Rebuttal to Denis Giron's Article "Islamic Science: Does Islamic Literature Contain Scientific miracles?"
by
Bassam Zawadi
This is in response to Denis Giron's article, which is located here.
Denis said:
Creation of Earth
Modern scholars have criticized the bible for it's claim that the Earth was created in six days. This has been waved off as just another myth concocted by an ancient people to explain how the world was created. The Qur'an has made the same mistake regarding the amount of time needed to create the earth, as is seen in the following verse:
And verily We created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six Days, and naught of weariness touched Us. (Qur'an 50:38)
It is a known fact that Muhammad had contact with Jews and Christians, and much of the Qur'an is modeled after the Bible. While the Qur'an does not have the bible's claim that "on the seventh day God rested" (Genesis 2:2) it still proclaims the earth to be created in six days.
Muslims who seek to cast the Qur'an as being compatible with modern science, point out that the Qur'an also says that a day for Allah and the angels is similar to 50,000 years (Qur'an 70:4). In citing this verse, Muslims try to say the Earth was completed in 300,000 ( 6 x 50,000 ) years. While it is a nice try, the reality is this still does not agree with modern science, which states that it took several billion years for the Earth to reach this stage. Billions of years passed before there were trees, or forests, or animals.
Furthermore, such claims open the Qur'an to more criticism. The verse that allegedly says a day equals 50,000 years (Qur'an 70:4) states:
"The angels ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years." This verse actually seems to be discussing the speed of travel for angels. Possibly it is saying that the angels can travel in a day, the amount of space it would take others 50,000 years to cover. My goal is not to offer alternative interpretations to this myth. However, I dispute the claim that the this verse is saying a day equals 50,000 years because such a thing contradicts other parts of the Qur'an!
A day cannot equal 50,000 years because according to the Qur'an, a day equals 1,000 human years (Qur'an 22:47 & 32:5). Furthermore, to claim that it took Allah 300,000 years to create the Earth is to insult the God of Islam, as when he creates, he says "Be!" and it is (Qur'an 2:117).
My Response:
Taken from "Quran and Bible in the Light of Science" debate, which can be accessed here, Dr. Zakir Naik says:
Let us analyse what the Bible says about modern science - First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says. 'Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days. Qur'an too speaks about six 'ayyams'. The Arabic word singular is 'yaum' plural is 'ayyam'. It can either mean a day of 24 hours, or it is a very long period, an 'yaum', an epoch. Scientists say we have no objection in agreeing that the universe - it could have been created in 6 very long periods. Point No.2 - Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,.'Light was created on the first day.' enesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19. 'The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day'. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13. 'Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day? Point No..4, Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says. 'Earth was created on the third day.' Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says.'The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.' Today science tells us. 'Earth is part of the parent body. the sun.' It cannot come into existence before the sun - It is unscientific. Point No. 5, the Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13.'The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day. How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight?
So the bible really is wrong.
As for the Prophet allegedly copying from the Bible, I recommend that one read this article.
In Arabic, the word for the six days is Yawm, which could also mean epoch. For example, Muslims say Yawm Al Hajj, but the Hajj is three days, not one.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
"Allaah has given you something better instead of them: Yawm al-Duhaa [Eid al-Adha] and Yawm al-Fitr [Eid al-Fitr]." (Reported by Abu Dawood).
However, Eid Al Adha is four days and Eid Al Fitr is three days.
Thus, we see that the Arabic word yawm could mean epoch.
As for why Allah created the universe in six ayaam, refer here.
Denis said:
The Qur'an on Embryology
In 1982 Keith Moore, an anatomy professor at the University of Toronto, produced a textbook titled "The Developing Human, 3rd edition". In this book Moore states his astonishment at the way embryonic development is depicted in the Qur'an. Moore would go on to produce fourth and fifth editions of his textbook, as well as another book titled "Human Development as described in the Quran and Sunnah", all of which many Muslims cite with great pleasure. Moore and his Muslim supporters are referring to the following verse:
We placed him as sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm into a clot of blood; then of that blood clot We made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create! (Quran 23:13-14)
Indeed, at first glance, this seems like a remarkable statement for a "7th century desert Arab" to make. However, upon closer study, one realizes that there is both explanation and error to this verse. First we must ask if this was an original theory, and second we must ask if it is correct.
Many people are amazed by the mention of sperm in this verse. This is nothing special. Since the beginning of time man has been aware of the "seed" that is released from the penis during sexual intercourse. The Bible, a text much older than the Qur'an, tells a story of a man who was struck down by God for "spilling his seed on the ground" (Genesis 38:9-10).
The entire study of human life as mentioned in the Qur'an is not original at all. While Muslims try to claim that Muhammad made these statements before scientists discovered them, they are wrong. Theories of the formation of a child inside the womb was put forth by Aristotle nearly 1,000 years before the Qur'an was written. In fact Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, something not mentioned in the Qur'an, showing that earlier philosophers were aware of such things mentioned by Muhammad and more. Every mention of human development in the Qur'an is similar to Roman and Greek theories.
My Response:
Zakir Naik said in his debate with Dr William Campbell, "The Quran and Bible in the Light of Science":
There were a group of Arabs who collected the data dealing in the Qur'an about 'Embryology' and the Hadith dealing with Embryology. And they presented it to Professor Keith Moore, who was the chairman and the head of the department of 'Anatomy', in the university of Toronto, in Canada - And at present he is one of the leading scientist in the field of 'Embryology.' After reading the various translations of the Qur'an, he was asked to comment, and he said. 'Most of the Verses of the Qur'an and the Hadith, are in perfect conformity with Modern Embryology. But there are a few Verses which I cannot say that they are right neither can I say that they are wrong, because I myself don't know about it. And two such Verses were the first two Verses of the Qur'an to be revealed, from Surah Iqra or Surah Alaq , Ch. 96 Verses No. 1 and 2 which says.(Arabic). 'Read, recite or proclaim in the name of thy Lord, Who created, Who created the human beings from something which clings - a leech like substance. Regarding Dr. William Campbell's statement that.'To analyse the meaning of a word, we have to see what was the meaning at that time when it was revealed'-At that time when the book was written. And he rightly said that to analyze the meaning, we have to analyze the meaning at the time it was revealed, and to the people whom it was meant for. As far as this statement of his is concerned, regarding the Bible, I do agree with it totally - Because the Bible was only meant for the children of Israel, for that time. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 10, Verse No. 5 and 6, Jesus Christ peace be upon him tells his disciples. 'Go ye not in the way of the Gentiles.' Who are the Gentiles? The Non-Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims 'But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Jesus Christ peace be upon him said in the Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 15, Verse No. 24. 'I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' So Jesus Christ and the Bible, were only meant for the children of Isreal. Since it was meant for them, to analyze the Bible, you have to use the meaning of the word, which was utilized at that time. But the Qur'an was not meant only for the Arabs of that time - Qur'an is not meant only for the Muslims. The Qur'an is meant for the whole of humanity, and it is meant to be for eternity. Qur'an says in Surah Ibrahim, Ch. 14, Verse. 52, in Surah Baqarah Ch. No. 2, Verse 185, and Surah Zumar Ch. 39, Verses. 41, that the Qur'an is meant for the whole of human kind. And Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, was not sent only for the Muslims or the Arabs. Allah says in the Qur'an in Surah Ambiya Ch. No. 21, Verse No. 107------(Arabic)----That We have send thee as a mercy, as a guidance, to the whole of humankind.' So as far as the Qur'an is concerned, you cannot limit the meaning only for that time, because it is meant for eternity. So one of the meaning of 'Alaqa'. is 'leech like substance' or 'something which clings.' So professor Keith Moore said. 'I did not know whether the early stage of the embryo looks like a leech' And he went into his laboratory, and he analyzed the early stage of an embryo, under a microscope and compared it with the photograph of a leech, and he was astonished at the striking resemblance. This is a photograph of a leech, and human embryo. What Dr. William Campbell showed you is the other perspective of it. If I show this book - it looks like a rectangle - If I show you like that, it is a different perspective. That diagram is given in the book - The diagram which you saw on the slide is even there - And I'll deal with it InshaAllah. Professor Keith Moore, after about 80 questions were asked to him, he said. 'If you would have asked me these 80 questions, 30 years ago, I would not be able to answer more than 50 percent - Because embryology has developed recently in the past 30 years.' He said this in the eighties. Now, do we believe Dr. Keith Moore whose statement is available outside in the foyer - his videocassette is available. 'This is the truth'...'Anna-ul-Haq'... recorded statement. So will you believe Dr. William Campbell's personal conversation with Professor Keith Moore, or the one mentioned in this book, with Islamic edition as well as the photograph that I had shown to you? And in the videocassette available outside you can see it - He makes those statements. So you have to choose which is more logical - Personal discussion with Dr. William Campbell or his statement on Video. Like how Dr. William Campbell showed my video - 100 percent proof what I said. 'Moon is reflected light' - I'll come to it later on. And whatever additional information he got from Qur'an and Hadith, it was incorporated later into this book.'The Developing Human' - the 3rd edition nd this book got an award for the best medical book written by a single author in that year. This is the Islamic edition that was put forward by Shaikh Abdul Majeed Al-Jindani and certified by Keith Moore himself. The Qur'an says in Surah Muminun, Ch. 23 Verse No. 13, and Surah Haj Ch. 22, Verse No. 5, and no less than 11 different places in the Qur'an, that the human beings have been made from a 'nutfaa' 'minute quantity of liquid'.like a trickle that is remaining in the cup. 'Nutfa' in Arabic. a very small quantity. Today we have come to know, that in one seminal emission, in which there are several millions of sperms, only one is required to fertilize the ovum - 'The Qur'an refers as 'nutfa.' Qur'an says in Surah Sajda Ch. 32 Verse no. 8.'We have created the human beings from 'Sulalah' - That means the best part of a whole. The one sperm which fertilizes the ova out of the millions of sperms, the Qur'an refers to as 'Sulalah'.'best part of the whole.' And Qur'an says in Surah Insan, Ch. 76 Verse No. 2.'We have created the human beings from 'nutfatunamshaj'.a minute quantity of mingled fluid' - referring to the sperm as well as the ovum - Both are required for the fertilization. The Qur'an describes the various embryological stages in great detail, of which the slides were shown to you - Dr. William Campbell, he helped me to complete this topic. It is mentioned in Surah Muminun Ch. 23, Verses No. 12 to 14 - The translation is that.'We have created the human beings from a 'nutfa.' - 'A minute quantity of liquid.' Then placed it in 'cararemakeen' - a place of security. Then We made it into an 'Alaqa' - a leech like substance - something which clings - a congealed clot of blood. Then We made that 'Alaqa' into a 'Mutga' a 'chewed like lump.' Then We made the 'Mutga' into 'Izama'.bones. Then clothed the bones with 'leham'. flesh. Then We made it a new creature. Blessed be Allah Who is the best to create. These 3 Verses of the Qur'an, speak about the various embryological stages in great detail. First the nutfa placed in a place of security - Made into an 'Alaqa', Alaqa has got 3 meanings - One is 'something' which clings', and we know that in the initial stages, the embryo clings to the uterine wall and continues clinging till the end. Point No.2, that it also means a leech like substance, and as I discussed earlier, the embryo in the initial stages, does look like a leech. Besides looking like a leech - it also behaves like a leech - It receives its blood supply from the mother' like a bloodsucker. And the 3rd meaning which Dr. William Campbell objected to - that is the right meaning. 'the congealed clot of blood'- And that is why Qur'an has a scientific error. And I do agree with him that Dr. William Campbell did not agree. He said how can it mean a congealed clot of blood, because if this is the case, then the Qur'an is wrong. am sorry to say Qur'an is not wrong - Dr. William Campbell with due respect to him. He is wrong. Because today.today.after advancement of embryology, even Dr. Keith Moore - He says that. 'In the initial stages, the embryo, besides looking like a leech, also looks like a congealed clot of blood, because in the initial stages, of the stage of 'Alaqa', 3 to 4 weeks, the blood is clotted within closed vessels. And Dr. William Campbell made it easy for me - He showed you a slide. It will be difficult for you to see - But this is the slide he showed you. This is exactly what Professor Keith Moore said. 'Looks like a clot, in which the blood is clotted within closed vessels And during the 3rd week of the embryo, the blood circulation does not take place - it starts later on - Therefore it assumes the appearance of a clot. And if you observe the conspectus - that is after abortion takes place, you can see, it look like a clot. Only one line answer is sufficient to answer all the allegations of Dr. William Campbell is that, the stages of the Qur'an while it describes the embryological stages, is only based on appearance. Appearance. First is the appearance of the 'Alaqa' , a 'leech like substance' as well as a clot of blood.' And Dr. William Campbell rightly said that some ladies come and ask. 'Please remove the clot' - It does look like a clot And the stages are based on appearance. It is created from something, which appears like a clot, which appears like a leech, and is also something which clings. Then the Qur'an says. 'We made the 'Alaqa' into 'Mutga' - a chewed like lump.' Professor Keith Moore took plastic seal, and bit between his teeth to make it look like a 'Mutga'- The teeth marks resembled the 'somites.' Dr. William Campbell said. 'When the 'Alaqa' becomes a 'Mutga' the clinging is yet there - It is there till 8 and a half months- So. the Qur'an is wrong.' I told you in the beginning, the Qur'an is describing the appearance. 'The leech like' appearance and the 'clot like' appearance, is changed to the 'chewed' like appearance. It yet continues to cling till the end - There is no problem. But the stages are divided on appearance - Not on the function. Later on the Qur'an says. 'We made the 'Mutga' into 'Izama'.bones - Then clothed the bones with flesh.' Dr. William Campbell said, and I do agree with him, that. 'The precursors of the muscles and the cartilagees. that is the bones, they form together - I agree with that. Today embryology tells us that the primordia of the muscles and the bones - they form together between the 25th and the 40th day, which the Qur`an refers to as the stage of 'mudga.' But they are not developed. they are not developed. Later on, at the end of the seventh week, the embryo takes form of human appearance - then the bones are formed. Today modern embryology says the bones are formed after the 42nd day, and it gives an appearance of a skeletal thing. Even at this stage when the bones are formed, the muscles are not formed. Later on, after the 7th week and the starting of 8th week, are the muscles formed. So Qur'an is perfect in describing first 'Alaqa', then ?Mutga', then 'Izama', then clothed with flesh, and when they form - the description is perfect. As Professor Keith Moore said that. 'The stages - that how it is described in modern embryology. stage 1,2,3,4,5, is so confusing, The Qur'anic stage on embryology describing on the base of appearance, and the shape, is far more superior.' Alhamdulillah. Therefore he said. therefore he said that. 'I have no objection in accepting that Prophet Muhammed is the messenger of God and that this Glorious Qur'an has to be a Divine Revelation, from Almighty God.'
Please refer to the following links:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/a_muslim_answer_to_criticism_of__embryology_in_the_qur_an___by_nadeem_arif_najmi
http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html
Denis said:
Consider the following verse referring to sperm:
He is created from a drop (of sperm) emitted-- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs. (Qur'an 86:6-7)
Clearly this verse is incorrect, and clearly it has origins in earlier theories. First of all, for sperm to originate between the back and the ribs would mean that it comes from the kidneys! We now know that semen is produced in the testicles, but people in Muhammad's time did not know this. Eleven centuries before Muhammad, the Greek physician Hippocrates theorized that sperm passed through the kidneys into the penis. For centuries this was an accepted (and incorrect) belief of the origins of sperm.
There are those who claim Muhammad had no contact with Greeks or Romans. Pre-Islamic Arabia definitely had contact with Byzantium, Syria, Egypt, Persia, and Babylon. There were many Jews and Christians living in the area, and they were familiar with Greek or Roman philosophy. The Christians were connected to Rome. The Jews were connected to Babylon and Persia. It is easy to see how such theories regarding embryonic development may have reached Muhammad.
Finally, to touch back on the verses that spoke of the development of an unborn child, I will say they too are incorrect. The Qur'an stated that the blood clot was turned to bone and then God "clothed the bones with flesh" (Quran 23:13-14). It is scientific fact that living tissue forms first, and then bones grow at a later time, and continue to gain strength (by building calcium) for many years after birth. Therefore, this is one of many scientific inaccuracies in the Qur'an.
My Response:
Please refer to the following article:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_on_semen_production_in_the_noble_quran__by_dr__munir_munshey
Denis said:
Scientific Absurdities in the Qur'an and Hadith
To believe in the Qur'an is to not think rationally. There are numerous myths and scientific errors within the text of the Qur'an, and the Hadiths. Muslims accept many scientific absurdities with blind devotion. The world has matured as a whole, and has shed many of the fears and superstitions held by primitive cultures of the past. Unfortunately, because the text of the Qur'an is revered, people do not question many superstitious concepts that Muslims should have outgrown long ago.
To begin, I would like to give an example of a myth from Hindu culture. According to Hindu tradition, the god Siva would leave his wife home alone for long periods of time. One day she took skin from her own body, and used it to create a child. The child was used to protect her, and the house. When Siva returned, the child refused to let him enter the house. Without hesitation Siva drew his sword and decapitated the child. Siva's wife was quite angry, and to make up for what he did, Siva went out and cut off the head of an elephant, and placed it on the child's body. This is why the Hindu deity Ganesh has the body of a human, but the head of an elephant.
Now that I have told this story, will any Muslim believe it? Of course not. It is an absurd myth. There is no need to debate this issue, it is obvious that this is not true. It is a myth created by a primitive culture. If it is easy to see that this is a myth, why is it so difficult for Muslims to see the myths within their own text? I will now give a run down of some of the scientific errors in the Qur'an.
My Response:
Denis is just giving his own opinions about the Quran, which are irrelevant. He has failed to show any errors in the Quran.
He then tries to compare Hinduism and Islam. There is no evidence for Hinduism, but there is for Islam. That is the main difference.
I wouldn't reject Hinduism simply because these stories sound strange, but I would reject it because there is no evidence that Hinduism is a true religion.
Denis said:
The Qur'an has a story of a woman who has never had sexual intercourse (a virgin) that becomes pregnant and gives birth (Qur'an 19:16-21). This is a myth deeply rooted in many cultures. Muslims are used to debating with Christians, so they are never told that virgin birth is impossible, as this is a doctrine of Christianity as well. The reality is, this is a scientific absurdity.
The Qur'an tells us that this same child who was born of a virgin mother is able to speak in complete sentences at only a day old (Qur'an 19:29-33)! While Muslims and Christians are debating the scientific knowledge written in the pages of the Qur'an, a rational thinker can clearly see that this idea of the talking baby, born of a virgin mother, is absurd. It was a myth adopted by Muhammad, and inserted into the text of the Qur'an.
For further scientific absurdities consider the following Hadith:
Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:
Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
A rational person can quickly realize the ridiculous nature of this Hadith. There is scientific error at so many levels. First, the idea of stones and trees talking is from the realm of fairy tales. In order for the stone or tree to talk, it would need a brain, lungs, the proper vocal cords, and an understanding of the language it is speaking. Equally disturbing is the claim that one of these trees, the Gharqad, will take sides with the Jews.
If the thought of trees and stones talking was not enough, the Qur'an mentions clouds that can speak. Allah said to the clouds "come willingly or unwillingly" and they said "we come willingly" (Qur'an 41:11). Most readers pass right by this verse, but many questions come up when analyzing it. At what point does water vapor become conscious? Is a water molecule alive? With two atoms of hydrogen, and one of oxygen, where is the brain or the orifice required for speech?
Stories of non-living matter (rocks, etc) acting similar to living organisms is also found in the Qur'an. There are stories of mountains that have fear (Qur'an 33:72). Fear is an emotion, which is caused by chemical impulses in the brain. Do the mountains, made a stone and dirt, have brains with these chemical impulses taking place?
My Response:
There is really nothing to respond to. Denis Giron is an anti-supernaturalist. He does not believe in God or in the supernatural. Anyone who believes in God must believe that God will do anything to occur.
I agree with Denis that for a tree to speak through natural means is absurd and impossible. But in a world where God exists, this would certainly be possible. If God does exist, then God could will that a tree speak.
Denis is begging the question and assuming that naturalism is true. Yet, he must prove what he assumes before pushing forth this argument.
Denis said:
One major scientific error in the Qur'an can be seen in the following verses:
And he followed a road; Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. (Qur'an 18:85-86)
This is a major scientific blunder in the Qur'an. A man walked until he reached the setting place of the sun, and saw it setting in a muddy spring. Modern science has taught us that the earth revolves around the sun. The above excerpt from the Qur'an seems to state that it is the sun that moves, as well as sets on earth! If the sun were to touch the surface of the earth, everything would be incinerated, and all life would die.
My Response:
Zakir Naik said in his debate with Dr William Campbell, "The Quran and Bible in the Light of Science":
The other points, Dr. William Campbell raised was regarding Surah Kahf Chapter No.18, Verse No.86, that. 'Zulqarnain sees the sun setting in murky water. in turbid water - Imagine sun setting in murky water. unscientific.' The Arabic word used here is. it is 'wajada' meaning, 'it appeared to Zulqarnain.' And Dr. William Campbell knows Arabic. So 'wajada' means - if you look up in the dictionary also, it means it appeared.' So Allah Subhanawataala is describing what appeared to Zulqarnain. If I make a statement that. 'The student in the class said, 2 plus 2 is equal to 5.' And you say. 'Oh Zakir said, 2 plus 2 is equal to 5. I did not say. I am telling.'The student in the class said, 2 plus 2 is equal to 5.' I am not wrong - The student is wrong. There are various ways to try and analyze this verse. One is this way - according to Muhammad Asad, that 'wajada' means. 'It appeared to'. 'It appeared to Zulqarnain.' Point no.2 - The Arabic word used is 'Magrib' - It can be used for time, as well as place. When we say 'sunset' - 'sunset' can be taken for time. If I say. 'The sun sets at 7 p.m.'; I am using it for time. If I say. 'The 'Sun sets in the West', it means I am taking it for place. So here if we use the word 'Magrib' for time. So Zulqarnain did not reach that place of sunset - used - as time - He reached at the time of sun set. The problem is solved. Further more, you can solve them in various ways. Even if Dr. William Campbell says. 'No No, the basic assumption is too much - It is not. 'Appeared to'. it is actually this.' Let us analyze it further. The Qur'anic verse says. the Sun set in murky water.' Now we know, when we use these words, like 'sunrise' and 'sunset' - does the sunrise? Scientifically, sun does not rise - neither does the sunset. We know scientifically, that the sun does not set at all. It is the rotation of the earth, which gives rise to sunrise and sunset. But yet you read in the everyday papers mentioning, sunrise at 6 a.m. sun sets at 7.00 p.m. Oh! The newspapers are wrong - Unscientific!' If I use the word 'Disaster', Oh! There is a disaster' - 'Disaster' means there is some calamity which has taken place. Literally, 'disaster' means 'an evil star.' So when I say. 'This disaster' every one knows what I mean is 'a calamity', not about the evil star.' Dr. William Campbell and I know, when a person who is mad, we call him a lunatic - Yes or no? At least I do, and I believe Dr. William Campbell also will be doing that. We call a person 'a lunatic' - He is 'mad.' What is the meaning of 'lunatic'? It means. 'struck by the moon' - But that is how the language has evolved. Similarly sun rise, is actually, it is just a usage of words. And Allah has given the guidance for the human beings also - He uses so, that we understand. So it is just 'sunset' - Not that it is actually setting - Not that sun is actually rising. So this explanation clearly gives us a clear picture, that the Verse of the Qur'an of Surah Kahf, Chapter.18, Verse No 86, is not in contradiction with established science - That is the way how people speak.
I recommend visiting the following links:
http://bismikaallahuma.org/Quran/Commentary/q18-86.htm
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sun_setting_in_murky_water___by_hesham_azmy_
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016622&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
Denis said:
Another curiosity is the mythical beings known in Islam as Jinn. There are Muslims who believe that Jinn stand on top of each other's shoulders all the way up to heaven, and listen to what is being discussed. There is a Hadith narrated by Aisha (Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 650) that says soothsayers and psychics receive some of their information from Jinn who stealthily acquire this info by listening to the discussions in heaven. The Qur'an says that the stars were created to defend heaven from such eavesdroppers (Qur'an 37:6-8), as well as saying that the stars are used as missiles (projectiles) to drive them away (Qur'an 67:5).
First of all, if Jinn can reach heaven by standing on the shoulders of one another, that means heaven is a given distance from earth. If this is true, then eventually we will be able to fly to heaven by space shuttle, or see it with a telescope. What is far worse in this theory is the thought that stars are used to throw at the Jinn. Stars are essentially stationary, but one can imagine how 7th century Arabs might have been in awe of the sights in the sky. This myth seems to confuse shooting stars with stars. The authors of the Qur'an and Hadiths probably thought stars and "shooting stars" were the same thing, when in reality they are not.
My Response:
Denis Giron needs to provide the reference either from authentic Hadith or from the glorious Quran about Jinn standing on each other's shoulders.
Secondly, this is all just a matter of faith. Again, as I mentioned before, Denis Giron is a naturalist, but he does not believe in Jinn and finds the whole notion ridiculous. Well, that is only his opinion, and that is irrelevant.
He fails to show any scientific errors. The Quran mentions nothing about shooting stars.
That is only Denis Giron's erroneous assumption. However, stars do move:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q181.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=378
If stars are moving, can't they then, while they are moving, be used as missiles to drive away the Jinn?
Denis Giron is just too desperate to find anything against the Quran.
Denis seems to confuse things that are BEYOND science, which Islam does teach, with things that are AGAINST science, which Denis has failed to show that Islam teaches.
Denis said:
According to the Qur'an there was a man who could understand the speech of animals (Qur'an 27:18-19). While zoologists have formed methods of communicating with apes and chimps, no human being has ever been able to understand the "language" of species different from our own. The ability to speak like a human is formed by advanced brains with complex thought patterns, something most animals do not have. Therefore, to think that a man could understand the spoken language of another animal is absurd.
What is even worse is the verses cited have this man hearing the speech of ants! It is a scientific fact that ants have no speech patterns. They communicate through chemical trails, and other forms of odor. In otherwords they communicate via smell, not sound! This blunder is understandable, as the average desert Arab in the seventh century would not know this. However this lack of knowledge of the animal kingdom proves human origin of the text, and disputes theories of a divine origin.
My Response:
In verse 18, the Quran says
At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (underfoot) without knowing it."
The Quran doesn't say how the ant said it, but it just said that it said it. Somehow, the ant communicated to the other ants. As Denis has shown us, ants, indeed, do communicate.
The Quran does not say that the ant communicated by sound.
In verse 19, the Quran says
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."
The verse does not say that Solomon heard the statement; it basically shows that he understood the statement (not necessarily by speech) of the ant.
Also, it is possible that the ants communicated by sound (since some ants do), and Solomon heard and understood them. Refer here.
When the verses are closely examined, there are no direct scientific clashes. It is only an issue BEYOND our science and understanding, and it's a miracle from God.
Denis said:
The Qur'an states that Allah created the sky in layers. He created seven heavens, and decked the lowest heaven with lamps (Qur'an 67:3-5) and adorned it with the beauty of the stars (Qur'an 37:6). The Qur'an also states that the moon is within these seven heavens (Qur'an 71:15-16). If the stars (lamps) are in the lowest heaven, they are either closer to the earth than the moon, or are at an equal distance from the earth as the moon. Either way this is scientifically inaccurate. It is a known fact that the stars are much farther away than the moon.
My Response:
Denis made a mistake, Surah 71 does not say that the moon is within (meaning between) the seven heavens, it says THEREIN. So yes it is true; the moon is in the seven heavens.
God did not state its distance, nor did he say that the stars are closer to the earth than the moon.
So again, with close examination, we come to the conclusion that the Quran is free of any scientific errors.
Denis said:
The following Hadith speaks of monkeys that are Muslims:
Sahih Bulhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them.
It is a rule in both Islam and Judaism that women who commit adultery are to be stoned. According to the above Hadith monkeys were subject to this law as well. What other laws do monkeys follow? Are they required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca? Are they required to read the Qur'an? What constitutes adultery in the monkey world? This is simply a myth. This is similar to a story found in the Ramayana, an ancient Hindu epic, that talks of the monkey Hanuman, and others of his kind, fighting for control of the monkey kingdom.
My Response:
Refer to the following link:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/were-she-monkeys-stoned-for-adultery/
Denis said:
There is a Hadith (Sahih Buklhari Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490) which states that if a woman or a dog passes in front of you while you are praying, your prayer will not make it to heaven. While there are chauvinistic implications here, I'd like to focus on the scientific aspect. What is it about women and dogs that nullify prayers? Are the prayers carried by a type of sonic wave that women and dogs disrupt? It is obvious that there is no scientific explanation to this absurd myth. No one should be surprised by this, as numerous Hadiths say dogs are evil, and should be killed. Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 540 says plainly: "Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed."
My Response:
As for the first Hadith, please visit:
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/are-women-equal-to-dogs-and-donkeys/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/islamic_prayers_and_women.htm
As for the second hadith, you can visit the following sites:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/islam_and_the_killing_of_dogs
http://www.answering-christianity.com/animal_cruelty.htm
http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/180/180595_guide_dogs_not_haram_rules_shariah.html
Denis said:
Of course when it comes to killing animals, there are different laws for different species. Dogs are to be killed instantly, however snakes are to first get verbal warning if he comes to your house. If the snake comes a second time, kill him (Sunan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5240). The interesting thing about such a Hadith is the fact that snakes cannot hear. It is bad enough to assume that any animal would understand you giving a verbal warning, but to assume that an animal that is deaf will understand you is ridiculous. It is the equivalent of writing a note for a bat, and leaving it on your door so that he may read it later.
My Response:
This hadeeth is weak (see Shaykh Al Albani's Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith no. 5260)
Secondly, Denis is mistaken; snakes do have the ability to hear, and this could be googled.
Denis said:
The following Hadith shows the poor sanitation habits of Muhammad and his followers:
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 1, Number 0067:
Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:
I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.
The issue here is not hygiene, but rather a lack of scientific understanding of bacteria, viruses, and germs that can be present in water. Excrement is a very common cause of water becoming contaminated with Escherichia coli (E. coli), a bacteria commonly found in the colon that is deadly to humans if ingested. Water contaminated with dead dogs or menstrual fluids can be equally dangerous.
My Response:
It is not like the Prophet is saying that it is okay to drink from the water; it is only purified enough to perform ablution.
Muhammad Abadi in his commentary states:
( لا ينجسه شيء )
: لكثرته , فإن بئر بضاعة كان بئرا كثير الماء يكون ماؤها أضعاف قلتين لا يتغير بوقوع هذه الأشياء .
والماء الكثير لا ينجسه شيء ما لم يتغير
This basically implies that because the well was so huge, a small amount of impurities would not ruin the whole well. (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Tahara, Bab: Ma Jaa'a Fi Ba'ir Bidaa'a, Commentary on Hadith no. 60, Source)
There are other hadiths out there, and the Prophet says, "Let no one urinate in still, non-running water and then use it to bathe. (Narrated from Abu Hurayra by al-Bukhari and Muslim)
For more information on this issue, refer to this link.
Denis said:
Conclusion
Muslims cite alleged scientific miracles in the Qur'an and Hadiths to try and prove a divine origin of their faith. In this short study of Islamic science, these claims have been debunked. Clearly there was no supernatural force giving Muhammad scientific information. While the Muslims argued that advanced scientific knowledge in the Qur'an is a sign of divine origin, the rational thinker points out that the numerous and obvious scientific errors point to a wholly human origin.
My Response:
Denis has failed to show any scientific errors in the Quran or authentic hadith.
Return to Refuting Claims of Scientific Errors Being Present in Islamic Teachings
Return to Homepage
