Ok provide the evidence that
1:Syrian people knew this science during that period
2:Travelling of the Holy Prophet to Syria except in childhood or may be occasional business trips.
3:About the education of the Holy Prophet which he Got from syria ,name of the insititute ,name of the teacher ,the subjects he studied over there.The proof for the period he spend for this education.
Please do not run away like typical atheists.

I already mentioned that Nemesius and Sergius of Syria used Galen's work as a basis for their own.
Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?
Why would the prophet need to enrol in a school to learn a few paragraphs of knowledge that probably any doctor in the land was familiar with? The verses concerned are about (in english) 70-80 words in total.

That link isn't really proof though. A possibility (or rather an assumption) but nothing more. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Muhammad [saw] learnt any science from syria (neither thiest or aethiest have found anything with regards to this) I think we can establish that he did not learn any science from syria.

I have to strongly disagree with you on that one for the following reasons.

1. Can you show me that the following concepts/facts where known to mankind prior to the revelation of the Qur'an?
1.1. Microscopic form of embryo's
1.2. The existence of different waves under the surface
1.3. The fraction (and partial reflection) of light due to those waves
1.4. The constant expansion of the universe
1.5. The underground structure of Mountains
1.6. the effect mountains have on earthquakes
(there are more, but those 'll do to start)

2. If you can show that some of these things were known somewhere in the history, can you show that Muhammed (peace be upon him) had access to that information?

I do accept all scientific understandings of this day! I assume you're referring to evolution here? Well evolution is a name that can refer to many theories, some of them scientific, some of them unscientific. But it seems best not to go off topic about that here. You can see my arguments about that in one of the evolution threads in the comparative religion forum, or just browse the evolution page of my website which is linked in my signature.

The argument just doesn't follow. If you lack evidence for something, you cannot make a positive claim on that basis.

A correct argument would be to say "we do not know whether or not the prophet learned anything from syria, so we cannot conclude anything" That is not the basis for saying he definitely did not learn anything, or that he dedfinitely did.

I'm not nitpicking. If we're going to have a debate it must be logical.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

Fair point. But you really cannot use that alleged syria link to back up any arguments along the lines of muhammad obviously learnt some science from syria - as I said: noone has given any proof (actual hardcore proof) that muhammad[saw] had learnt any science from syria or that he plagiarised from any other texts (certain folk try the oh he copied the bible/tora/veda etc but not one has actually provided any evidence). At most it is an assumption.

I'm just going to cut to the chase. If the claim is that the prophet was illiterate, then the prophet himself would not have written down these accounts. Proof would boil down to the probability of such information being transmitted to him during his daily life as a tradesman, and that's not proof.

So even if that information was presented to you or him, we wouldn't know if he understood it.

This is why I did not claim that the Quran was plagiarized. I simply asked why you would claim that it was divine revelation when no one else who knew at that time made such a claim.

I suggest you reread my initial post.

It's back to work for me.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

This is how you are running away to provide the proof.The Holy Prophet might have only one or two visits.But other meccans had frequent visits for business.It means
1:Other people could learn these few words (according to you).How many of them learnt this knowledge from Syria
2:There were Kaafir and against the Holy Prophet PBUH.Did any one of them object and blamed the prophet for plagiarism ? If not why ? If yes provid the proof
Note : You are persistantly working on assumptions as the atheists do.

If no one else at the time accepted the claim of its divinity, how do you explain the spread of Islam at least locally? why wasn't it deemed simply another poetry book? there was the prophet and a handful of Muslims many of whom were tortured to death.. have you read at least about his trip through ta'ef ? and then in a matter of years all of Arabia became Muslim.. I am beginning to think you haven't a clue at all of early Islamic history, yet claim to have apostated?
People can always distinguish the style of the prophet's writing (hadiths) and that of the Quran.. No two suras read the same.. anyone can agree, that folks who write books/poetry, stick with one genre and have a particular style.. we certainly see the prophet' style in the hadiths.. but we see no one's style in the Quran.. it reads very differently... once you have found us the author of the Quran can we have the discussion of its divinity or lack thereof.. the book is its own testament!


cheers

Greetings,
I think the thrust of the argument is perhaps slightly different from the way you are understanding it.

The claim that the Prophet (pbuh) may have learned about scientific information in Syria is not intended as a definitive statement, simply a possibility.

Remember, this argument is used to oppose the argument that says "Amazing scientific information is contained in the Qur'an; there is no way an illiterate man of that time could know about it; it must have been a divine revelation; there is no other possible explanation." Well, there is another possible explanation, and that is that he found out about it from a person alive in his time.

We don't know the details of the case, but we don't really need to - all the available evidence suggests that it was at least possible, and that in itself is all that is needed to reject one big plank of the scientific miracles argument in its "pre-cognition" form.

Peace

Though the Holy Quran is not a book of science but a book of guidance.If during its guidance if it has to give some scientific facts ,those are valid and correct scietifically.
The Question is how did the Holy Prophet PBUH was able to give them in this miraculous book .There are only two possibilities
1:The scientific facts were well know at that time and prophet PBUH got them through regular education from most advanced academic insititute
2:These facts were not know at that time but Holy Prophet PBUH got them directly through divine revelation.
Either you prove the clause one above or accept the clause two that it is Divine revelation.
But ------------------- Atheist always depend and rely only and only upon assumptions ,assumption ,assumptions ,assumption ,nothing else because it is something 'in-built " problem.

Hmm I guess so. I still haven't seen any evidence to show that any human being had an influence on the Quran (by this I mean plagiarism) though. Neither have I seen any evidence (from a muslim or non-muslim for that matter) that Muhammad[pbuh] was told these scientific facts by a human being - I've heard plenty of allegations but no real proof

Firstly you are making one huge assumption yourself, which is that these so-called 'scientific facts' are anything of the sort. To me it seems obvious most are nothing but a mixture of liberal (and often wildly out-of-context) 'interpretation' and wishful thinking. That includes everything on Abdul Fattah's list except the embryology. I've seen all the 'refutations' and all are based on exactly the same flexibility in 'interpretation' as the original claims.

Secondly, with those that are left no "advanced academic institute" would have been necessary. Much, if not exactly common knowledge, would hardly have been esoteric.

Thirdly, your conclusion wouldn't follow even if those things were not true (and I certainly don't expect you to accept they are!) It's just "God of the gaps" again.


If there was any 'real proof' Islam would be a historical curiosity, not a living religion. Likewise, if there were any 'real proof' the Qur'an is a Divine revelation then atheism would be a historical curiosity! However, czgibson is right; in this case 'possibility' is sufficient to make the point. But not to settle the case, of course.