Another Scientific Miracle of Quran

[selsebil]

"Till, when they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: 'O ants! enter Your dwellings, lest Sulaiman (prophet Solomon) and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not.' So He [Sulaiman (Solomon)] smiled, amused at her speech." (The Noble Quran; An-Naml: 18-19).

(Allah gifted prophet Sulaiman with the ability to hear and understand these sounds)

The Holy Quran is always in complete agreement with the scientific finidings. This proves that it reaaly revealed from Allah (God).

A report in the science magazine says" Advances in audio technology have enabled scientists to discover that ants routinely talk to each other in their nests.

Advances in audio technology have enabled scientists to discover that ants routinely talk to each other in their nests.

Most ants have a natural washboard and plectrum built into their abdomens that they can rub together to communicate using sound.

Using miniaturised microphones and speakers that can be inserted unobtrusively into nests, researchers established that the queens can issue instructions to their workers.

Professor Jeremy Thomas, of the University of Oxford, said improvements in technology had made the discoveries possible because it meant the ants could be recorded and subjected to playbacks without becoming alarmed.

By placing miniature speakers into the nest and playing back sounds made by a queen, the researchers were able to persuade ants to stand to attention.

“When we played the queen sounds they did 'en garde' behaviour. They would stand motionless with their antennae held out and their jaws apart for hours - the moment anyone goes near they will attack,” he said.

He described how the ants would press their antennae to the speaker just as they would seek to greet another ant in the nest.

Professor Thomas said it remained unclear how much the ants relied on sound for language but he suspected that further analysis would reveal a wider vocabulary than had been seen yet.

Quran had given this news 1400 years ago.

Article can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5672006.ece

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Jazakallah for the source, I read this somewhere aswell but couldn't find the source.

[ayesha.ansari]

Quran is a true book and it tells all the things 1400 years ago which science has proved now.

[tigerkhan]

if i remember right human frequency range foe listening is 20 Hz to 20 KHz. sound out of this range is not listen by human ear, however if ALLAH SWT make it easy for someone.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Abul-Jawzaa]

That was very interesting.

[MesMorial]

It works it seems.

[DirtyLeo]

How is that a proof that Quran mentions ants talk to each other? There are thousands of species that communicate with each other. Did you think humans were the only ones capable of communication?
Now... If we can see Solomon (or anyone for that matter) talk to ants, this would certainly be a proof that, on this account, Quran was right.

[Divan Khan]

How is that a proof that Quran mentions ants talk to each other? There are thousands of species that communicate with each other. Did you think humans were the only ones capable of communication?
Now... If we can see Solomon (or anyone for that matter) talk to ants, this would certainly be a proof that, on this account, Quran was right.

Not only that, Allah said:


6:38 وما من دابة في الأرض ولا طئر يطير بجناحيه إلا أمم أمثالكم ما فرطنا في الكتب من شيء ثم إلى ربهم يحشرون

6:38 And there is not a creature on the earth, nor a bird that flies with its wings, but they belong to nations like you. We did not leave anything out of the record; then to their Lord they will be gathered.


May Allah guide us all to the straight path
Mohammed

[Zuzubu]

WOW thanks for this, I had no idea. :O

[ayesha.ansari]

Well Quran told us many things which now a days non Muslims explore and then match it with Quran versus. Hazrat Salman has really power to talk with other creatures ants and birds and more to other . Well now a days too ALLAH has given power to some one who can listen easily to animals and insects.

[DirtyLeo]

It's funny how religious people suddenly use a scientific discovery in favour of the religion when they deny the same respect/acceptance when the same scientists talk about evolution :).
A world of "Pick and choose" it seems...

[CosmicPathos]

It's funny how religious people suddenly use a scientific discovery in favour of the religion when they deny the same respect/acceptance when the same scientists talk about evolution :).
A world of "Pick and choose" it seems...

It is immensely funny how irreligious donkeys like you choose to spend their time on boards dedicated to religious people.

[DirtyLeo]

It is immensely funny how irreligious donkeys like you choose to spend their time on boards dedicated to religious people.

The above post shows the (in)tolerance of some religious people. The easiest thing to do on the Internet is to resort to name calling (it may be a tradition in Pluto, though). Fortunately not everybody on these forums are like that.

By the way, this is a public forum and I'm always open-minded about learning what people think, hence my presence here. You should spend some time in other forums too. It is good to "discuss" ideas, rather than insult others.

[جوري]

It's funny how religious people suddenly use a scientific discovery in favour of the religion when they deny the same respect/acceptance when the same scientists talk about evolution :).
A world of "Pick and choose" it seems...

Dirty,

I didn't know that the same scientists that spoke of evolution, also spoke of the communicative language of pismires?.. we're certainly thankful for your presence on board to point that out.. imagine what we would do if that pearl wasn't tinkled here by you..Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on the lives and works of those same scientists as pertains to evolution and speech? You can of course imagine our interest in the topic considering not 200 years ago scientists of the west like Dr. ignaz semmelweis who was labeled a quack for suggesting that washing your hands before delivering infants reduced infection and mortality and sadly ended up in an institution for that 'intuitive common knowledge' . But hey you must be way ahead of your time to be so perceptive to common sense or perhaps have positively no knowledge of history or science all together?.. and we're collectively leaning toward the later statement.. As such it isn't difficult to conceive the lack of tolerance many might have for sophomores and sophomoric comments?

all the best

[ThePhilosopher]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one. Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

[CosmicPathos]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one. Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

it just proves that you are an idiot.

[جوري]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one. Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

dirty was addressed in post number 14, are you his doppelganger?

all the best

[Dagless]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one.

I think the point here is that it was not known that ants even produced sounds 100 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago.

Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

Because not all of them use sound.

[Ramadhan]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one.

Sometimes particular poster does not deserve serious response because of their attitude shown in past posts in other threads. You only have to search his other posts and see how many members have responded seriously and in thoughtful manner only for him to dismiss all those responses as irrelevant. He only listens to his own renditions of foolishness.

Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

We know about this info NOW, but did those who live in the desert of Arabia 1,400 years ago know this?

Some people are so stubborn in their ignorance that even if proof and evidence hit them in the head and slapped them around they would still refuse to recognize it.

[ThePhilosopher]

Sometimes particular poster does not deserve serious response because of their attitude shown in past posts in other threads. You only have to search his other posts and see how many members have responded seriously and in thoughtful manner only for him to dismiss all those responses as irrelevant. He only listens to his own renditions of foolishness.





We know about this info NOW, but did those who live in the desert of Arabia 1,400 years ago know this?

Some people are so stubborn in their ignorance that even if proof and evidence hit them in the head and slapped them around they would still refuse to recognize it.

I see. I was not aware of his attitude or the way he posted in the past.

It is not hard to speculate that animals or insects communicate with each other even 2000 years ago. I mean, this verse was obviously directed towards the prophet Suleyman, if it was meant to be scientific, it could have certainly been alot more clearer. I guess our standards for accepting proof and evidence is different. Ants certainly do not know the names of people and humans cannot talk to Ants, but those scientific inaccuracies are of course left out.

[Ramadhan]

It is not hard to speculate that animals or insects communicate with each other even 2000 years ago.

Were you already alive 2,000 years ago? evidence please (I'm sure as an atheist you are happy that anyone ask you for evidence)

Did people 2,000 years ago know that ants reall talk and not just "communicate" with each other?
I will be happy if you supply us with evidence.

Now, the Qur'an 1,400 years ago already told us that ants indeed TALK (as in emitting distinct sounds to communicate), and only few years ago researchers were astonished to find out that ants do indeed talk:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5672006.ece

Advances in audio technology have enabled scientists to discover that ants routinely talk to each other in their nests.
Most ants have a natural washboard and plectrum built into their abdomens that they can rub together to communicate using sound.
Using miniaturised microphones and speakers that can be inserted unobtrusively into nests, researchers established that the queens can issue instructions to their workers.
The astonished researchers, who managed to make the first recordings of queen ants “speaking”, also discovered that other insects can mimic the ants to make them slaves.

............
Research several decades ago had shown that ants were able to make alarm calls using sounds, but only now has it been shown that their vocabulary may be much bigger and that they can “talk” to each other.

[CosmicPathos]

I see. I was not aware of his attitude or the way he posted in the past.

It is not hard to speculate that animals or insects communicate with each other even 2000 years ago. I mean, this verse was obviously directed towards the prophet Suleyman, if it was meant to be scientific, it could have certainly been alot more clearer. I guess our standards for accepting proof and evidence is different. Ants certainly do not know the names of people and humans cannot talk to Ants, but those scientific inaccuracies are of course left out.

what do you mean when you say humans cannot talk to ants? how do you define talking? verbal communication by articulation of words? If yes, then yes humans cannot expect an ant to give back a response by listening to his voice. But Sulayman (as) was able to hear the "talking" of ants. How and in what way he was able to do it, we do not know. But that is exactly what makes it miraculous. In future, it might be possible that we as humans might be able to scientifically decipher the language of ants which involves sound production by them.

Seems your requirements for evidence are very subpar.

[ThePhilosopher]

Were you already alive 2,000 years ago? evidence please (I'm sure as an atheist you are happy that anyone ask you for evidence)

Did people 2,000 years ago know that ants reall talk and not just "communicate" with each other?
I will be happy if you supply us with evidence.

Now, the Qur'an 1,400 years ago already told us that ants indeed TALK (as in emitting distinct sounds to communicate), and only few years ago researchers were astonished to find out that ants do indeed talk:

Read on Aristotle and it will be clear to you that people back then knew of communication between animals. Again, it is not something difficult to speculate.

"talking" is a form of communication and yes there are thousands of different species that can communicate with each other as I stated before. What would have been amazing was if the verse showed how they communicate, though I guess that is asking to much from an all power and all knowing deity. Ants cannot know the name of humans and humans cannot talk to ants, these are scientific inaccuracies. How do you explain them?

[ThePhilosopher]

what do you mean when you say humans cannot talk to ants? how do you define talking? verbal communication by articulation of words? If yes, then yes humans cannot expect an ant to give back a response by listening to his voice. But Sulayman (as) was able to hear the "talking" of ants. How and in what way he was able to do it, we do not know. But that is exactly what makes it miraculous. In future, it might be possible that we as humans might be able to scientifically decipher the language of ants which involves sound production by them.

Seems your requirements for evidence are very subpar.

So the fact that Suleyman can hear animals is not surprising or questioned at all. The fact that an ant knew the name of a human being is not surprising or questioned at all but ants talking is taken as some miraculous scientific phenomenon due to the Quran mentioning it. I apologize if I see this as special pleading but it clearly is. Humans hears animals and ants knowing a human's name are scientific inaccuracies and if you can so easily dismiss them, the same can be done with what is being proposed here.

[Ramadhan]

So the fact that Suleyman can hear animals is not surprising or questioned at all.

This point of yours is utter desperation.
Allah gave ability to prophet Suleyman (pbuh) to communicate with animals. That's why it was a miracle, because no one would believe human can talk with animal.
Of course you don't believe that because you don't believe in Allah.
You might as well asking us "so the fact that Allah exist is not surprising or questioned at all" etc.

Further as evidence, only in recent years the scientists have developed technology to communicate with some animals. Had you lived 100 years ago as an atheist surely you wouldn't have believed also that human could talk with animals.
As of now, you don't think humans can talk with ants. What if 100 years from now humans will have developed technology to really talk with ants?

Read on Aristotle and it will be clear to you that people back then knew of communication between animals. Again, it is not something difficult to speculate

If you have the evidence, please bring to this forum. I'd like to read how Aristotle believed that ants talk to each other.
Just to give you an idea: there are plenty of anti-islam websites who, until a decade ago, published numerous articles on why Qur'an couldnt be right because scientific evidence at that time showed that ants did not actually talk, but they only used chemicals and vibrations to communicate with each other. Just google "solomon talked to ants".

It seems you are extending your knowledge (or lack thereof) to others that you have no knowledge of.

So please, bring evidence. After all, I am only following your rule of "evidence only, otherwise discarded".

humans cannot talk to ants, these are scientific inaccuracies. How do you explain them?

humans cannot talk to ants, yet.
500 years ago in medieval europe, if you claim that you can communicate instantly with another person on a different continent, people would have burned you at the stake.

Now let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists develop technology to talk with ants, will you then submit yourself to Allah, or will you have another excuse not to?

[CosmicPathos]

So the fact that Suleyman can hear animals is not surprising or questioned at all. The fact that an ant knew the name of a human being is not surprising or questioned at all but ants talking is taken as some miraculous scientific phenomenon due to the Quran mentioning it. I apologize if I see this as special pleading but it clearly is. Humans hears animals and ants knowing a human's name are scientific inaccuracies and if you can so easily dismiss them, the same can be done with what is being proposed here.

actually the fact that ants talk to each other is not obvious to humans. When birds talk to each other, its obvious to us. When dogs bark to each other, its obvious to us. But ants doing it is not. So one might actually think that ants do not talk. But Quran said that they do talk. Now modern science is showing that the ants do communicate with each other. Quran could have said that ants did not talk and modern science would have then proven Quran wrong. But no, it did not happen.

Actually, an individual cell in body talk to other cell too.; Through gap junctions. If it was mentioned in Quran, would you also say "ooh its obvious that cells talk to each ohter, whats so miraculous about it? " I suspect, based on your mental inclining, that you will say so and that will mean you, sir, are a baboon of ulterior kind.

[ThePhilosopher]

This point of yours is utter desperation.
Allah gave ability to prophet Suleyman (pbuh) to communicate with animals. That's why it was a miracle, because no one would believe human can talk with animal.
Of course you don't believe that because you don't believe in Allah.
You might as well asking us "so the fact that Allah exist is not surprising or questioned at all" etc.

Further as evidence, only in recent years the scientists have developed technology to communicate with some animals. Had you lived 100 years ago as an atheist surely you wouldn't have believed also that human could talk with animals.
As of now, you don't think humans can talk with ants. What if 100 years from now humans will have developed technology to really talk with ants?

Really? I would think that attributing a vague verse about ants talking to science is utter desperation but I guess that is just my opinion.

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.

COMPOSITION

Description: An argument in which one assumes that a whole has a property solely because its various parts have that property. Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity.

What if 100 years from now Scientists are able to create humans? What if 100 years from now the source of the Universe is found and it is not god?

I can appeal to the unknown as well, it doesnt make my argument any more valid.

If you have the evidence, please bring to this forum. I'd like to read how Aristotle believed that ants talk to each other.
Just to give you an idea: there are plenty of anti-islam websites who, until a decade ago, published numerous articles on why Qur'an couldnt be right because scientific evidence at that time showed that ants did not actually talk, but they only used chemicals and vibrations to communicate with each other. Just google "solomon talked to ants".

It seems you are extending your knowledge (or lack thereof) to others that you have no knowledge of.

So please, bring evidence. After all, I am only following your rule of "evidence only, otherwise discarded".

I did not claim I had evidence of Aristotle claiming ants talk to each other. I claimed there was evidence that people were aware of communication between animals. So it is not a long shot to claim insects communicate with each other. It is a long shot to claim ants know the name of a person.

You are following this against my arguments but not yourselves for if you are to apply that right now then you should deny the existence of Allah for there is no evidence for a God.

Now let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists develop technology to talk with ants, will you then submit yourself to Allah, or will you have another excuse not to?

Now, let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists discover the source of a universe and it is not God-oriented, will you then leave Islam or will you have another excuse to believe in it?

Actually, an individual cell in body talk to other cell too.; Through gap junctions. If it was mentioned in Quran, would you also say "ooh its obvious that cells talk to each ohter, whats so miraculous about it? " I suspect, based on your mental inclining, that you will say so and that will mean you, sir, are a baboon of ulterior kind.

No, cells do not talk to each other in gap junctions, apparently you are not well oriented in science if you believe that cells "talk" to each other. Though I would except you to use some vague verse in the Quran to attempt to make a connection that is not present. The Quran is so scientifically "superior" and "perfect" yet none of the leading scientists in the world are Muslim or interpret it as scientific miracles. It seems this is only common amongst Muslims.

[CosmicPathos]

Really? I would think that attributing a vague verse about ants talking to science is utter desperation but I guess that is just my opinion.

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.



What if 100 years from now Scientists are able to create humans? What if 100 years from now the source of the Universe is found and it is not god?

I can appeal to the unknown as well, it doesnt make my argument any more valid.



I did not claim I had evidence of Aristotle claiming ants talk to each other. I claimed there was evidence that people were aware of communication between animals. So it is not a long shot to claim insects communicate with each other. It is a long shot to claim ants know the name of a person.

You are following this against my arguments but not yourselves for if you are to apply that right now then you should deny the existence of Allah for there is no evidence for a God.



Now, let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists discover the source of a universe and it is not God-oriented, will you then leave Islam or will you have another excuse to believe in it?



No, cells do not talk to each other in gap junctions, apparently you are not well oriented in science if you believe that cells "talk" to each other. Though I would except you to use some vague verse in the Quran to attempt to make a connection that is not present. The Quran is so scientifically "superior" and "perfect" yet none of the leading scientists in the world are Muslim or interpret it as scientific miracles. It seems this is only common amongst Muslims.

you idiot, cells communicate (TALK) to each other through gap junctions. Cardiac myocytes are one such example. Sinus node sends its action potential via gap junctions into the atrial myocytes, and so on and so forth. There are many other examples in the human body. Seems your knowledge of modern biology and physiology is zilch, nada, zero.

[Ramadhan]

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.

You are practically claiming that anything which cannot be proven by current science must be incorrect/not true.

Now, Let's test your belief and let's go back by 10 years.
10 years ago, no scientist had any evidence that ants actually talk, they only had evidence that ants communicate through chemicals and vibrations.
So using your theory, we would say that the qur'an was scientifically inaccurate for telling that ants do talk to each other.
But a few years ago scientists had evidence for the first time that ants do actually talk to each other.
Now let's go back to current time, and which is actually more accurate, the qur'an (unchanging) or the science 10 years ago?

This test proves that your belief/theory crumble like a house of sand full of termites.

As for your analogy about a neolithic man and the cheese moon, well, that is not what the qur'an says, is it? Why don't you give us the bible instead, that would have good comparison, no? :)

Lets focus on the qur'an.
The Qur'an is for all ages, for the past, present and future. There are things in the Qur'an that cannot yet be explained by current science and technology (such as talking ants 10 years ago), but for those can be tested by current proven science and technology, they have been accurate. Like in this case of ants talking.

I did not claim I had evidence of Aristotle claiming ants talk to each other. I claimed there was evidence that people were aware of communication between animals. So it is not a long shot to claim insects communicate with each other. It is a long shot to claim ants know the name of a person.

Well, thats conjecture, isnt it?
Ok, I will make things easier. Please give us evidence that Aristotle claiming ants communicate to each other.
You may claim that people were aware that animals communicate to each other, but can you give us evidence (anything, other scriptures, bronze tables, writings on the wall, etc) that show they believe insect communicate with each other.
If there was none, then explain why is that only Qur'an that has made that specific claim of ants talking?
Shouldnt it be risky for the creator of the qur'an to tell such story that could one day turn up scientifically inaccurate?
In fact, from your point of view, it seems the creator of the Qur'an made a habit of stating facts which were not known at that time but which later proven to be true. Do you not want to compare it with the facts contained in other scriptures?
Remember, in our special case, ants talking were not scientifically proven until few years ago!

So where's your evidence of people 2,000 years ago knew that insects talk with each other?

You are following this against my arguments but not yourselves for if you are to apply that right now then you should deny the existence of Allah for there is no evidence for a God.

I am only following your standard for material evidence for you!
Remember it was not me who asked for material evidence for the existence (or lack of) God.
Or do you want to use your standard of availability of material evidence in some of your particular argument but not in most of of your other arguments?

Fine by me, I am only exposing your hypocrisy and phoniness.

Now, let's say 50 years from now if you are still alive and scientists discover the source of a universe and it is not God-oriented, will you then leave Islam or will you have another excuse to believe in it?

Sure. I can give you my promise because I have 100% belief that our universe is created by God.
But it sounds like you avoid answering my question and will have another and another excuses.

[Lynx]

The possibility of coincidence should not be discounted here. 1400 years ago if they thought some animals (or even all animals) could talk and it turned out some of them DO talk, we cannot conclude, unless we are logically challenged, that the originators of these thoughts actually *knew* that these animals were able to talk.

[Ramadhan]

The possibility of coincidence should not be discounted here. 1400 years ago if they thought some animals (or even all animals) could talk and it turned out some of them DO talk, we cannot conclude, unless we are logically challenged, that the originators of these thoughts actually *knew* that these animals were able to talk.

Sure, possibility of coincidence that the creator of the Qur'an picked up a winner should not be discounted, but what seem to be discounted by non-muslims is that the qur'an is not just a book about talking ants. And anyway how did the originators actually knew that ants were able to talk?

When you take all unfailing aspects of the Qur'an (I am not going to list all here, as you are quite familiar with the qur'an and you can read in other threads about all kinds of literary, numerical, scientific miracles of qur'an, its 100% preservation, its content of timeless universal guidance for mankind, its inception of verses by verses in random order over 23 years with each verse responding to uniquely different situations with no facility for editing, its self-referencing and contradictions-free, the styles of recitation, etc), then the possibility of coincidence become infinitely small if it were just an ordinary book written by one fully illiterate man in a desert of arabia 1,400 years ago.

A comparison with other books claimed to have originated from God would be good, or with any other book in history for that matter.

[Hiroshi]

"Till, when they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: 'O ants! enter Your dwellings, lest Sulaiman (prophet Solomon) and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not.' So He [Sulaiman (Solomon)] smiled, amused at her speech." (The Noble Quran; An-Naml: 18-19).

What is also miraculous is that ants know the names of the kings of Israel.

[Ramadhan]

What is also miraculous is that ants know the names of the kings of Israel.

Are you sure it is more miraculous than creation of Adam and Jesus (pbut)?

[Muhaba]

thank you for this awesome article. subhaan-Allah!. I rem,ember how an athiest used to present this verse to show that there were scientifice mistakes in the Quran. saying that ants didn't talk to each other but used smell etc to let others know of fear or attack etc.

[Ramadhan]

I rem,ember how an athiest used to present this verse to show that there were scientifice mistakes in the Quran. saying that ants didn't talk to each other but used smell etc to let others know of fear or attack etc.

That atheist must have been behind latest scientific discoveries :)
Atheists foolishly believe science as the truth, inexplicably oblivious to the fact that todays scientific truth will be proven incorrect by tomorrows science.

[جوري]

What is also miraculous is that ants know the names of the kings of Israel.

Solomon wasn't a king but a prophet!

all the best

[Dagless]

Really? I would think that attributing a vague verse about ants talking to science is utter desperation but I guess that is just my opinion.

It's not intended to be a science textbook, it just shows that it is the truth. In passing, the verse has revealed something which was not known at the time.

It seems you are missing the point. The verse in which you claim has scientific relevance also contains two scientific inaccuracies. If a neolithic age man claims in a scripture that the moon has craters caused by asteroids and the moon is made of cheese, this would be a scientific inaccuracy even though the moon does have craters and a man back then had no access to telescopes. You are merely picking and choosing what favors your cause and disregarding what does not. While ants talking to eachother is scientifically accurate, a man being able to talk to animals and ants being able to know the name of a man are scientifically inaccurate.

This makes no sense. How is the verse vague? Saying something talks seems quite accurate to me. What inaccuracies are you talking about? The moon being made of cheese is an impossibility since we have landed on the moon and know what it is made out of. Please could you tell me which part of the verse is impossible?
Talking to ants was a miracle, it doesn't say any man can talk to ants. That is the point of a miracle. It wouldn't be miraculous or out of the ordinary if everyone could do it.
The talking of ants is a normal occurrence. A Prophet talking to ants is a miracle. This is stated. Do you see the difference?

thank you for this awesome article. subhaan-Allah!. I rem,ember how an athiest used to present this verse to show that there were scientifice mistakes in the Quran. saying that ants didn't talk to each other but used smell etc to let others know of fear or attack etc.

This is exactly it. When the typical atheist is told something which seemingly contradicts science they argue it's wrong and against common sense. Then when they find the very same thing actually agrees with science they again argue it's wrong and it's obviously common sense (even though the discovery is surprising). Crazy.

Just to add; there are some relatively respectful atheists about, but I suppose this forum is a magnet for the extremists among them.

[ThePhilosopher]

You are practically claiming that anything which cannot be proven by current science must be incorrect/not true.

Now, Let's test your belief and let's go back by 10 years.
10 years ago, no scientist had any evidence that ants actually talk, they only had evidence that ants communicate through chemicals and vibrations.
So using your theory, we would say that the qur'an was scientifically inaccurate for telling that ants do talk to each other.
But a few years ago scientists had evidence for the first time that ants do actually talk to each other.
Now let's go back to current time, and which is actually more accurate, the qur'an (unchanging) or the science 10 years ago?

This test proves that your belief/theory crumble like a house of sand full of termites.

As for your analogy about a neolithic man and the cheese moon, well, that is not what the qur'an says, is it? Why don't you give us the bible instead, that would have good comparison, no? :)

Lets focus on the qur'an.
The Qur'an is for all ages, for the past, present and future. There are things in the Qur'an that cannot yet be explained by current science and technology (such as talking ants 10 years ago), but for those can be tested by current proven science and technology, they have been accurate. Like in this case of ants talking.

No, I am not claiming that anything without evidence is incorrect. I am claiming that anything without evidence has no grounds to be believed. It is a very simple concept, unless you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in unicorns? Don't tell me you don't because there is no evidence, after all anything without evidence does not have to be incorrect right!?

I claim that it was a coincidence and that the verse was actually a parable for the prophet Solomon. You and others attempting to manipulate it to fit modern science is what is laughable. What is even more baffling is that two scientific inaccuracies within it is disregarded, ahh dogmatic thinking at its best. Prove to me that humans can understand ants and that ants can comprehend the name of humans and I will admit to you that the verse is scientifically accurate.

Apparently you did not get my point with the moon. The point was that the moon being hit with asteroids and having craters is insignificant when coupled with "its made of cheese". Just like ants talking becomes insignificant when we consider a man understanding an ant and an ant somehow being able to know a humans name which are both scientific impossibilities.

I am only following your standard for material evidence for you!
Remember it was not me who asked for material evidence for the existence (or lack of) God.
Or do you want to use your standard of availability of material evidence in some of your particular argument but not in most of of your other arguments?

Fine by me, I am only exposing your hypocrisy and phoniness.

Lol. If you are not going to use the standard for yourself, then I don't see why it should apply to me. Then again, I knew rational and logical people would be limited on this forum.

Sure. I can give you my promise because I have 100% belief that our universe is created by God.
But it sounds like you avoid answering my question and will have another and another excuses.

Once you prove to me the existence of a God, then I will consider Quranic verses.
I apologize if I am not gullible enough to follow a 1400 year old ancient book because of vague scientific references. I guess I should also believe in the Egyptian Gods due to their pyramids and the Greek gods due to the antikythera mechanism. I mean all of these were things that did not belong in their time period and much more unique than your Quran.

[Ramadhan]

No, I am not claiming that anything without evidence is incorrect. I am claiming that anything without evidence has no grounds to be believed

And yet you spoke without evidence when you suggested that people 2,000 years ago knew that animals could communicate and thus Muhammad (SAW) must have known that ants could talk.
So which standard will you be using next to argue something? with evidence or without evidence?

It is a very simple concept, unless you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in unicorns? Don't tell me you don't because there is no evidence, after all anything without evidence does not have to be incorrect right!?

Whats up with atheists and unicorns and spaghetti monsters? Do you guys actually have that mental capacity of children?

I claim that it was a coincidence and that the verse was actually a parable for the prophet Solomon. You and others attempting to manipulate it to fit modern science is what is laughable

This is yet another evidence that you are definitely not ex devout, pious, knowledgeable muslim as you have claimed. Anyone from those with basic understanding of the Qur'an to the most trusted mufassir would be able to tell you that the story was actually not a parable.
Me and others attempting it to fit modern science?
Can you not read the qur'an verses themselves and see that the ants were told as talking to each other?

I see that you have no answer and became rather desperate.
Are you that atheist that WRITER met few years ago who told him that the Qur'an cannot possibly be the truth because ants do not talk?

What is even more baffling is that two scientific inaccuracies within it is disregarded, ahh dogmatic thinking at its best. Prove to me that humans can understand ants and that ants can comprehend the name of humans and I will admit to you that the verse is scientifically accurate.

As of now, humans cannot understands ants yet, and thats why it was mentioned in the Qur'an as a miracle given to the prophet Sulayman (pbuh), and as the talking ants were normal occurances. Unless you also want to dispute the split of the red sea, the creation of adam, the creation of jesus (pbut) which, by the way, especially mentioned in the qur'an as something special (miracles). As dagless wrote above:

Talking to ants was a miracle, it doesn't say any man can talk to ants. That is the point of a miracle. It wouldn't be miraculous or out of the ordinary if everyone could do it.
The talking of ants is a normal occurrence. A Prophet talking to ants is a miracle. This is stated. Do you see the difference?

Apparently you did not get my point with the moon. The point was that the moon being hit with asteroids and having craters is insignificant when coupled with "its made of cheese". Just like ants talking becomes insignificant when we consider a man understanding an ant and an ant somehow being able to know a humans name which are both scientific impossibilities.

you are full of conjectures.
You need to compare what is comparable and for real. Has there actually been a neolithic man who said that the moon is made of cheese?
Stop being so childish.

Lol. If you are not going to use the standard for yourself, then I don't see why it should apply to me. Then again, I knew rational and logical people would be limited on this forum.

I am only going by your rules. You didnt believe in God because there is no material evidence for God.
But it seems you only demand material evidence when it comes to the supernatural.

Once you prove to me the existence of a God, then I will consider Quranic verses.

This is yet another proof that you definitely were not an ex devout, pious, knowledgeable muslim as you have claimed. If you were, you would have already been consider Qur'anic verses.
Why do you feel the need to lie and hide behind a fake "ex-muslim" status? Do you think it will give you weight in your argument?
Did you not realize that you will get exposed pretty quickly in an Islamic forum?

I apologize if I am not gullible enough to follow a 1400 year old ancient book because of vague scientific references.

Huh?
Are you that dense?
who asked you to follow the Qur'an because of vague scientific references?
or is it as vague as those atheists who argue that Qur;an cannot be true because ants do not talk?

And yet you take science as your bible, oblivious to the fact that what was proven true by science in the past has been proven wrong by current science and what is true by currentr science will certainly be proven wrong by future science, as it has been in all the past history of mankind.

I guess I should also believe in the Egyptian Gods due to their pyramids and the Greek gods due to the antikythera mechanism. I mean all of these were things that did not belong in their time period and much more unique than your Quran.

Did the egyptians and the greek produce a book that were full of all kinds of literary, numerical, scientific miracles of qur'an, its 100% preservation, its content of timeless universal guidance for mankind, its inception of verses by verses in random order over 23 years with each verse responding to uniquely different situations with no facility for editing, its self-referencing and contradictions-free, the styles of recitation, etc?

If yes, let me know, and I will join you to worship the egyptianb and the greek gods.

[Perseveranze]

Why hasn't anyone addressed Leo's point? I mean, they easily come and insult him but offer no counter to his point which is a very significant one. Thousands of different species can communicate with each other. How does this prove anything at all?

Peace,

I remember reading anti-Islam articles that mocked the Quran because of the Solomon verse, don't see them laughing now. ;D

[ThePhilosopher]

And yet you spoke without evidence when you suggested that people 2,000 years ago knew that animals could communicate and thus Muhammad (SAW) must have known that ants could talk.
So which standard will you be using next to argue something? with evidence or without evidence?

Unfortunately I cannot post links due to my limited posting. It only takes a google search and some common sense to realize that people speculating that animals can communicate is not such a great feat.

Which standard will you be using? I am not subject to your will in a debate. It seems you demand evidence yet cannot provide it when questioned about your Allah.

Whats up with atheists and unicorns and spaghetti monsters? Do you guys actually have that mental capacity of children?

Whats up with Muslims and angels and jinns? Do you guys actually have the mental capacity of children? You believe in jack and the beanstalk as well?

This is yet another evidence that you are definitely not ex devout, pious, knowledgeable muslim as you have claimed. Anyone from those with basic understanding of the Qur'an to the most trusted mufassir would be able to tell you that the story was actually not a parable.
Me and others attempting it to fit modern science?
Can you not read the qur'an verses themselves and see that the ants were told as talking to each other?

I see that you have no answer and became rather desperate.
Are you that atheist that WRITER met few years ago who told him that the Qur'an cannot possibly be the truth because ants do not talk?

Again, I do not care if you believe I am an ex-Muslim or not. You seem to be caught up on that fact, ok I will make it easier for you, I am not an ex-Muslim, don't believe me. Now we can move on.

The ants also know the name of a human being. Can you not read? Are you mentally incapable to distinguish truth from falsehood? Can insects comprehend the name of an individual person? No. They cant. It is a scientific inaccuracy.

As of now, humans cannot understands ants yet, and thats why it was mentioned in the Qur'an as a miracle given to the prophet Sulayman (pbuh), and as the talking ants were normal occurances. Unless you also want to dispute the split of the red sea, the creation of adam, the creation of jesus (pbut) which, by the way, especially mentioned in the qur'an as something special (miracles). As dagless wrote above:

Oh ok. It was A MIRACLE, THAT makes it ALL BETTER. No, it doesnt. It is still a scientific inaccuracy regardless of your whining and moaning. You can't change science so that it fits your narrow mind. A human understanding insects is scientifically inaccurate and an appeal to the unknown does not make it anymore accurate or cloaking it with "oh its a miracle" does not make it any more accurate either. Yes, I do dispute ALL OF THAT. The Christians were keen enough to disregard those ridiculous anecdotes as symbolism in the face of reason but it appears that not only Islamic countries are a thousand years behind but so are its adherents with their ridiculous fantasy stories.

Huh?
Are you that dense?
who asked you to follow the Qur'an because of vague scientific references?
or is it as vague as those atheists who argue that Qur;an cannot be true because ants do not talk?

And yet you take science as your bible, oblivious to the fact that what was proven true by science in the past has been proven wrong by current science and what is true by currentr science will certainly be proven wrong by future science, as it has been in all the past history of mankind.

I don't take science as my bible considering I do not claim no absolute truths. I am not "dense" enough to claim that something is 100 percent correct when there are so many unknowns out there. Apparently, the same cannot be said for you who still indulges himself in childish stone age fantasies. Yes science advances but the Quran does not which is why the majority of its countries are still living in 7th century Arabia.

Did the egyptians and the greek produce a book that were full of all kinds of literary, numerical, scientific miracles of qur'an, its 100% preservation, its content of timeless universal guidance for mankind, its inception of verses by verses in random order over 23 years with each verse responding to uniquely different situations with no facility for editing, its self-referencing and contradictions-free, the styles of recitation, etc?

If yes, let me know, and I will join you to worship the egyptianb and the greek gods.

No, they produced a structure that is still one of the greatest wonders of the world and requires a ridiculous amount of scientific and mathematical knowledge to create, which is why there is doubt that it is the work of humans especially in such an ancient time period. This is of course more unique and spectacular than a "good book". Yes universal guidance that has caused the majority of your beloved islamic countries to degrees into the stone age where Western countries with their man made laws had to come and pressure them to abolish slavery. Oh its a poetic book with science in it....IT MUST BE FROM GOD. The majority of your people live in poverty with absolutely corrupt and regressive countries adapting stone age laws into their system, the rest of them flock to Western countries so they can have a better standard of life in this man-made system and then others resort to blowing themselves up for your "allah". Oh truly magnificent, clap clap clap, praise be to Allah and the wonderful things he has done for you Muslims.

[Hiroshi]

Solomon wasn't a king but a prophet!

all the best

Shall I bother replying?

Surah 38:35
“He said: My Lord! Forgive me and bestow upon me sovereignty such as shall not belong to any after me.” (Pickthall)
“He said, “My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me.”” (Saheeh International)
“He said, “O my Lord! forgive me, and grant me a Kingdom which, will not belong to another after me:” (Yusuf Ali)

It would be strange if Solomon was granted a kingdom but was not himself a king.

[SalamChristian]

That atheist must have been behind latest scientific discoveries :)
Atheists foolishly believe science as the truth, inexplicably oblivious to the fact that todays scientific truth will be proven incorrect by tomorrows science.

Hahaha, brilliant point brother!

Salaam

[Lynx]

Sure, possibility of coincidence that the creator of the Qur'an picked up a winner should not be discounted, but what seem to be discounted by non-muslims is that the qur'an is not just a book about talking ants. And anyway how did the originators actually knew that ants were able to talk?

My point is that the originator did not actually *know* that ants could talk. Old stories are full of talking animals; if it turns out that some of those animals do possess the ability to talk, are you going to conclude each of those authors had miraculous knowledge? And yes, I am comparing the story to something you see in a fairytale because, as others in this thread have mentioned, ants would not converse about people's names as this is a complicated thought process that an ant surely does not possess. Ants don't talk like humans but the Quran seems to think they do. I hope the point is clear.

When you take all unfailing aspects of the Qur'an (I am not going to list all here, as you are quite familiar with the qur'an and you can read in other threads about all kinds of literary, numerical, scientific miracles of qur'an, its 100% preservation, its content of timeless universal guidance for mankind, its inception of verses by verses in random order over 23 years with each verse responding to uniquely different situations with no facility for editing, its self-referencing and contradictions-free, the styles of recitation, etc), then the possibility of coincidence become infinitely small if it were just an ordinary book written by one fully illiterate man in a desert of arabia 1,400 years ago.

A comparison with other books claimed to have originated from God would be good, or with any other book in history for that matter.

That's an interesting perspective. To me, the Quran does not possess any sort of 'timeless' guidance; I think man made theories offer better political & and moral guidance. I don't know if it is 100% preserved, but if it is, then good for the Arabs; their ability to preserve oral tradition should be commended. The Quran might not have any contradictions (though some people certainly disagree) but neither does Harry Potter. So to me, the possibility that the Quran coincidentally got that right is much higher than the possibility that it was a miracle.

[SalamChristian]

Peace Lynx,

I think man made theories offer better political & and moral guidance

which ones? I have considered this question thoroughly, and I am open to hearing new information.

The important point for me is that Jesus taught that you must forgive others of their sins/debts/shortcomings in order for your own sins/debts/shortcomings to be forgiven, and that, if you do this, you will have eternal life. As well, the point about submitting yourself completely to God is important to me--that is another way of saying let your ego go and accept the truth as it is shown to you. I don't know of anyone in the history of mankind who said this before Jesus. And, as far as moral advice goes, this has been pure gold in helping me make good, mature decisions.

Peace

[SalamChristian]

I don't know of anyone in the history of mankind who said this before Jesus.

anyone who said all of these things, that is. But piecemeal they are important too, specifically the forgiveness of hamartia for hamartia to be forgiven part.

[Lynx]

Peace Lynx,



which ones? I have considered this question thoroughly, and I am open to hearing new information.

The important point for me is that Jesus taught that you must forgive others of their sins/debts/shortcomings in order for your own sins/debts/shortcomings to be forgiven, and that, if you do this, you will have eternal life. As well, the point about submitting yourself completely to God is important to me--that is another way of saying let your ego go and accept the truth as it is shown to you. I don't know of anyone in the history of mankind who said this before Jesus. And, as far as moral advice goes, this has been pure gold in helping me make good, mature decisions.

Peace

Hi, this is an off-topic discussion. If you'd like you can start a new thread and I will answer your questions there.

[CosmicPathos]

Oh ok. It was A MIRACLE, THAT makes it ALL BETTER. No, it doesnt. It is still a scientific inaccuracy regardless of your whining and moaning. You can't change science so that it fits your narrow mind. A human understanding insects is scientifically inaccurate and an appeal to the unknown does not make it anymore accurate or cloaking it with "oh its a miracle" does not make it any more accurate either. Yes, I do dispute ALL OF THAT. The Christians were keen enough to disregard those ridiculous anecdotes as symbolism in the face of reason but it appears that not only Islamic countries are a thousand years behind but so are its adherents with their ridiculous fantasy stories.

yea yea muslims are thousand years behind. and you are?

[Ramadhan]

Unfortunately I cannot post links due to my limited posting. It only takes a google search and some common sense to realize that people speculating that animals can communicate is not such a great feat.

If it were not such a great feat, then why were atheists, not 2,000 years ago but just a few years back, gloating that Qur'an was totally incorrect for mentioning that ants talk?

Whats up with Muslims and angels and jinns? Do you guys actually have the mental capacity of children? You believe in jack and the beanstalk as well?

We have material evidenc that the creator exist because the creation exist.
Did jack and the beanstalk ever claim that they exist?
This kind of childish comparisons is what made discussions with atheist not worthwhile.

Again, I do not care if you believe I am an ex-Muslim or not. You seem to be caught up on that fact, ok I will make it easier for you, I am not an ex-Muslim, don't believe me. Now we can move on.

Then why did you have to lie in the first place?
Did your belief compel you to do that?

I don't take science as my bible considering I do not claim no absolute truths.

Despite your plea, you do take science as your bible, proven by everything that have written in this thread so far.
Your yardstick has been: if it cannot be proven by current science, then it is false.
And I have shown the ridiculousness of your stance by giving an example of atheists who few years back convinced that ants do not talk.

[Ramadhan]

My point is that the originator did not actually *know* that ants could talk. Old stories are full of talking animals; if it turns out that some of those animals do possess the ability to talk, are you going to conclude each of those authors had miraculous knowledge?

I understood your point in the first place, and in fact I agreed with you that, at a glance, possibility of coincidence cannot be discounted. That is, until we take all aspects of the qur'an into account.
Do you also not agree, that picking ants as being able to talk was a very bold move, considering there were a whole thousands of other animals at that time which were proven to actually emit sounds and observed as having communicated with each other (dogs, cats, wolves, camels, goats, crows, etc). So why not talking camels for example? Why picking ants who, no one knew for sure until a few years could actually talk
Remember, from the very first inception,unlike any other books ever in the history of mankind, the Qur'an was already claimed by prophet Muhammad SAW to have originated from God and hence consciously, there could not have been error made.

And yes, I am comparing the story to something you see in a fairytale because, as others in this thread have mentioned, ants would not converse about people's names as this is a complicated thought process that an ant surely does not possess. Ants don't talk like humans but the Quran seems to think they do. I hope the point is clear.

I admit that this another part of the Qur'an that I will have to just accept. Just like many parts of the Quran where Allah has told stories of miraculous events.
But for other facts in the Qur'an that science more and more have shown to be true, they only deepen and strengthen my belief.

That's an interesting perspective. To me, the Quran does not possess any sort of 'timeless' guidance; I think man made theories offer better political & and moral guidance. I don't know if it is 100% preserved, but if it is, then good for the Arabs; their ability to preserve oral tradition should be commended.

Just because you do not like a system does not mean that system is not timeless, but let's explore some facts so we can be more objective:
Tell me if there is another (single) person in the whole history of mankind apart from prophet Muhammad SAW that has created a complete guidance of political, economics, finance, personal and public/communal health, spirituality, military and war, statehood, community relations, marriage and family affairs, personal issues from birth to death, etc that are applicable in all time in all region and for all people?
There are millions people now in the world, ranging from a software engineer in London to a subsistence farmer in Indonesia, who are completely following Qur'an and sunnah, this more than 1,400 years after Islam inception. Remember that Qur'an and sunnah completely originated, proven as far as you and I know, from one single illiterate man in a desert in arabia in 600s.
Now, let me know if there's a comparable system.

. The Quran might not have any contradictions (though some people certainly disagree) but neither does Harry Potter. So to me, the possibility that the Quran coincidentally got that right is much higher than the possibility that it was a miracle.

It is clear that you have not read Harry Potter books, for if you have, you would have definitely known that there hundreds loopholes, contradictions, inconsistencies and errors inside EVERY book, let alone the flow between stories/books.
I am quite embarrassed to admit that I have read all HP books, at least twice for each book, so I know what I'm talking about.

[Lynx]

I understood your point in the first place, and in fact I agreed with you that, at a glance, possibility of coincidence cannot be discounted. That is, until we take all aspects of the qur'an into account.
Do you also not agree, that picking ants as being able to talk was a very bold move, considering there were a whole thousands of other animals at that time which were proven to actually emit sounds and observed as having communicated with each other (dogs, cats, wolves, camels, goats, crows, etc). So why not talking camels for example? Why picking ants who, no one knew for sure until a few years could actually talk
Remember, from the very first inception,unlike any other books ever in the history of mankind, the Qur'an was already claimed by prophet Muhammad SAW to have originated from God and hence consciously, there could not have been error made.



I admit that this another part of the Qur'an that I will have to just accept. Just like many parts of the Quran where Allah has told stories of miraculous events.
But for other facts in the Qur'an that science more and more have shown to be true, they only deepen and strengthen my belief.

I don't know about any scientific miracles. All the 'miracles' I ever read about were either discovered earlier than the Quran or are vague. Moreover, there are verses that aren't doing too well against scientific scrutiny such as the whole Adam and Eve story. In this particular verse, the author thought that ants were rational creatures because he was not aware of how the brain works. I mean I am putting my money on this explanation; if it was truly a miracle, this inaccuracy wouldn't be here for the non-believers to exploit. I'd expect from a lucky guess/fluke that a mistake would accompany it.

Just because you do not like a system does not mean that system is not timeless, but let's explore some facts so we can be more objective:
Tell me if there is another (single) person in the whole history of mankind apart from prophet Muhammad SAW that has created a complete guidance of political, economics, finance, personal and public/communal health, spirituality, military and war, statehood, community relations, marriage and family affairs, personal issues from birth to death, etc that are applicable in all time in all region and for all people?
There are millions people now in the world, ranging from a software engineer in London to a subsistence farmer in Indonesia, who are completely following Qur'an and sunnah, this more than 1,400 years after Islam inception. Remember that Qur'an and sunnah completely originated, proven as far as you and I know, from one single illiterate man in a desert in arabia in 600s.
Now, let me know if there's a comparable system.

Well I am not sure what we mean by timeless to be honest. We could theoretically turn all countries in Shariah based countries at any point. We could also apply Hammurabi's code at any point. When I say timeless I guess I mean something that, in the course of time, is better than other things or stands on par with other things. Shariah, IMO, has a lot going for it but I think it lacks in women's rights; it doesn't really offer much detail in economic theory; the secular system is better than it when it comes to plurastic societies; its marriage laws are odd, and possibly inconsistent; its murder laws are a derivative of tribal customs which is unnecessary and leads to problems; there are philosophical and theological problems in Islam, etc... The guy before you kind of asked a similar question and I told him, as I am telling you that if you want a detailed discussion you might want to start a different thread.

It's my humble opinion that if any of the current organized religions were 'true' it would mean our understanding of 'logic' has been in SERIOUS error ever since Aristotle uttered his first syllogism. But the point is while you think the miracle in the ants verse is consistent with the great quality of the Quran, I think we should look twice before claiming any verse from any religious scripture is miraculous for the very reason that there are so many other problems in these religions that I highly doubt such a miracle could be produced.

It is clear that you have not read Harry Potter books, for if you have, you would have definitely known that there hundreds loopholes, contradictions, inconsistencies and errors inside EVERY book, let alone the flow between stories/books.
I am quite embarrassed to admit that I have read all HP books, at least twice for each book, so I know what I'm talking about.

edit: i was going to ask you to list a contradiction for every book I listed but I won't pester you with an impossible task. Obviously you haven't read every single book out there and I could probably name a handful of books that are contradiction or 'error' (whatever that means) free that you will never read. Your claim is meaningless as you have no evidence for it, but ^above are 'errors' or 'inadequacies' that i find in Quran/sunnah

[- Qatada -]

Anyone noticed how lynx keeps saying "I don't know" , "IMO" [In my Opinion], "It's my humble opinion", reccurringly?


This shows her lack of knowledge and understanding on the issues she attempts to point out, and then expects people to accept such statements as fact.

Not really intellectual is it?

[جوري]

Anyone noticed how lynx keeps saying "I don't know" , "IMO" [In my Opinion], "It's my humble opinion", reccurringly? This shows her lack of knowledge and understanding on the issues she attempts to point out, and then expects people to accept such statements as fact. Not really intellectual is it?

I have pointed that out on various posts.. the fellow hastily googles anything that contradicts anything that is written just to hold a polar view whether the principal itself is right or wrong it really doesn't matter... and in the process on several occasions, he has proven the exact opposite of what he wanted because shamefully he doesn't even bother read in totality the articles he wants to present as contradictory evidence .. he is a pseudo intellect and very representative of the arrogant & highly under educated society he lives in!

:w:

[Dagless]

Just because you do not like a system does not mean that system is not timeless, but let's explore some facts so we can be more objective:
Tell me if there is another (single) person in the whole history of mankind apart from prophet Muhammad SAW that has created a complete guidance of political, economics, finance, personal and public/communal health, spirituality, military and war, statehood, community relations, marriage and family affairs, personal issues from birth to death, etc that are applicable in all time in all region and for all people?
There are millions people now in the world, ranging from a software engineer in London to a subsistence farmer in Indonesia, who are completely following Qur'an and sunnah, this more than 1,400 years after Islam inception. Remember that Qur'an and sunnah completely originated, proven as far as you and I know, from one single illiterate man in a desert in arabia in 600s.
Now, let me know if there's a comparable system.

This really puts things into perspective. I've never seen a system which is comparable in even ONE of the fields you've mentioned.

[Perseveranze]

yea yea muslims are thousand years behind. and you are? you leech, how many scientific papers you have published? you are a burden on mother earth, kill yourself.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Calm down brother...

People like this come all the time, you know this.

[Lynx]

Anyone noticed how lynx keeps saying "I don't know" , "IMO" [In my Opinion], "It's my humble opinion", reccurringly?


This shows her lack of knowledge and understanding on the issues she attempts to point out, and then expects people to accept such statements as fact.

Not really intellectual is it?

Please don't derail threads. If you want to start a thread dedicated to me then I will reply there. The OP has been squashed anyway.

[SalamChristian]

If you want to start a thread dedicated to me then I will reply there. The OP has been squashed anyway.

This sounds to me like Charlie Sheen. Lynx, are you Charlie Sheen in real life?

[Dagless]

Please don't derail threads. If you want to start a thread dedicated to me then I will reply there. The OP has been squashed anyway.

Yes, every point clearly and concisely answered means the OP has been squashed :| Is that your logic? Given most of your posts in this forum it doesn't surprise me.

I don't know, IMO it seems odd that every point has been addressed with sound answers and still the atheists rant. In my humble opinion if they don't agree that's fine, but when they ignore facts time and time again they only show themselves to be 'squashed'. They give regular atheists a bad name.



<insert random philosophical quote here>

[Lynx]

Well it looks like the points raised by me and others were left with no reply. At least naidamar conceded that the scientific inaccuracy of the verse had no explanation and his argument that we should expect this verse to be miraculously because the rest of the Quran is miraculous is unfounded and a little question-begging. It doesn't seem like anyone else here said anything different, but you guys can live in your own world if you'd like. It's just a little creepy how this thread transformed from a discussion about scientific miracles in the Quran to a 'share your opinions on Lynx'. Of course, ad hominems are a last resort eh Qatada? ;)

Weirdos.

[Ramadhan]

We could also apply Hammurabi's code at any point

Except that no one in the world is applying and following whole of Hammurabi code.
and except that Hammrubai code does not even touch the many areas in human and society life that Qur'an and Sunnah do, not to mention the many intangible qualities that Qur'an and sunnah have.

So where's a comparison to qur'an?

[Woodrow]

this train is so far off the tracks it will take a rail road crew months to rebuild the track.

I do not belong to the Railroad union so I can not rebuild it:

:threadclo: