Debunking the claim that the Quran Predicts Modern Science: The Qur’an and the World of Atoms

Does the Qur'an Predict the Sub-atomic world and particles? This is the claim of certain Islamic apologists, such as Mustafa Mlivo, Muhammad Assaid and Zakir Naik among others:

Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur’an prior to Science and Civilisation; see: http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htm

And Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048

And Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik

These among others claim that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles).

Let's assess the claim:

The particular Qur’anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads:

‘...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ’

See also Sura 10: 61:

‘He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...’

Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur’an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust.

But let us for a moment assume that the Qur’an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur’an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad?

The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties. All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite.

Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus’ ‘moving at random’, which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185).

Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88). This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus’ understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it. Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin.

However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition.

Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries. The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC:

‘It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)?

What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again?

This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam. And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms. Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255).

If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur’an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum? Why is the Qur’an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes:

‘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’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184).

This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur’anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur’anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science.

The Qur’an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed.

Lucretius’ description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur’anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter.

Lucretius continues:

‘...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, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5)?

While Lucretius’ postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science.

If the Qur’an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired. What is much more logical however is that the Qur’an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur’an.

Response to Brianman on the Qur'an and atoms: a case study of Muslim responses to polemics

I find it appropriate to post here Brianman’s reply to my post on the Qur’an and atoms: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/debunking-claim-that-quran-predicts.html and assess it for a number of reasons.

I find it amazing that Muslims can simply read such argumentation and brush it a side as Brianman does. I respond to his reply here on a separate thread since the approach he takes and the arguments he raises are simply too typical of Muslim apologists; hence this becomes a case study.

Brianman wrote:

Who do I go to?

Someone like Nabeel who has just completed medical school?

Someone LIKE Hogan who refers to textbooks at best?

Hogan replies:

Your reply Brianman, completely fails to consider the content, context, details and purpose and simply jumps into the issue by throwing in to it a number of modern Muslim apologist jargon without considering its relevance to the actual topic I raised on this thread.

I don’t know all about Nabeel; he has indeed completed medical school, which indeed gives him a certain insight into a number of these matters such as embryology in the Qur’an; hence Brianman this comment of yours is slightly of the track. Furthermore, this thread was about the atoms hence there is not point to bring Nabeel’s education into this.

As for me using textbooks, I wish you could elaborate on that. The fact is: every scientist conveys his information either through text books or teaching, in any case, to become informed one has to resort to the text or teaching of the experts. However, to elaborate more on the text I utilized, then notice Brian, that I was not conferring with modern scientists about this matter at all (this was not the issue raised in the thread), you could have detected this if you read the original post on the thread properly.

I was looking backward into the science of the Greeks and the Romans prior to the Islamic era and elaborated on the views of these early scientists in comparison with the points raised by the human Qur’anic author. I was not considering modern science, hence you reference to consult with modern experts is also irrelevant.

Hence Your reference to me or Nabeel in terms of medical school or texts as a critical pointers are not matters of relevant to this thread.

But to your information, I did consult with the experts, such as Greek philosophers and in particular the Roman thinker Lucretius and even referred to the book of Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, written 50 BC, how much more professional can this be done? These were the experts of the time!

Brianman wrote:

Anyone who claims that Muhammad pbuh plagiarised scientific works from the Greeks etc. when they have no evidence that Muhammad pbuh received it and viewed these works. Empty arguments from empty hearts.

Hogan replies:

This can easily be proven, I did write a article on that (do check it out):

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

Muhammad borrowed heavily from the Greeks and the Jews. North Arabia was in close proximity with Syria and South Arabia, both highly advanced cultures in those days, so were the Jews. All three cultures had great impact upon North Arabia. In fact several of Muhammad’s followers were from these cultures.

But do read my article.

Brianman wrote:

Or do I believe scientists on the very highest level of their specialisation who are the ones who are learned enough to even write books that some random Christian would try to refute?

Hogan replies:

Since the context of the thread focused on pre-Islamic science I did consult the ‘scientists of the very highest level of their specialisation’ of that time.

This is exactly what I did!

You stated above that I was in error when I referred to text books, now you refer to scientists who write books and you glorify these writings. Am I misunderstanding your previous points or do you contradict yourself?

Brianman wrote:

The scientists who have carried out independent investigations and in many cases, personal experiments? Scientists who work with many other scientists and get their work checked by other top scientists, whether they are Christian or not, before they say "This from the Qur'an, is a miracle"? They even convert to Islam.

Hogan replies:

The Qur’an reveals nothing new about modern science! What you recon as science in the Qur’an, such as embryology, atoms and sub-atomic particles, the supposed Big Bang in the Qur’an, just to mention a few examples were all discoveries made prior to Islam.

A few scientists may have converted to Islam, but so what? Scientists have also converted to Christianity, and theistic scientists have turned into atheism. Your argument here proves nothing!

Brianman wrote:
Scientific accounts before Qur'an have some falsehood's inside it, i.e. Galen's work does contain falsehood. How comes the Qur'an sieves the falsehoods from the truths that modern TOP non-political scientists agree on?

Hogan replies:

Qur’anic embryology is not without error, it resembles Galen. In fact there were a number of embryologist schools in Muhammad’s time; unfortunately we do not even have access to all the ideas a theories the author of the Qur’an had access to at that time. Funny also that the Syriac Christians were particularly into Galen and embryology and these were the Christians who had a major impact upon North Arabia, its society and Muhammad.

I guess you are referring to Keith Moore when you refer to top scientists. Keith Moore as far as I am told has taken his few references on the Qur’an back. Some say he was paid to make such references, I can’t say that is true, yet we know that Western scientists have been bribed to comment on passages in the Qur’an and some have even refused such cheap misuse of science and exposed the attempt of these Islamic scientist fraud movements. Indeed I know that Keith Moore utterly regrets his previous connection with the Qur’an in this day and age.

Maurice Bucaille who originally began this movement, is not even a Muslim! Why? Because he knows the entire enterprise originally was inaugurated for the sake of hugs sums of money. He tricked the Muslim world with a book that is nothing but fiction. The Muslim world ate these ideas raw and continued in his steps. Only two things have come out of it 1) all the Muslims who remain Muslims by their conviction that these ideas and interpretations of the Qur’an are factual; 2) the laughter of the non-Muslim community.

Brianman wrote:
There is nothing for me to say, no need for me to respond to this thread.

Hogan replies:

There is indeed much more to say: you have not considered the focus or context of the article; you have resorted to irrelevant arguments; and you glorify the deceitful tactics of modern Muslim organisations who bribe scientists and read modern science into a book that originally was depended upon the science of its time.

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.

Debunking Qur'anic Science: Does the Qur'an Predict that the Moon Reflects Sun Light? Is this a Miracolous Prediction?

A whole range of Muslim apologists have claimed that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the moon reflecting sunlight; about this matter Zakir Naik writes:

THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT

It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur?aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:

"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light." [Al-Qur?aan 25:61]

Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon: "It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty)." [Al-Qur?aan 10:5]

"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik

See also a youtube video debunking Zakir Naik’s speculation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIw_obd7a-k

Osama Abdallah has also made similar claims:

So why would Ibn Kathir come up with this statement, many centuries before man discovered that the earth was spherical and that the moon does indeed reflect the sun's light?

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/light_of_moon.htm

Notice that Osama Abdallah believes that Ibn Kathir came up with statements about this scientific accuracy only because the Qur’an makes such statements.

Firstly, I am not so sure whether Kathir got this idea from the Qur’an, I don’t think the passage from Kathir clarifies that.

See also two articles from Answering-Islam that refute the claim that the Qur’an even utters such claims:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/moonlight_wc.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/science10.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatari_moonlight.htm

However, let’s assume that the Qur’an does describe the moon reflecting sun-light; are Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah then correct in their claims that these are miraculous statements, that these ideas were unknown prior to the revelation of the Qur’an?

The answer is no! This is yet again and example of the typical lies spread by modern Islamic apologists.

In fact the concept that the moon reflected sun-light was a very common concept even a thousand years prior to Islam.

Then why do individuals such as Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah spread such lies to the masses?

There are three possibilities:

1) Either they knowingly spread such misconception and hence willingly deceive their readers and listeners.

2) Or they have simply not done their homework.

3) Or they are simply taken over by their emotionalism for Islam and are blinded from considering the related facts.

For example:

Anaxagoras (4-5 Century BC) indicated that within the ancient scientific of his time it was argued whether the moon shines by reflected light or emits its own light. Even in this era, even without divine revelation human thinkers got a number of ideas scientifically correct, such as Aristarchus (310-230 BC) whose ideas predicted the modern scientific discovery that the earth with the other planets orbits the sun and that the earth was in a constant rotation, and completed a full rotation once in every twenty-four hours (Russel, History of Western Philosophy, p.222-223).

Hence I wonder why Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah not give up their faith in Islam and build a religion around Aristarchus, or include him as one of the greatest prophets ever; at least his ideas predict modern science and must therefore indicate divine revelation.

However, let’s look at how common this concept was prior to Muhammad and the rise of Islam:

Thales (585 BC):

The moon is lighted from the sun. 29; 360. Thales et al. agree with the mathematicians that the monthly phases of the moon show that it travels along with the sun and is lighted by it, and eclipses show that it comes into the shadow of the earth, the earth coming between the two heavenly bodies and blocking the light of the moon (Doxographi on Thales, Aet. ii. 1 ; Dox. 327) (6).

Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) considered the moon be to a false-shining star (255).

The Doxographist elaborate further on this:

The moon is below the sun and nearer us. The sun is larger than the Peloponnesos. The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun (The Doxographists on Anaxagoras, Hipp. Phil. 8 ; Dox. 561) (260-1).

Empedocles (490-430):

As sunlight striking the broad circle of the moon. 154. A borrowed light, circular in form, it revolves about the earth, as if following the track of a chariot (Empedocles, translations of the fragments I) (177).

Ptolemy (90-168):

The Moon principally generates moisture; her proximity to the earth renders her highly capable of exciting damp vapours, and of thus operating sensibly upon animal bodies by relaxation and putrefaction. She has, however, also a moderate share in the production of heat, in consequence of the illumination she receives from the Sun (Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos: Book the First: Chapter IV, The Influence of the Planetary Orbs) (13).

Lucretius (100-50 BC):

How then, if the sun is so small, can it give of such a flood of light (p.189)?

The moon, too, whether it sheds a borrowed light upon the landscape in its progress or emits a native radiance from its own body. What then of the moon? It may be that it shines only when the sun’s rays fall upon it. Then day by day, as it moves away from the sun’s orb, it turns more its illuminated surface towards our view till in its rising it gazes down face to face up the setting of the sun and beams with lustre at the full. Thereafter, it is bound to hide its light bit by bit behind it as it glides around heaven towards the solar fire from the opposite point of the zodiac (192-193) (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe).

The Jewish Talmud gets this right:

Abraham once worshipped the moon and said: The light of the moon must be derived from the light of the sun (A Cohen, Everyman?s Talmud, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd/NewYork: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc, 1949: 2).

Hence once again we have refuted Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah and a number of modern Muslim apologists who claim that the moon reflecting sun-light was a concept unknown prior to the era of Muhammad and the Qur’an, that is of course only if the Qur’an truly makes this prediction in the first place; but that is stuff for another article.

I urge therefore Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah, Harun Yahay and others to correct this error.

Surah 86:5-7 and the Formation of Sperm

Muslims often claim that the Qur'an is a scientific masterpiece. Yet to anyone who isn't already a Muslim, it's difficult to understand how Muslims can make such a claim. The Qur'an is filled with statements which, if taken at face value, are completely false. Let's consider one such passage. Indeed, let's play a game that I'd like to call: "Out-Answer Ali."

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted--proceedings from between the backbone and the ribs." (Surah 86:5-7)

In his famous commentary on the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali tries to explain this obvious error on Muhammad's part. Here's Ali's footnote:

"A man's seed is the quintessence of his body. It is therefore said metaphorically to proceed from his loins, i.e., from his back between the hipbones and his ribs. His backbone is the source and symbol of his strength and personality. In his spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the central nervous system, and this directs all action, organic and psychic. The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata in the brain."

Notice that Ali doesn't even come close to explaining Muhammad's error. "The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata . . ." What in the world does this have to do with Muhammad's claim that sperm come from the area between the spinal cord and the ribs?

So who's going to out-answer Ali? Can my Muslim friends show that sperm really do come from between the backbone and ribs? (Note: I don't really care that the Qur'an contains scientific errors. The point here is that Muslims can't base their belief in the divine inspiration of the Qur'an on it's supposed scientific accuracy. If Muslims want a defense of the Qur'an, they'll have to look somewhere other than science.)

For more on the Qur'an and science, see Answering Islam's page here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Gift that Keeps on Giving: Yahya Snow's Review of My Debate with Osama Abdallah on Muhammad in the Bible - Part One

Introduction

Yahya Snow recently reviewed my debate with Osama Abdallah on whether or not Muhammad is prophesied in the authentic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It is the view of Muslims that Surah 7:157 of the Qur’an is a declaration from Allah that Muhammad is a true prophet whose identity and description can be found in the Torah and the Gospel that Christians and Jews have with them. This view was on trial in the debate and came up wanting, so Yahya set aside a month during which he worked on doing some major damage control for the Islamic cause.

Still Prevailing Until the Day of Resurrection

As we would expect, towards the beginning Yahya tells us that “upon reflection and scrutiny Osama Abdallah won this debate,” which makes Yahya the second of two people who thinks so, Osama being the other one; but we quickly learn that this is only true “after post-debate scrutiny and an appeal for consistency – things which Osama offered little [sic] in the actual debate…” Later in the review Yahya makes the following remark: “I think to the unbiased lay audience member….the Christian position would have seemed stronger concerning whether Prophet Muhammad was mentioned in the modern day Bible.” In short, according to Yahya, Osama “offered little in the actual debate” and “the Christian position…seemed stronger”. What these remarks amount to is an admission, in the only way Muslims who always claim victory know how to admit it, that in terms of the debate itself, i.e. when judged on the basis of what actually happened in the debate by people who are not biased, Osama lost. This begrudging admission is worth the price of the review. But Yahya’s review is a gift that keeps on giving.

If we didn’t have what is tantamount to an admission that Islam did not prevail in this debate, the fact that Yahya also said the debate made him “uncomfortable,” “annoyed” him, and was “hard” for him to watch, and also the fact that he seeks to dissuade other Muslims from watching the debate would point in the same direction. If I might be permitted to read between the lines and summarize what is going on when he says such things, Yahya does not really believe this debate was a victory for Islam, so much so that he hopes no one will watch and see that for themselves. He is hoping that his co-religionists will just take his word for it that Islam came out on top and that no one will watch the debate and find out otherwise. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Osama also was not happy with his in-debate performance. That is why he produced an edited copy of the debate providing some “post-debate scrutiny” of his own. It is to this version of the debate that Yahya links at the end of his article rather than to the unedited debate that we provided.

As if all that were not damning enough, Yahya speaks of Osama’s “poor verbal presentation” and “lack of fluidity, coherence…and continuation.” He says Osama’s case was “lacking structure” and “difficult to follow.” Several times over he tells us that at various junctures in the debate Osama “missed an important appeal to consistency,” “misses an opportunity,” and that he “made a crucial mistake.”  In contrast to this he said: “The Christian…was much more fluent and generally was clear in his presentation.” At one point Yahya even tries to blame Osama’s failure on me, saying that because Osama did not argue in a certain way, this gave me an “unfair advantage” or the upper hand.

Yahya tries to prop up the serious defects in Osama’s presentation by saying he was debating too many people in a short period of time and thus was unprepared. For my part I don’t think the problem was that Osama chose to debate too many people in a short period of time, especially since Osama has been writing and debating on these issues for over a decade, and three of the four people he debated had very little debate experience and just as little time to prepare for the debates. I think the problem is that Osama agreed to debate at all, something he should never do at any time. Ever. He should follow Yahya’s lead and stay as far from debating as possible, especially if he is trying to defend something as indefensible as Islam. (Although, Yahya has been leaving people with the false impression that he has debated me before. His dissembling in this matter even caused him to be labeled the Ergun Caner of Islam. The truth is I have written a number of replies to Yahya’s material over the years, each of which proved him to be a one-hitter quitter, and he has never accepted even one of my numerous debate challenges, the most recent of which can be viewed here.) 

While the Qur’an is not at all from the true God, Yahya really should have taken to heart its pronouncements that the true followers of Jesus would prevail until the day of resurrection (S. 3:55, 61:14). As much as he desperately tried to say otherwise in his review, he ended up saying in one way after another that my argumentation seemed stronger and would unnerve Muslims, just like it did him.

Miscellaneous Gaffes

For all of Yahya’s criticisms of Osama being disorganized it is interesting just how disjointed his review happens to be. Quite often Yahya inadvertently changes topics or brings up something that has little to no relevance to what precedes or follows it in his review. In an attempt to tidy things up I will deal with all these tangential issues first before coming to the more pertinent stuff.

Isaiah 7:14

At one point in his review where Yahya started off making some comments about Deuteronomy 18, he suddenly makes a comment about something else I said when discussing Osama’s overreaching and misguided zeal that leads him to see Muhammad even in passages such as Isaiah 7:14. Later in the debate Osama claimed he never taught such a thing, and eventually he actually acknowledged the possibility that such a view might have been expressed on his website by one of his writers in the past. Ignoring Osama’s half-hearted admission that this view might have been endorsed on his website, which makes him at least partially responsible for the propagation of this view, Yahya tries to get mileage out of the fact that Osama at first feigned ignorance of it, saying:

Anthony’s poor researching was further highlighting [sic] by a blunder where he attempted to impugn his opponent for writing Isaiah 7:14 was about Prophet Muhammad – it turned out Osama Abdallah had no knowledge of this alleged claim!

Actually, it turns out that Yahya has only exposed his own failure as a researcher and his readiness to follow the say-so of a Muslim to his own chagrin. As it turns out, this view was taught on Osama’s website (*), so he hardly had “no knowledge of this alleged claim,” and as I said in the debate, if Osama does not agree with this outlandish idea which he eschews being the author of, then he has an obligation to take it down from his website and not perpetuate such a patently false idea. Otherwise he gives credence to the idea that he himself supports it, and he has no basis to complain if others call him out on it. It is also a good idea to take it down if for no other reason than that it is so farfetched that even Yahya couldn’t believe that it could possibly be true that this is taught on Osama’s website, a fact that caused Yahya to prove that he is a “poor researcher” who attempts to impugn me for a “blunder” that he alone is responsible for because he was too gullible and believes whatever comes down the pike from a fellow Muslim.

This should help other Muslims see why they should watch the debate instead of just listening to Yahya. It was this just-listen-to-what-I-say-and-don’t-bother-to-check-out-the-facts approach that Yahya followed when he took Osama’s word for it instead of checking out the facts like a good researcher ordinarily does. 

The Charge of Interpolation

At another point in his review Yahya said: “In the middle of the debate he starts to interpolate his own bits into the Bible…” Yahya never tells us just what I am supposed to have interpolated into the Bible relevant to this debate. Instead he brings up an unrelated issue, misrepresenting me in the process, in what can only be considered an attempt to maliciously and fallaciously poison the well, which is an informal logical fallacy. According to Yahya Snow:

Anthony Rogers is one who has a history of interpolating his own bits and meanings into Biblical texts as shown by his belief that an angel in the Old Testament is God (last I checked on this guy he believed an angel in the Old Testament was God).

Yet, I have not at any time said that an angel is God. What I have pointed out, as Yahya very well knows since I wrote four blog posts against his misrepresentations in the past that he never replied to (1, 2, 3, 4), is that the Hebrew word, Mal’ak, a word that is sometimes translated “angel,” which itself is just a transliteration (not translation) of a Greek word with the same basic meaning, really only means “messenger”. As such the term has more of a functional than an ontological meaning, and it does not therefore always refer to the order(s) of spiritual creatures that inhabit heaven, hymn God’s praises, and carry out his will. Such beings certainly serve as messengers when God chooses, but so do other beings. In fact, not only can humans sometimes bring a message and thus be called messengers, but God Himself can also act in this capacity, particularly since God is not a uni-personal being. That is, one person of the Godhead can send another, and that other person can carry out the role or function of a messenger on behalf of the other members of Godhead.

To quickly illustrate this point: in the book of the prophet Malachi, whose name actually means “my messenger,” a fact in itself that should show all but the most implacable obscurantists that the word does not always refer to heavenly creatures, we find the following prophecy:

Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)

This prophecy speaks of two “messengers,” the first of whom will prepare the way for another. The second “messenger” is variously called “Me,” “the Lord,” and “the messenger of the covenant.” In all such cases the word “messenger” is a translation of the Hebrew word mal’ak, the word often translated as “angel.” But it is evident that the messengers in question here are not part of the created angelic host. In fact, in several ways the second messenger clearly appears to be God Himself. Since God is the one who is speaking, when it says that the first messenger will prepare the way before “Me,” it is obvious that the second messenger is Yahweh Himself. This also appears from the fact that the second messenger is called “the Lord,” ha adon, a title only used for God in the OT, and it is even said that this second messenger will “suddenly come to his temple,” which can only mean the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. In the New Testament this passage is interpreted as a prediction of the coming of John the Baptist (the first messenger) to prepare the way for Jesus (the second messenger). In both the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) and in the Greek New Testament the word used to translate the Hebrew word mal’ak is angelos. This should be sufficient to debunk yet again Yahya’s poor and unscholarly attempts to discredit what I said in the debate, but for those who wish to read more on this issue, you may consult the blog posts linked above and the more detailed articles I wrote for Answering-Islam.org: The Malak Yahweh: Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament – Part 1, 2, 3a, 3b. You can also see the following debate I did on the subject: The Trinity in the Old Testament? Anthony Rogers vs. Ijaz Ahmad.

If bringing up unrelated issues that he misunderstands is somehow relevant to the debate review, then surely turnabout is fair play, and I am justified in pointing out that Yahya has quite a perverted side (one that he shares with other Muslims).

The Qur’an and Science

After saying that “The debate veered off to the topic of science and the Quran,” without pointing out that it was Osama who tried to get us lost in space here and that I was the one who had to insist that he find his way back to the subject we were supposed to be debating, Yahya takes issue with my backhanded dismissal of Osama’s irrelevant appeals to the Qur’ans supposed scientific insights.

Because Osama brought up science and alleged that the Qur’an reveals advanced knowledge of scientific matters, I pointed out that while it is not directly relevant to the subject of our debate, the Qur’an actually contains numerous scientific errors, even one of which is sufficient to refute the idea that the Qur’an is from God (S. 4:82).

In this connection I briefly pointed out two errors: 1) the Qur’anic teaching that shooting stars serve the purpose of keeping unwanted angels from prying into Allah’s secret counsel; and 2) the Qur’anic teaching that sperm originates between the backbone and the rib.

Yahya tries to respond to the first error by telling us: a) the shayatin/jinn are not angels; b) stars move very quickly; and c) “Anthony believes angels came down from Heaven and had sex with human women…”

My responses to these points are quick and easy: a) the jinn are a subset of angels (*, *); b) so what, the roadrunner also moves quickly, just ask Wile E. Coyote; and c) Christian and non-Christian scholars interpret Genesis 6 in many different ways (q.v. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 33ff.) and Yahya has no idea which view I take on the matter. As well, even if it were the case that I endorse the angelic interpretation of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 the fact would remain that saying angels were able to take on human form in the past would supply no basis for the belief that shooting stars are a form of cosmic angel repellent.  

Yahya’s response to the second Qur’anic error I mentioned was not any better. He first says I am relying on a “shoddy internet-hate site,” and then he turns around and posts a link to his own shoddy internet hate-site. I will let the reader compare what Yahya’s link says to what our “hate-site” says on the matter: Qur’an and Science.

On Wearing the Right Attire

Since there is no other place to really put it, I will conclude my response to Yahya’s miscellaneous nonsense with the following.

For no obvious reason Yahya includes a picture in his review of an Islamic T-Shirt that says “Keep Calm and Discover Islam.”

  

                       

      

Since we are sporting our casual wear, here is a T-Shirt picture someone sent to me after my debate with Osama that is more relevant to the subject of the review. Those who watched one of Osama’s other debates that took place the day prior to my debate with him, i.e. the debate he did with Dr. Edward Dalcour, and heard Osama repeatedly refer to Spaghetti, the aroma of which was still in the air during our debate, will see the humor in it.

           

Yahya should really be embarrassed for the exceedingly terrible stuff he churns out in defense of Islam. I think Osama should tell Yahya that he can do a bad job all on his own.

There is a lot more to come. Stay tuned for part two…