1957: 47, 93)


http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/quran-and-big-bang-theory-in-comparsion.html

Hogan Elijah Hagbard Versus Ayaz: The Qur'an and the World of Ants

I don't wish to break the present flow concerning the dangerous situation in USA (may God bless David Wood and the team and their struggle to stand up for the truth and freedom; my prayer is with you guys), hence I will just provide the link of an online written debate between myself and Ayaz (a UK Muslim) on the Qur'an, the Bible and science in relation to the Ant.

Ayaz and myself debated publically in 2008 in UK on the topic: 'The Bible and the Qur'an: Which is from God', and contemplate an imminent debate this year on the divinity and humanity of Jesus.

Our online written debate can be viewed here:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/ant-in-bible-and-quran-dialogue-between.html

The Qur’an and the miracle of the female talking ant

A number of Islamic proponents have proposed the idea that Sura 27: 18-19 depicturing the prophet Solomon hearing the words of a female ant reveals two clear modern scientific discoveries, which were virtually unheard off prior to Islam and not confirmed until the recent era.

This is the passage:

When they approached the valley of the ants, one ant said, "O you ants, go into your homes, lest you get crushed by Solomon and his soldiers, without perceiving." He smiled and laughed at her statement, and said, "My Lord, direct me to be appreciative of the blessings You have bestowed upon me and my parents, and to do the righteous works that please You. Admit me by Your mercy into the company of Your righteous servants" (Sura 27: 18-19).

Muslim exponents presuppose two miraculous predictions here:

1. The ant can communicate by talking

2. The ant is a female

Both claims are drastically portrayed in this youtube video in a response to the ‘answering-islam’ website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWO7kow59E&feature=related

Lets assess these claims:

Does the Qur’an predict the female nature of worker ants?

That the Qur’an addresses the ant as feminine is accurate, it is also accurate that the worker ants are females. However, contrary to what Muslims believe this idiom is not suggesting that the Qur’an describes a female creature. In a number of languages not only human female and males are referred to by their gender as male or female but entire species and objects are referred to as either male, female or neuter gender. In the Arabic language the ‘ant’ (naml) is simply generic female, it does not indicate natural gender or a biological female or male at least not in its singular and this particular ant is referred to as singular.

For further study read:

http://arabic.tripod.com/VocabAnimals.htm

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/027%20Naml.htm

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/LLhome.htm

This completely debunks and refutes the popular claim that the Qur’an predicts the discovery that worker ants are female.

Does the talking ant predict modern scientific discoveries?

Similar exaggeration is utilized to introduce divine miraculous revelation through the prediction of a talking ant. Solomon supposedly heard an ant warning the ant community to escape into their dwellings do evade Solomon’s proceeding army.

To prove their case Muslims have recently turned to a very recent discovery which involved microphones to detect the communication between ants. The discovery revealed that some ants indeed communicate with sounds.

A Muslim youtube which appears to represent Osama Abdallah’s website ‘answering-Christianity’ praises this discovery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPWO7kow59E&feature=related

This particular and very recent discovery which Muslim exponents quote is found here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5672006.ece

Unfortunately for the Muslim the claims are typically exaggerated and the discovery does not effectively render that much support to the Muslim use of the passage.

In the article we read:

‘Professor Thomas said it remained unclear how much the ants relied on sound for
language but he suspected that further analysis would reveal a wider vocabulary
than had been seen yet.
“The most important discovery is that within the ant
colony different sounds can provoke different reactions,” he said. “I would be
very surprised if we didn't get different types of sound.
“It's within the
power of the ant to play different tunes by changing the rhythm with which they
rub.”

Hence, far from what the Qur’an supposes, ants do not talk, they make sounds by rubbing body parts together. The sound might according to professor Thomas ‘provoke different reactions’.

However Thomas also concedes that it still remains unclear to what extent ants rely ‘on sound for language’ and that the variety in sounds is still a matter undiscovered.

Hence contrary to what the Qur’an states an ant cannot by talking vocabulary warn a community of ants about an imminent disaster.

But there is more, lets for a moment presume that the Qur’an actually provides insight into a natural fact that virtually remained unknown until recent times; are when then correct to deem the Qur’an as miraculous in its statement.

Not really.

A pre-Islamic scientific description of much greater details than the Qur’an describes this same ability to ants and appears much closer in word and details to the modern discoveries of Professor Thomas and others.

The text is found in the writings of the Christian philosopher Origen in his writings against Celsus, chapter 84, written in the third century and therefore predates Islam with 350 years; it reads:

And since he asserts that, "when ants die, the survivors set apart a special
place (for their interment), and that their ancestral sepulchres such a place
is," we have to answer, that the greater the laudations which he heaps upon
irrational animals, so much the more does he magnify (although against his will)
the work of that reason which arranged all things in order, and points out the
skill336 which exists among men, and which is capable of adorning by its reason
even the gifts which are bestowed by nature on the irrational creation. But why
do I say "irrational," since Celsus is of opinion that these animals, which,
agreeably to the common ideas of all men, are termed irrational, are not really
so? Nor does he regard the ants as devoid of reason, who professed to speak of
"universal nature," and who boasted of his truthfulness in the inscription of
his book. For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another, he uses the
following language: "And when they meet one another they enter into
conversation, for which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they
possess a full endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general
subjects, and a voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental
things."337 Now conversation between one man and another is carried on by means
of a voice, which gives expression to the meaning intended, and which also gives
utterances concerning what are called "accidental things; "but to say that this
was the case with ants would be a most ridiculous assertion.

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/EN/eso.htm

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen164.html

Notice that Origen in his writings against Celsus 350 years prior to Islam describes a view of his time that ants talk and converse with each other:

For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another, he uses the following
language: "And when they meet one another they enter into conversation, for
which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full
endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a
voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental things."

Ants were in fact considered unique in the writings of antiquity; in this same passage Origin described them as highly intelligent, possessing gardens, etc. Plato, Aristotle, Pliny and others referred to the ant as a political animal and Aelian the Greek-Roman philosopher ‘noted that ant colonies and ant highways were very much like the famous buildings and roads of Greece and Crete’:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.+Nat.+toc&redirect=true

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%D11%3Achapter%3D36

While most of these noted that ants communicated by other means rather than sounds, the source of Origen nevertheless reveals that speaking ants was a theory that existed 400 years prior to Muhammad and indeed the effective observation of ants within that era might certainly have led to such a conclusion by a number the thinkers of antiquity.

Yet I am not proposing that Muhammad or another Qur’anic author borrowed straight from Origen or even from an oral tradition deriving from such a source or even that the Qur’anic author had access to Origen’s writings. The Qur’anic description appears much more fairytale-like than then description of Origen and apart from Origen there were indeed tales existing prior to Islam of talking ants.

Hence I am inclined to believe that the author of the Qur’an did not depend upon a Greek Philosophical source.

Here ancient tales fit Islam a much as philosophy, Islam is a religion in which trees bow before prophets and where the dinner on your table has the capability to speak to you and stones possess the ability to steel you possessions. Solomon in Jewish fairytales possessed the ability to communicate with animals, to understand them and even to mobilise them in his battles against human enemies, hence the reason for this story. It reveals nothing of scientific significance but merely the belief that Solomon had extraordinary abilities. Desperate Muslim apologists read far too much into this fairytale.

Osama Abdallah, Haran Yahya and others nevertheless propose that the passage is miraculous in its incredible prediction of modern science; just take Osama Abdallah for example:

Again, the Holy Quran and Islam are filled with scientific statements and
notions. These are statements of Allah Almighty describing how He created things
on earth and in the Universe. What's most amazing is that all of these
scientific statements and notions had been proven to be in perfect agreement
with science and our modern-day scientific discoveries. Allah Almighty made the
Noble Quran be Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) Everlasting Divine Miracle
and proof for Prophethood. The Holy Book certainly stood the test of time 1,500
years ago with Its Claims, Prophecies and Miraculous language eloquence, and it
does again and again in our day today with Its overwhelming agreement with
science and discoveries that were not known to man 1,500 years ago.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ants_do_talk.htm

If Abdallah is correct then Origen’s source was indeed inspired by God some 400 years prior to Islam:

For, speaking of the ants conversing with one another, he uses the following
language: "And when they meet one another they enter into conversation, for
which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full
endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a
voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental things.

I am sure that Osama Abdallah will not ascribe such divine honour to Origen as to the Qur’an despite the fact that Origen provided more insight and details than the Qur’an?
Furthermore, Osama Abdallah also needs to consider the divine inspiration upon pre-Islamic Roman writers and their tales, such as Aesop who wrote the fable ‘The ant and the Grasshopper’:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper

The Fable reads:

‘The ants were spending a fine winter's day drying grain collected in the
summertime. A Grasshopper, perishing with famine, passed by and earnestly begged
for a little food. The Ants inquired of him, "Why did you not treasure up food
during the summer?' He replied, "I had not leisure enough. I passed the days in
singing." They then said in derision: "If you were foolish enough to sing all
the summer, you must dance supperless to bed in the winter."’

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekliterature/a/antsgrasshopper.htm

It is obvious that the Qur’anic description is much more of the same nature as the tale of Aesop rather than that of Origen, yet neither Muslims nor scientists would recognise the tale of Aesop to provide us with anything of scientific nature. Here Muslims might argue that ants deploy the ability to communicate to each other and not to grasshoppers, however Aesop does describe the ants as communicating by language or sounds.

Note here, I am not saying that the author of the Qur’an plagiarized Aesop’s tale, I am pointing out that such tales were common in Muhammad’s time.

So, Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah, do you guys 1) recognise the source of Origen and Aesop as divinely inspired? 2) Do you still claim that the ability of ants to speak in detailed language (if that should be proven right in future) is a scientific fact unheard of until the rise of Islam?

The above sources do not agree with you and I suggest that since your claims have been debunked and refuted that you remove these particular deceptive articles about the ant from your websites and ones again apologize to the readers you have mislead.

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.