PDA

View Full Version : Congratulating An Atheist



MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 10:20 AM
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
(by Dr. Zakir Naik)



Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.

My Muslim brothers may question me, "Zakir, why are you congratulating an atheist?" The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, 'La ilaaha' - meaning 'there is no God'. So half my job is already done; now the only part left is 'il lallah' i.e. 'BUT ALLAH' which I shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have and then put the correct concept of one true God.


LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD


My first question to the atheist will be: "What is the definition of God?" For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that 'this is a pen', for the opposite person to say, 'it is not a pen', he should know what is the definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an atheist to say 'there is no God', he should at least know the concept of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got human qualities - therefore he does not believe in such a god. Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false gods.

If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam, but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.

Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha Allah not refuse.

(You may refer to my article, 'Concept of God in Islam', for more details)


QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE


The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material provided in the 'Concept of God in Islam' to an atheist may satisfy some but not all.

Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur'an is a revelation of God.

If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a question is asked, " Who is the first person who will be able to provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little bit of thinking, he will reply, 'the creator of that object.' Some may say the producer while others may say 'the manufacturer.' What ever answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don't grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be same, therefore accept it.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR'AN: for details on this subject please refer to my book, 'THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE?'


THEORY OF PROBABILITY


In mathematics there is a theory known as 'Theory of Probability'. If you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50% (1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half. But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50% which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8 or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.

A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36. If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is less than 0.5 %.

Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur'an, and assume that a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the Qur'an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.

At the time when the Qur'an was revealed, people thought the world was flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30 different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur'an rightly says it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being correct is 1/30.

The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The Qur'an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.

Further, the Qur'an also mentions every living thing is made of water. Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper, aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water, cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur'an rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess, the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is 1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.



The Qur'an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a logical person that the origin of the Qur'an is Divine.


CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR'AN


The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the 'CREATOR', the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In the English language He is 'God', or more appropriate in the Arabic language, 'ALLAH'.


QUR'AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE


Let me remind you that the Qur'an is not a book of Science, 'S-C-I-E-N-C-E' but a book of Signs 'S-I-G-N-S' i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur'an contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. 'signs', out of which more than a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur'an is the Furqan i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick which is more superior to scientific knowledge.

But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a times takes 'U' turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur'an is the word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur'an was revealed 1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible with it.


SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD


Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a small 'g' that is fake god) but God (with a capital 'G').

Surah Fussilat:

"Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"

[Al-Quran 41:53]
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
lolwatever
06-29-2006, 10:24 AM
lol someone showed that to me a while ago... the 2nd paragraph is funny sis ;D
jazaks
salams
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 10:29 AM
:salamext:

What more proof can a person possibly want! JazakAllah khair ukht.

this is goin in my little book :D

:wasalamex
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 10:31 AM
^^JazakAllah khayr. I'm honoured.
w'salaam
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
root
06-29-2006, 11:04 AM
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him.
The question that goes begging here is what religion was HIS father. Is this also a case of "Dr Zakir Naik" is a muslim because his father was a muslim" by his own admittance.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally Posted by root
The question that goes begging here is what religion was HIS father. Is this also a case of "Dr Zakir Naik" is a muslim because his father was a muslim" by his own admittance.
yes his father was a muslim but zakir naik truelly believes, proven by his striving towards his religion. The man only sleeps three hours a day to help our religion develop. He believes wiv his own intellect and his own choice, not thru the way of his forefathers.

:peace:
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 11:08 AM
Zakir naik - Top guy!

Good post!

Jazakallah!
Reply

j4763
06-29-2006, 11:11 AM
Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
yes his father was a muslim but zakir naik truelly believes, proven by his striving towards his religion. The man only sleeps three hours a day to help our religion develop. He believes wiv his own intellect and his own choice, not thru the way of his forefathers.

:peace:
And if he was born of a different faith do you really think he'd still become a muslim. Say he was born a christain (with a christian father) i bet he'd be doing all he can to prove the bible is gods one religion :rollseyes
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally Posted by j4763
And if he was born of a different faith do you really think he'd still become a muslim. Say he was born a christain (with a christian father) i bet he'd be doing all he can to prove the bible is gods one religion :rollseyes
"What if's" again i see.
Well if you wanna think that i dont think i can prevent you.
My belief: Zakir Naik is one of those who has searched for the truth sincerely, if you want proof i'll giv it to you.

His parents followed a school of teaching but he does not! He only takes the quran and sunnah! This shows that Zakir Naik follows NOTHING but wat he believes to be right.

:peace:
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 11:14 AM
Agreed ^^ :thumbs_up
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 11:26 AM
Is that meant to be a compliment or a sarcastic comment?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by Abd'Majid
yes his father was a muslim but zakir naik truelly believes, proven by his striving towards his religion. The man only sleeps three hours a day to help our religion develop. He believes wiv his own intellect and his own choice, not thru the way of his forefathers.

:peace:
SubhanAllah. May Allah reward him.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 11:29 AM
Ameen thumma Ameen!
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 11:40 AM
Because they thought the Earth was flat then. No?
Reply

IceQueen~
06-29-2006, 11:43 AM
shaykh ibn taymiyyah also thought the earth was round...
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 11:45 AM
what does he prove by this that Quran says that Earth is spherical...
:sl:

Erm.....only that the earth IS SPHERECAL?!?!

Ur argument is flawed! Cnt u see the detail provided in the Qur'an?! And who are you to accuse Dr.Zakir Naik of suh a thing when u urself do not understand the Qur'an!

1 has to read the Qur'an in context and detail and then - only then - can they understand it completely!

:w:
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 11:52 AM
Explain this:
أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [021.030]
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 11:57 AM
Subhanallah!
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 12:07 PM
Explain my verse please.
Reply

IceQueen~
06-29-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
Explain my verse please.
exactly-don't ignore her post MISTER!
Reply

abdmez
06-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 12:28 PM
He was illiterate actually. So that debunks your claim of Plagiarism.
Reply

IceQueen~
06-29-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
He was illiterate actually. So that debunks your claim of Plagiarism.
ZIGZACTLY!!!!!
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
Still he missed some parts

we are not 100% water
You musthave misread that verse. It says everything was created from water. That doesn't mean we are 100% water.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 12:47 PM
Pardon? Who?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
all this was known and documented in vedas 2000 years before muhammed told it to arabs....
good ...so not a new fact..

maybe the arabs did not know this...

also

even Greeks knew the world is spherical...Aristotle speculated..

one greek guy even measured its size through calculations..

<<<Measurement of Earth's circumference, by Eratosthenes of Cyrene in 3rd Century BC, a major accomplishment of Ancient Greek science.

Heard that, in Syene, Sun shone to bottom of wells at noon on Summer Solstice. Thus, directly overhead.
Not true at Alexandria, 5000 stadia (~800 km ~ 500 miles) north of Syene.
Angle of Sun 7.5 degrees, measured from shadow of vertical pole.
7.5 degrees = 7.5/360 of a circle.
5000 stadia must be 7.5/360 of Earth's circumference.
Inferred circumference: 39,300 km, very close to modern value of 40,000 km.
>>>

so what is new about it ??

maybe God spoke to them too :-)
did you even read that article by dr.zakir naik.
u keep sayin his histori blah is so impressive in a mocking manner, i ask you, is that the ONLY flaw you can find? In that article zakir naik has given AT LEAST FIVE SOLID PROOFS! You only picked on one and denied it. Im sry but i call that arrogant...

:peace:
Reply

Joe98
06-29-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
It says everything was created from water.

Why can't your god make plants from water? Why can't he make plants from nothing?

Or, why can't he make plants from sand for example.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
Why can't your god make plants from water? Why can't he make plants from nothing?

Or, why can't he make plants from sand for example.
he can, but he didnt! He has made everything the way it befits his majesty!

What you want is for me to go to heaven and get a signed document from Allah swt that islam is the truth and then u wud probably even ask to see the angels as further proof wiv the document, oh no wait, mayb even then u wont believe....

i dont understand, so many clear signs. Allah guides whom he wills.

:peace:
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by Joe98
Why can't your god make plants from water? Why can't he make plants from nothing?

Or, why can't he make plants from sand for example.
That is possibly the silliest thing I have ever heard. That's like me saying to a hindu, if Ganesh is real, why can't he make me from pudding?
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 12:57 PM
Or thats like saying if God is all powerful why don't we just say

"Chocolate milkshake and fries please" and it appears in front of us?!

Wt the hell??!!
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
hehehe

last one was funny

anyways

Dr. naik, well i just debunked his one solid proff..

one out of 5..

so do u mean that if a person tells u 5 things with great conviction....and one is a utter crap..

would you believe the guy ??

i leve it to ur sensibilities..


let me reply on other 4 points...oh...solid proofs..
lets not forget our manners :), there are a lot of people here who respect dr zakir naik greatly, consideration is somethin we should all possess!

You have debunked nothing. What have you debunked?
i wasnt around so give me your proof. Show me your proof!

:peace:
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 01:02 PM
Ok erm what exactly r u guys argiung for/against.............am kinda LOST!!!!!!!! :rollseyes
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 01:04 PM
Against Islam, and Dr. Naik.
Well come on truthseeker666 (starnge number to choose...), we're waiting.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 01:06 PM
truth seeker, Allah has sent revelation down through the ages, messengers to every people. But muhammad saws was the LAST AND FINAL messenger. Therefore the revelations have stopped. All the hindu scriptures which show truth COULD BE revelations of previous times, ALlahu Allam!

As for the greeks, they only discovered one thing which wasnt established till recently. What about aaalll the other hundreds of signs which have recently been proven through the quran? Such as the forming of the feotus, moon reflecting light, 7 atmospheres above the sky? SO MANY!

:peace:
Reply

I R Paki
06-29-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
never meant as a compliment

the whole logic used is flawed

what does he prove by this that Quran says that Earth is spherical...

??
He means how could people have known that the earth is spherical 1400+ years ago which about 800 AD, and in the 15th century, people thought the world was a square and you could fall of the edges, if you read more precisely you'll understand that the whole logic is not flawed but correct.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-29-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
i can't show u my proof

read the posts above

Mr Naik mentioned 3 points which he says Quran told 3 GREAT truths NOT known at that time...i say he is fibbing....no wonder Quran got it right...but his claim that they are REVELATIONS in Quran is INCORRECT...that is what i have debunked as his claim...:

1) earth is spherical - well known and documented facts in Greek philosophers writings. actually they did not just say its spherical...one guy actually measured the size..i have quoted that before

2) moon reflects sun's light..

- aristotle knew...almost all greek and romans knew..that moon revolves around earth..and it has no light...they explained the phenomenon of earth coming in between sun and moon and hence the lunar eclipses....this is a documented fact....around 1000 years before Muhammed

3) We are made of water - well we are made of more than just water..water content is around 78-80%

rest is minerals, salts, composition of earth..carbon...

this was documented in Japanese texts around 2000 years back... and in hindu vedic texts even before that..

so a KNOWN truth..

nothing new..

hence

the STAND of Mr. Naik stands DEBUNKED
so your saying the world had accepted that the Earth is Spherical and not flat 1400 years ago?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
i can't show u my proof

read the posts above

Mr Naik mentioned 3 points which he says Quran told 3 GREAT truths NOT known at that time...i say he is fibbing....no wonder Quran got it right...but his claim that they are REVELATIONS in Quran is INCORRECT...that is what i have debunked as his claim...:

1) earth is spherical - well known and documented facts in Greek philosophers writings. actually they did not just say its spherical...one guy actually measured the size..i have quoted that before

2) moon reflects sun's light..

- aristotle knew...almost all greek and romans knew..that moon revolves around earth..and it has no light...they explained the phenomenon of earth coming in between sun and moon and hence the lunar eclipses....this is a documented fact....around 1000 years before Muhammed

3) We are made of water - well we are made of more than just water..water content is around 78-80%

rest is minerals, salts, composition of earth..carbon...

this was documented in Japanese texts around 2000 years back... and in hindu vedic texts even before that..

so a KNOWN truth..

nothing new..

hence

the STAND of Mr. Naik stands DEBUNKED
Are you even looking at the ayah that I qouted? We created everything from water.
It is not saying that our body is made of 100% water.
What the ayah is saying and what you are claiming is completely different.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
oh

and the fact that earth is flat staterd with Bible and destruction of greek civilization by barbarians...

so sad..such precious knowledge had to wait for so long to be shared with wild people
Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Reply

I R Paki
06-29-2006, 01:28 PM
truthseeker you seem to know all this knowledge yet cannot explain it, in a way I can understand it. To understand your points and make a counter-argument I'd appreciate if you could type in decent english. Thanks.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
that is what i am saying

why did muhammed stop at only water ?

if it was so true

why not mention the composition...like in ayurveda and atharva veda it mentions that 3/4 of body is water
1/8 is air and gases
rest is searth consumed and bound by heat.
You don't understand me do you? Let me qoute the ayah again.
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [021.030]

Ok, for the first part:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?

What do you think this means?

Here's one theory:


The Big Bang

By Zaghlool El-Naggar, Ph.D.
24/10/2002




Scientists are now certain that the universe came to being by a big bang

In the Holy Quran we read:

"أولم ير الذين كفروا أن السماوات والأرض كانتا رتقا ففتقناهما.." a (الأنبياء:30)

"Haven't the unbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were joined together (in one singularity), then we clove both of them asunder.” (21:30)

This verse reflects the unity of creation as a dominating factor in the orderly form of the universe throughout its evolutionary history from one stage to another.

However, long before discovering the established phenomenon of the red shift, and its logical consequence of describing our universe as an expanding one, scientists used Einstein's theory of general relativity to extrapolate back in time and came to the striking conclusion that the universe had actually emerged from a single, unbelievably small, dense, hot region (the Hot Big Bang Model of the universe).

Formation of the Universe

George Gamow formally proposed the model in 1948, after a lengthy discussion on other models of the universe by a number of scientists (e.g. Albert Einstein, 1917; William de Sitter, 1917; Alexander Friedmann, 1922; George Lemaiyre, 1927, etc.). Lemaitre is credited for introducing the idea of the "primeval atom", where galaxies originated as fragments ejected by the explosion of this atom.

In 1948, George Gamow modified Lemaitre's hypothesis into the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe. In this theory, Gamow proposed that the universe was created in a gigantic explosion, whereby the various elements observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the Big Bang, as the extremely high temperature and density of the universe would fuse subatomic particles into the chemical elements.





More recent calculations indicate that hydrogen and helium were the primary products of the Big Bang, with heavier elements being produced later within stars. The extremely high density within the "primeval atom" would cause the universe to expand rapidly. As it expanded, the smoky cloud of hydrogen and helium thus formed would cool and condense into nebulae stars, galaxies, clusters, super clusters, black holes, etc.

This explains the original singularity of the universe; its explosion to a huge cloud of smoke from which the different heavenly bodies were formed by separation into eddies of various masses followed by condensation. The condensed bodies were arranged into stellar systems, clusters, galaxies, supergalaxies, etc., and the formed galaxies started to drift away from each other, causing the steady expansion of the universe.

The Glorious Quran describes these three successive stages in the verses (21: 30), (41: 11) and (21: 104). The first and the third of these verses are discussed above, while the second reads:

"ثم استوى إلى السماء وهي دخان فقال لها وللأرض إئتيا طوعًا أو كرهًا قالتا أتينا طائعين"a (فصلت)

"Then He (Allah) turned to the sky while it was smoke, and ordered it the earth to come into being willingly or unwillingly, they answered: we do come in willing obedience*" (41: 11)

Big Bang Evidence

As the universe expanded, the residual radiation (radiant heat) from the big bang continued to spread outwardly and to cool down gradually until about the 3K (= - 270°C) of today. This relic radiation was detected by radio astronomy in 1964, thus providing direct material evidence for "The Big Bang Model".

Further evidence in support of this model is provided by the chemical composition of the observed universe. This amounts to about 74% hydrogen and 24 % helium (by mass), with only traces of other elements that in total amount to about 2%. All the recorded hydrogen in the observed universe and almost all the recorded helium are primordial, although some helium is currently produced by nuclear fusion of hydrogen in the sun as well as in other stars. Nevertheless, the total mass of hydrogen produced by the process of nuclear fusion within all the stars since the beginning of creation amounts to only a small percent.

It is calculated that when the universe was 3 minutes old, its temperature must have been 109 °C (cf. Ohanian, 1985, p. D-6). At such a high temperature, hydrogen was subject to nuclear fusion, leading to the formation of helium. Theoretical calculations show that the fusion reactions led to an abundance of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, which is a remarkable agreement with the observed abundance. This further confirms the Hot Big Bang model for the creation of the universe. The Hot Big Bang model has steadily and successfully battled other explanations for the origin of the universe, and the model has been gradually refined with time.

Hot to Cold





The "Hot Big Bang Model" for the origin of the universe envisages a beginning from an extremely small, hot, dense initial state some 10-15 billion years ago. This initial, minute body exploded and started to expand, forming the still expanding, vast, cold universe of today. The model predicts the formation of nuclei, the relative abundance of certain elements, and the existence and exact temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (or the glow of radiation left over from the initial explosion, which is currently permeating the universe).

The prediction of the cosmic background radiation made by Ralph A. Alpher of Union College and Robert Herman of the University of Texas at Austin was confirmed by Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson of Bell Laboratories in 1964.

Despite its success, the Hot Big Bang Model leaves many features of the universe unexplained. For example, the universe today includes a vast number of regions that could never have been in causal contact at any stage in their entire history. These regions are moving away from one another at such a rate that any information, even traveling at the speed of light, could not cover the distance between them. This "horizon problem" makes it difficult to account for the striking uniformity of the cosmic background radiation (cf. J.J. Halliwell, 1991, p. 76). Other unexplained features in the Hot Big Bang Model include the "flatness problem", the origin of large scale structures such as galaxies, galactic clusters and super clusters, etc.

The Inflationary Universe

In 1980, Alan H. Guth of M.I.T. suggested a further refinement of the Big Bang model that he called "the inflationary universe scenario". In this scenario, the universe is believed to have started with a very brief, but exceedingly rapid period of expansion (for about 10-30 second), in which matter consisted of scalar-field particles (white in the Hot Big Bang model, the matter content of the universe is presumed to have been a uniformly distributed plasma or dust).

As mentioned by J.J. Halliwell (1991), the origin of the universe in the inflationary scenario can be explained as follows: by following the expansion of the universe backward in time, the size of this vast, complex universe tends towards zero. Here the strength of the gravitational field and the energy density of matter tend towards infinity. This means that the universe appears to have emerged from a singularity; a region of infinite curvature and energy density at which the known laws of physics break down. These conditions are a consequence of the famous " singularity theorems", proved in 1960 by Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford. These theorems showed that under reasonable assumptions any model of the expanding universe extrapolated backward in time will encounter an initial singularity.

The singularity theorems do not imply, however, that a singularity will physically occur. Rather, the theory predicting them - classical general relativity - breaks down at very high curvatures and must be superseded by the quantum theory. Near a singularity, space - time becomes highly curved; its volume shrinks to very small dimensions, and here only the quantum theory can be applied.

Quantum cosmologists began a few decades ago (since the 1960s) to address the problems of the origin and evolution of the universe in a more subtle way than that proposed by classical astronomy.

Quantum cosmology attempts to describe a system - fundamentally - in terms of its wave function. Yet many conceptual and technical difficulties arise. At the singularity, space becomes infinitely small, and the energy density infinitely great. To look beyond such a moment requires a complete, manageable quantum theory of gravity, which is currently lacking.

Whether to accept the Hot Big Bang model of the universe, or its modified inflationary scenario explanations on the basis of conventional or quantum astronomy, the established fact is that our universe emerged from a single, infinitesimally small, dense, hot source. To agree or differ on the events that unfolded since that moment, including the formation of matter, followed by its coalescence into galaxies, stars, planets and chemical systems, does not change the fact of the one singularity from which our universe was created.

The Quranic precedence with this fact at a time when nobody had the slightest knowledge of it, or even for several centuries after the revelation was received, is indeed most striking. The objective notion to this Quranic verse in the right context of a science course can indeed be spirit lifting and enlightening for the younger Muslim generations of students and faculty.

Dr. Zaghlool El-Naggar is a Fellow of the Islamic Academy of Sciences. Member of the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of Egypt and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Fellow of the Institute of Petroleum, London. Prof. Naggar is the author/co-author of many books and more than 40 research papers in the field of Islamic Thought, Geology, General Science and Education. He was awarded by the Ministry of Education in Egypt the top “Secondary Education Award” as well as the seventh Arab Petroleum Congress Best Papers Award in 1970. Elected a member of the IAS Council (1994 and 1999), Prof. Naggar is currently working at the Arab Development Institute.

Read Also:



http://www.islamonline.net/English/S...rticle11.shtml



Now the second part:
We made from water every living thing water. Will they not then believe?
Hmmm..... by reading that, I do not see the conclusion that you have come to. To me that says that every living thing was created from water. It isn't necessarily pointing to all the contents of the human body, just what it was created from.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-29-2006, 03:18 PM
Refute what he says if it is so laughable.
Reply

Fishman
06-29-2006, 03:50 PM
:sl:
All of the people Truthseeker has talked about lived in the highly advanced civilisations of the ancient world. Muhammad lived in a Desert in the dark ages, when large amounts of this knowledge was lost.

And how was Muhammad supposed to get access to Japanese or Hindu texts anyway?
:w:
Reply

Fishman
06-29-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
so...??

point is

mr. Naik thumps Quran and calls it the only true Word of God


so i say.... " what abt others?"

that is all

peace
:sl:
My point is that an illiterate Arab living in the dark ages could not have known these things, proving that the Quran is the Word of Allah.

Who claims that he was not illiterate? His enemies. Now who's more trustwothy? Someone who loves Muhammad (pbuh) and would never want to ascribe a false word to him, like Buhkari or Muslim, or someone who thinks Muhammad is a lunatic or a liar and wants to find a way to prove him false?
:w:
Reply

root
06-29-2006, 03:59 PM
truthseeker666 - <<<Dr. Zaghlool El-Naggar is a Fellow of the Islamic Academy of Sciences. Member of the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of Egypt and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Fellow of the Institute of Petroleum, London>>

what does a petroleum scientist talk abt quantum mechanics and big bang theory..???

will i believe if an architect starts describing Anatomy ???

this is laughable.
I tend to agree, and here is why:

The Geologist - Scientists are now certain that the universe came to being by a big bang
The Cosmologist - P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44).
In 1948, George Gamow modified Lemaitre's hypothesis into the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe. In this theory, Gamow proposed that the universe was created in a gigantic explosion, whereby the various elements observed today were produced within the first few minutes after the Big Bang, as the extremely high temperature and density of the universe would fuse subatomic particles into the chemical elements.
Why is a Geologist citing an hypothosis from 1948. Let's see what a modern day cosmolgist states:

"There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)
Finally let us quickly go over the MISCONCEPTIONS of BBT (Big Bang Theory)

  • The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
  • BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
  • The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.


It's all too much to bear. I just don't see how you can proclaim that This:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? [021.030]
actually means this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr...tml#kippenhahn
Reply

Fishman
06-29-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by root
I tend to agree
:sl:
What is your occupation? Whatever it is, I'm sure that you have talked about something outside of your area of study? So have I. Just because this Egyptian scientist is talking about something outisde his field of study, that does not make him wrong.
:w:
Reply

------
06-29-2006, 04:12 PM
i have respect for all religions
Doesn't look like it.

and with due respect, how can you say that muhammed could not have known those facts?
What facts?

how can you be SO sure that he was illiterate?
'cos we can mate. Its a matter of truth not lies.

only through documented history right?
Yep.

and who documented it?
his followers right ?
Right....BUT it was very accurately recorded.

:peace:
Reply

Fishman
06-29-2006, 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
and who documented it?
his followers right ?
:sl:
Lots of things we know about historical figures are documented by their followers.

And their were a lot of made-up prophecies in the early Muslim community, which Muhammad didn't actually make. If Bukhari and Muslim just made things up to glorify Muhammad (pbuh) then why didn't they say that these prophecies were real?
:w:
Reply

Fishman
06-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by truthseeker666
?

not clear what you mean...
:sl:
If you reject that Muhammad was illiterate because it was recorded by his followers, then you also reject many things that we know about other historical figures.

What I mean by 'made up prophecies' is Vaticium ex eventu prophecies.
:w:
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 337
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 02:22 AM
  2. Replies: 89
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 05:28 PM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 05:09 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-22-2006, 03:27 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!