Hello brothers and sisters, this I can foresee being a very controversial post. Why I feel this, is because, of the amount of promotion of certain issues that I will actually be attacking. Naturally being a muslim, you will take in anything pro-Islamic - however, somtimes, some things can actually not be true - which could lead you to do some serious negative dawah.
What is negative dawah?
This is, stating things, to promote Islam, but instead, has the opposite effect. Usually, it is things which show muslims as intellectually dishonest on the issue. As we know, for truth, we all need to be objective.
What I will issue with, which I think is a big problem in todays dawah - is what I like to call the "Naikh retranslation". This is where, alot of things, in recent times, have been taking Qur'an out of context, mistranslating it - to fit with modern science.
WAIT, before you butcher me, this article is completly PRO-ISLAM. IF you do follow it, you will actually stop doing a dawah which has only recently been practiced (as we know, the older the better) and secondly - you will definatly attract the attention of those who are more skeptical and intellectual. I am trying, to stop people stating things, which most likely arn't really true - I want people to say the real meanings behind the text, in order to not deter people who actually research the things. So many times, I have seen the modern dawah being refuted - and yet the same dawah is spread. What happens? Those who refute it, see the religion untrue, based on what the followers have proposed as evidence. Is this what we want, people rejecting it on what probably isn't factual to begin with? Also, is it correct if people find faith due to a certain lie? I know certain Christians who feel that the bible is indeed miraculous evident by the science within (Which is completly taken out of context and really is fabricated interpratation) - Now similar things are happening with the Qur'an.
It has spread so much however, nearly ever Islamic site, every lecture, keeps repeating these same old things - Myself having debated alot with alot of intellectual superiors of myself - has shown me how much so it is indeed flawed. However, does this mean, we are stuck with a Qur'an which has many scientific contradictions? Not at all my friends :).
To give you an example, of how bad things are going - I believe Naikh once said - the verse "It is not the eye which is blind, but it is the heart within the chest..." should be properly translated as "It is not the eye which is blind but the intelligence within their center...".
I don't know about you, but the first verse, did not seem to contradict any sciences or anything unusual about it. We can understand the metaphoric meaning behind it. But, to make it so called scientifically accurate, it is apparently better to translate as the latter. In my opinion, this is gross misinterpretation and Naikh had not taken the verse 1 bit into consideration in context.
I want to show alot more though. I will first explain why I think the proposed translation is not fit - and why at the same time it is not contradictive of the Quran.
Big bang and expansion
The verse "That the heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove them asunder" from surah Ambiyah, is stated to be accordance to the big bang. How accurate is this assumption?
Very little, infact 0. If you have any sound knowledge of the Big Bang theory - you will find no correlation. Firstly, their was no Earth, to be stuck to the "explosion" to seperate. The Earth itself was formed very late after the big bang. Secondly, the Earth isn't seperate from the Universe is it?
What could it mean than? As we know, Adam (as) lived in paradise once. Then he was sent to Earth. The obvious meaning is that, the seperation is talking about that - of how man has been seperated from the "Heavenly world" to that of the earthly world. It is quite a bad translation of using heaven as universe in the verse actually - because the Earth never seperated from the Universe, it was formed within. The only reason, this was ever suggested is that, the Universe is expanding - and people found expa
Now, if you gave some skeptic this explanation, wouldn't it go down better in his throat? It sounds very logical, makes sense, it doesn't make any assumptions.
One closely related issue on this, is expansion. It is stated that the verse in surah Dhariyat, states "We have created the expanding universe’ ". Really, what it states is "We have created the vast universe’ ", as in huge, big (basically sizewise).
Qur'an, taken in context, does not seem to be focusing on telling the people the universe is expanding - rather ponder over its vastness. I think their has been what I call, wishful translation. Anyway, doesn't make sense for people 1400 years about an expanding universe - and I believe Qur'an would be a universal message, not one which would seem far more miraculous to the people of the last 100 years (where these findings have been found).
Also, in this case, no scientific contradiction. We can all agree the universe is vast!
Seperation of Water
In Surah Rahman, we can find 2 instances (I believe), of the seperation of sea.
One being as such:
"It is Allah who has let free two bodies of following water - One sweet and palatable, the other salt and bitter. Though they meet, they do not mix. Between them there is a barrier which is forbidden to be trespassed"
In a dawah leaflet, their was a story about a scientist who saw what it described, as a supernatural event - then a muslim colleague told him it is like this as the Qur'an describes it - and that he converted to Islam after this. I forgot the scientist who was claimed to be this (was some french guy) but I researched it and found no such thing to be true. It kind of hurt me, to know people are handing out non-factual events to people, it hurts the credibility of Islam. Anyway, I hope I don't have to explain to you guys, that this isn't a supernatural event that takes place, it is very natural and is caused due to diffusion laws.
Now why is it mentioned in the Qur'an? It is to show, the blessing of Allah. If the waters were not seperated, they would not have both the drinking water and the fish to eat from the other water. Ar-Rahman is full of verses, just talking about natural events, "Which of the favours do you deny of your Lord" comes up alot of times, repeatedly. We should stick with this logical context in my honest opinion, it contradicts no science and does not make assumptions. Note, some people say "invisible barrier", but it is not really stated. In this case, it could merely be the land which seperates the water - and so we should see that land as being the blessing - i.e. the seperation of water that God has made for us. I hope this is making sense to everyone.
Embryology
This is a huge topic, mainly because alot of Muslim brothers have got confused on the issue. First, I would like to discuss Dr Keith Moore.
He states some things, which are actually scientifically incorrect. Remember, if something is a fact accordint to a consensus of scientists - and someone comes along and says something non-factual - it is not an opinion, it is a mistake. Their is a difference in opinion and making a mistake. Some scientists, today, we have claiming Earth is 6000-9000 years old - is that a scientific opinon or gross mistakes?
Firstly, Dr Keith Moore was of a Catholic background - his statements were conducted at a Saudi Arabia university. He was called by them, to do some study to compare Qur'an verses to actual science. One quote, which I should share with you from him was:
"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah."
I don't know about you, but, someone who said such a thing, should become a Muslim right? Not Dr Moore, I think this cuts off all credibility of this guy and muslims should never ever reference to him.
His book, based on Christianity/Islam in the light of science - was never taken in by many libraries due to its many factual innacuracies - while other books of his were - To add, his other books contradict what he wrote in this book. It is assumed, this guy did this all for alot of money the Saudi's were willing to pay for him. Truthfully, I think its a disgrace someone would do such a thing for money (especially someone who suppose to be a Catholic)- but also the muslims who funded it.
Now, moving onto the verses, to explain why they are not contradictive.
", Who created, Who created the human beings from something which clings - a clot of blood.". The word clot of blood, has been translated different ways, in recent years (things you wouldn't find a thousand years) to "leech/clinging like substance" or even "embryo" in some occasions.
Alot of, far more high profile scientists, have agreed their is none of this leech/clinging business in embryology and I think their reasonings are pretty good. So, is the verse scientifically incorrect?
Not at all! Think back 1400 years ago, this was common belief, that their was a clot of blood, (infact why you still hear people calling the early stage as it still being blood of pregnancy). The Qur'an is not a science book, it is not writing things to teach people science - that would make the Qu'ran illogical. It is just stating something which was knowledge back then, for other purposes in the Qur'an - not as a science lesson 101. Anyway, if you ask me, it still looks like blood, the Qur'an does not have any logical reason to go into detail - especially as it would confuse different generations of people. TO make this make MUCH more sense to you, take the next example.
This is similar in another verse:
"He is created from a gushing fluid That issued from between the backbones and ribs"
Now, assuming the fluid is, semen, we would say, hang on this is a contradiction of the Qur'an right? Well, some people try to explain this in what I believe as an incorrect way. They say, at birth, the testes are created between these 2 areas and hence the verse fits. The verse is not talking about testes, its talking about sperm so this explanation is just not a logical one. Thanks to 1 scholar mashallah, I was able to find a much more logical and practical explanation to this.
First, lets do the check - why would the verse be used 1400 years ago. We know, the Qur'an is not going to be teaching people that the testes are created between the 2 areas at birth - obviously this is somewhat irrational, so I think this is a major reason why I think the explanation I will give will be far more logical. Secondly, the reason the verse was used, is to challenge the people, for them to ponder, how you came from such simple beginings (semen) and became a human. Surely, you could die and be resurrected, if you could come from such a state. It is, indeed, another thing for the people to ponder over. This was, common belief, in the past, that sperm gushed through these 2 areas. The Qur'an has many beutiful verses, on such things, its sad people have ruined it with false interpretations.
So, the atheist will challenge me, prove to me, this was a REAL BELIEF - that people actually believed that sperm gushed through the rib/backbone, for if not, it is just a scientific contradiction by an Author - as it would not be logically consistent IF THIS WAS NOT BELIEVED.
Firstly, the Atheists, learned, would be famililar, this belief, is traced back over 2000 years ago, to the Philosopher Hippocrates. Now, all I need, is a pathway as to how this got to the people of Arabia. We know, these embryological beliefs are similar to that of Galens, which were produced in Greek books - how could they have gone to arabia? One explanation is as follows:
Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti .
The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.
The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine
Anyway, even without this - it is pretty logical that - if someone was to state anything in the Quran - it would affirm to what the people at the time believe. Both of these examples of embryological systems can be traced back to the Greek philosophers Hippocrates and Aristole - so it is in perfect harmony at the moment without any problems. The Qur'an, obviously used the examples to challenge the people - who were skeptical on what they saw as gross-supernatural - when even their births and being were truly somewhat miraculous if pondered over. Like a seed into a tree :).
This does not equate to - Islam plagurising Greek philosophers! Remember, the Qur'an isn't a science book and is not claiming nor intending to teach the people science, so this claim is automatically moot.
Planetary
Does the Qur'an say the Earth is round? Nope, does it say its flat? Nope, really it says neither (and this view is supported by several scholars). I won't go into much detail on this, because, the idea of a round Earth is very old - it is not really modern. Infact, if we understood just how much of an understanding Greeks had of the solar system and so fourth - it probably is more than most of us, they calculated alot. As for how it would have got to Muhammad (saw), well, if it hadn't it would make no logical sense as to why the Qur'an would contain it.
Anyway, moving on. This is to do with rotations. Does the Qur'an state Sun revolves around the Earth? Does it really say the Sun has its own orbit on its own axis? Does it state the moon is reflecting light?
Lets start with the moon. it states:
"Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light".
the word used is nur, i.e. light. Some say it refers to reflected light, but their is no basis to this claim. But, does this mean its contradicting science? Why should it? The Qur'an, once again, is not a text book of science, it states things in a beutiful poetic manner. In a way, the moon is giving us the light, via reflecting from sun. However, the claim the Qur'an in advance is telling people the moon is reflecting light is illogical.
Now, on the spinning. It states the Sun/moon are
"each swimming in a sky.", somtimes said as floating.
Lets do that check, is it logical for the Qur'an to be stating, that the sun is rotating on its own axis while the moon is rotating around the Earth? Not really. Furthermore, since both have different motions, while 1 motion adjective is used, causes another problem to the theory that this verse is concluding that it in advance knew scientific knowledge (though truthfully, this knowledge was known along time ago, just the Europeans were slow).
So, does this contradict science? No, you look up in the sky, you tell me, does it not look like the sun and moon are floating/swimming across the sky? Pretty much does. Why is everyone reading the Qur'an as if its a scientific book? It is not for that purpose, it is simply stating things to ponder over.
Summary
In brief, people should take the verses in the Qur'an more better in context and not fall for the mistranslation to suit those who like to take the Qur'an at a completly scientific angle. Can I ask you, is a poem regarded as superior by its adherance to science? If I wrote a poem, where I used the sentence "But his heart would not let him" rather than "But his self-conciousness derived from his brain from neurone X Y Z did not let him" inferior? Ofcourse not, poems are not judged on a scientific angle. The Qur'an also, was not meant to be judged as such and should not.
An objection I think I will get alot is - what if a verse has several meanings, couldn't that be it? That it can be interpreted different ways? I think, a verse can mean 10 things, but they can't be contradictive. i.e., something could describe someone as great, good, powerful - but not rich and poor financially simulataneously. Especially in alot of the examples, you really can't have both. Also, the other translation, usually is ILLOGICAL completly in regards to the context of the Qur'an.
I think, the only verse, which I found, to be some resemblence to suit both times, was the following:
"32.7 . Who made all things good which He created , and He began the creation of man from clay ;".
to:
"Essentially, the idea is that the first organisms were "naked replicators" - rather than cells. A search for the most suitable candidates for such replicators strongly suggests that clay minerals are the most likely players. Other carbon-based alternatives based on carbon compounds appear to be unattractive by comparison.".
That verse, could actually be seen as referring to evolution - as to direct creation - without RE-TRANSLATING the verse. That verse, did interest me, by the way the latter quote is a transcript of what scientists believe about abiogenesis at the time.
So, I think, as long as serious re-translations are not required, or do not cause illogical conclusions, you are on the safe side.
I hope people learnt from this and I do really hope people take this approach - because I promise you, smart people will refute the old Naikh-style arguements time after time. You don't need those reasons to believe in Islam, did the people 1000 years ago need them?
Sure signs are created, but to modify the Qur'an to bring these signs out - is not a sign from God, as that would be devils play (re-translating Qur'an).
I hope this is not seen as a personal attack on Naikh or others who use such examples - They are doing hard work and who am I to belittle them. I am just stating that, I think they are affecting the Islamic community negativly, so although their work is appreciated, it is not factual. We have the dilemna, should people be converting on not so factual information? Kind of like taqiyah... Something to think about (referring to the masses that Naikh has converted with his science-talk).
If you have further verses, you would like me to clarify over, please to post them and I will try. This is not my own personal work, I am not a scholar nor pretend to be one. It is my, objective search for the truth, who looked at various scholars and alot of resources to come to these conclusion. I believe, this context, is most close to how the Qur'an was 1400 years ago and hence most correct.
If you wish to debate the issue, please feel free.
My intention of this post, is for people to start giving better dawah - and present Islam its its ORIGINAL form, not altered. I have been to too many places, seeing people post the same things, only to get shut down, and it does look bad for Islam when it happens.
Sorry for the long read, it is something I passionatly feel needs to be changed. Do not in any way see this as making Islam weaker - Believe you me, this perspective when shown to those who say Quran has scientific contradictions - makes them be far more accepting towards it - rather than you turning their contradiction suddenly into a MIRACLE in which science was predicted.
Hopefully, I will post more articles, on several issues, on how to debate against Atheists, agnostics and other religious people on the many issues people often have misconceptions about.
Qur'an, holy book, not science book - so lets stop reading it as one.