The Scientific Inaccuracies of Islam

[root]

Steve - [*]How much was Dr Moore paid for his comments.#
Do you have proofs to back up your insinuations that he was paid for making these comments?

Do I have to do your home work as well, the $$$$$ came from the saudi Royal family. It's not the first Infidel $cientist hired to give favourable accounts of the quran and it's literal thousands of hadiths........

I am quite sure that if someone wrote thousands of random dribble, then if someone took the time to compare them phrase by phrase (and bend the words slightly) then indeed u will get scientific knowledge. It's a crock.

Wonder if you can show me a single scientific peer reviewed journal that states ANY holy book as a reference.......... actuaally don't bother, as it's a waste of time u know it and I do.

PS

Nice to see u again Steve.

 

[Trumble]

[*]How much was Dr Moore paid for his comments.#
Do you have proofs to back up your insinuations that he was paid for making these comments?

We know he was employed by the Saudi Royal family at the time. No insinuation is necessary... they commissioned the "research paper" (see below).

[*]Where does it state that the quran references are "scientific"
I am a bit confused by the structure of that question. could you rephrase it?

I think the point (?) is that it was NOT a "research paper", it was an article, titled "A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in The Qur'an" to be precise. No research paper on the subject has ever been published, indeed it is impossible to see how any such 'research' could be done.

[*]Did he convert to Islam?
Is that relevant?

I would have thought so. If I was convinced that something in the Qur'an meant it could ONLY be the Word of God, I would.

The Qur'an only echoes the work of the Greek physician Galen on embryology. That was pointed out by muslim scientists long before the current fad for discovering scientific 'miracles' left right and centre.

 

[- Qatada -]

Trumble, you continue making the claim that the Qur'an was taken from the Greeks. Yet a question which i asked in the past still hasn't been answered - How did Muhammad (peace be upon him) get all this Greek info?

Who did he get it off? When the arabs were an illiterate people, when he (peace be upon him) was an illiterate man. When the Byzantinian Romans and the Persian Sassanids thought of the arabs as a nuisance, as an illiterate people - so they wouldn't even bother passing this info onto them.


And even if he somehow got the info from the Greeks or any superpower in the world at that time, how come none of his enemies spoke out against that? When they were the severest and harshest in trying to accuse Muhammad (peace be upon him) of falsehood, of madness and telling 'stories of old.'

 

[Trumble]

Trumble, you continue making the claim that the Qur'an was taken from the Greeks. Yet a question which i asked in the past still hasn't been answered - How did Muhammad (peace be upon him) get all this Greek info?

Who did he get it off? When the arabs were an illiterate people, when he (peace be upon him) was an illiterate man. When the Byzantinian Romans and the Persian Sassanids thought of the arabs as a nuisance, as an illiterate people - so they wouldn't even bother passing this info onto them.

Literacy has little to do with it, Galen's works were the Gray's Anatomy of his day and the knowledge of what was in them went far beyond those who read them. It is quite possible that any physician/healer who came from, or even stayed a while (or even with someone who had been in contact with such people) in the Roman Empire would have been aware of what he wrote. We have absolutely no way of knowing who passed on what to who.

The point is that the 'embryology' passages are quoted/interpreted with the intention of showing that the Qur'an contains 'modern science' that could not possibly have been known in Mohammed's time. That is simply not the case; the 'modern science' had been known to humans for centuries. There is still the case that you make, but it is far weaker than the claim that man could not have known what was in the Qur'an. Many did.

And even if he somehow got the info from the Greeks or any superpower in the world at that time, how come none of his enemies spoke out against that?

You are making the assumption that only Mohammed would have acquired such knowledge. That makes little sense - maybe those 'enemies' spoke to physicians too? For all we know it was perfectly common knowledge among such people.

 

[جوري]

I think this topic is absurd and I am going to share a simple story that happened not two centuries ago, even though G-D as my witness this is a complete waste of my time...
A Hungarian physician by the name of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis he was born in 1818 died in 1860 something or another, ran an amazing study though he didn't document it to be published, as toward he end of his life he unfortunately went mad spent the remainder of them in an insane asylum... At the time there was a two type service to pregnant women in Vienna midwives or medical doctors, most delivered at home, but those who had to take to the hospitals, due to poverty, or birth complications, suffered a mortality of 25-30 percent, compared to 2-3% mortality with midwives.. well this was outstanding he thought, so they would run autopsies on these ladies trying to figure out what went wrong.. what is it about these pregnant women, that was causing them death compared to those who sought midwifery?.. well it so happens that his friend Dr. Jakob Kolletschka (1803-1847), who was professor of forensic medicine, ran these autopsies and at some point during one of them cut himself with the instrument that he used for an autopsy on one of these ladies... and eventually ended up dead...Dr. Semmelweis, knew then then that this high mortality had nothing to do with poverty, being pregnant or being a woman and thus he instituted the use of a solution of chlorinated lime for washing hands between autopsy work and examination of patients... and that was the first when people figured that there is such a thing called infection... in the 19th century.. I can go on about other things that happened historically not just in medicine itself, which would show the simplicity of even the most complex minds of the time-- what does this have to do with the topic? simple, I think the Quran with all its contents is outrageously post modern and pretty miraculous to have come from that spot of the world at that particular time...

like any erudite detective one would simply wonder a motive for prophet Mohammed PBUH to have come up with this book as well as the hadith? I mean he died with his armor pawned to a Jewish man and never slept on a full stomach three days in a row.. was it glory he sought? riches? control? I think a person should really take a close examining look, sequentially, historically, psychologically and theologically before blurting out their own thesis of what they presume to dismiss this text for, or trying to find error within as if they were the connoisseurs of Arabic lexicon... the book is written like a poem.. but it isn't a poem.. is has scientific facts but it isn't a science book, it describes the psychology of man, it is not a book of psychiatry, it discusses the law and jurisprudence, but it isn't a book of law... it discusses the stories that happened of old unbeknownst to most, some up to recent times, and tells of events yet to come, but it isn't an oracle.. it is a book of guidance, for those who reflect and those who wish to seek a path to their lord.
Anything beyond this point is subjective and all I can say to that, is fine, you are free to believe what you wish or disbelieve what you wish, but you have no right to illogical impositions to try to shelf for us Muslims, something that we consider a living miracle, one that is transcendent!
peace!

 

[back_to_faith]

I always find it funny the way you use an "infidel" to try to collaborate any form of scientific respect. But please tell us, since you know so much:

1. How much was Dr Moore paid for his comments.#
2. Where does it state that the quran references are "scientific"
3. Did he convert to Islam?

Thanks

Instead of showing us where the Quran erred or even Dr Moore ,regarding

embryology.....you highlighted offtopic, irrelevant questions.

 

[back_to_faith]

It is quite possible that any physician/healer who came from, or even stayed a while (or even with someone who had been in contact with such people) in the Roman Empire would have been aware of what he wrote.


maybe those 'enemies' spoke to physicians too? For all we know it was perfectly common knowledge among such people(Arabs).

Your source?

argument from silence
Your source?




The Qur’an does not take the things which were wrong from Hypocrites. If he would have copied, he would have copied everything - it is logical. Unless he is a scientist… ‘Okay this is correct… Oh! This is wrong I won’t copy that - This is correct, I will copy that.’ All the stages of Hypocrites, and Gallon is not the same as the Qur’an - Hypocrites and Gallon does not speak about ‘leech like substance.’ They do not speak about ‘mudgah’ at all - Where do they speak? Hypocrites and Gallon, at that time, they said that… ‘Even the women have got semen’ - who says that? (DR Zakir Naik)

 

[back_to_faith]

anyway thanx for Trumble who has put his endorsment on the validity of the Quranic embryology with science...
and pity if he still believe in the greek copied material ,un-supported claim

my friend If the copy from Greeks claim might save you this time,It can't help you with the other several Quranic scientific passages.

 

[Trumble]

my friend If the copy from Greeks claim might save you this time,It can't help you with the other several Quranic scientific passages.

They all go much the same way, and most have been discussed at length here before. At least the embryology is in context which is more than can be said for most of the rest, which seem to involve re-'interpreting' passages which make perfect contextual and religious sense into those that make no contextual sense at all in order to present them as gratuitous scientific 'facts'.

 

[ranma1/2]

lol when i saw this thread i smiled.

you guys should check up on the number of doctors/professors etc who became muslim due to the Qur'an.


Islam doesnt need science, rather Science is only catching up to Islam... although nothing can ever catch up to islam , tis far superior...

link?
Now i do know that doctors do tend to be religous, but biologists also tend to not be religious. We have actual explainations for this.
Also do you know how many doctors have become christian? jews? etc...

 

[جوري]

people can't go to med school, at least here in the U.S. w/out having a B.S in science.. usually biology or chemistry or physics... thus your conclusion does not follow from the premises you've made (biologists being non-religious (Atheists), whereas doctors are), as most doctors hold a bachelors or masters in biology or the like many having a PhD--before entering medical school!
Atheists make up only 7% of the population and all the Atheists I have known were English or philosophy professors, but even that can't construed as an appropriate measure!

 

[back_to_faith]

seem to involve re-'interpreting' passages which make perfect contextual and religious sense into those that make no contextual sense at all in order to present them as gratuitous scientific 'facts'.

your posts as usuall,much assertions,arguments from silence with zero serious proofs

I can't help but to yawn.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

link?

www.google.com

Now i do know that doctors do tend to be religous, but biologists also tend to not be religious. We have actual explainations for this.

plz let me know

Also do you know how many doctors have become christian? jews? etc...

due to science?

 

[back_to_faith]

lots of non-muslims and with their never-ending search for something Quranic for criticism..

they use two ways :

1- first they claim ,that a Quranic passage while has new information regarding science,but false one.

if they fail to prove it
2-They try to prove that the information does exist the time of the prophet Mohamed peace be upon him.

that is a tactic

and that is what non-muslims tried here

may be Trumble felt that by no mean the first method could help,so he used the second......

he ignored the fact that ..impossible to prove that.

as a matter of fact the proof for the opposite is overwhelming....

more important is the fact that the Greek work and the Quran differs as mentioned before.


Any other hero ,who prefer to use the first way of criticism?


Where the Quran erred while describing embryology,in the following verses?


We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

 

[Malaikah]

Aren't we meant to be discussing something about a whale here...

 

[back_to_faith]

Aren't we meant to be discussing something about a whale here...

and the whale sank with Caesar

 

[- Qatada -]

The point is that the 'embryology' passages are quoted/interpreted with the intention of showing that the Qur'an contains 'modern science' that could not possibly have been known in Mohammed's time. That is simply not the case; the 'modern science' had been known to humans for centuries. There is still the case that you make, but it is far weaker than the claim that man could not have known what was in the Qur'an. Many did.


You are making the assumption that only Mohammed would have acquired such knowledge. That makes little sense - maybe those 'enemies' spoke to physicians too? For all we know it was perfectly common knowledge among such people.

I'd love it if you could get some proof or source for that please? Because making assumptions isn't sufficient to prove anything. Atleast from what i've seen here in the Comparative section.


If you can't find any, then i don't think that argument stands. And yes, there should be info since our history is packed with it on life of the Pre-Islamic period. And then what comes after etc.



Just to clarify some stuff; Muhammad (peace be upon him) stayed in the desert life for a his youth, he was a shepherd (like all the prophets), when he grew older he was a business man for a little while, then he got married, and after that he was a father, then he got the revelation at the age of 40. Most surahs which talk about this (i.e. embryology etc.) were in the Makkan Period. I.e. when he (peace be upon him) had rarely left his home city of Makkah.





Peace.

 

[back_to_faith]

I'd love it if you could get some proof or source for that please? Because making assumptions isn't sufficient to prove anything. Atleast from what i've seen here in the Comparative section.


If you can't find any, then i don't think that argument stands. And yes, there should be info since our history is packed with it on life of the Pre-Islamic period. And then what comes after etc.



Just to clarify some stuff; Muhammad (peace be upon him) stayed in the desert life for a his youth, he was a shepherd (like all the prophets), when he grew older he was a business man for a little while, then he got married, and after that he was a father, then he got the revelation at the age of 40. Most surahs which talk about this (i.e. embryology etc.) were in the Makkan Period. I.e. when he (peace be upon him) had rarely left his home city of Makkah.





Peace.

Exactly brother Qatada

 

[guyabano]

lots of non-muslims and with their never-ending search for something Quranic for criticism..

they use two ways :

1- first they claim ,that a Quranic passage while has new information regarding science,but false one.

if they fail to prove it
2-They try to prove that the information does exist the time of the prophet Mohamed peace be upon him.

that is a tactic

and that is what non-muslims tried here

may be Trumble felt that by no mean the first method could help,so he used the second......

he ignored the fact that ..impossible to prove that.

as a matter of fact the proof for the opposite is overwhelming....

more important is the fact that the Greek work and the Quran differs as mentioned before.


Any other hero ,who prefer to use the first way of criticism?


Where the Quran erred while describing embryology,in the following verses?


We created man from an extract of clay. Then We made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then We made the drop into an alaqah (leech, suspended thing, and blood clot), then We made the alaqah into a mudghah (chewed substance)... 1 (Quran, 23:12-14)

oh man, and ya know the tactic of muslims?


'Allah knows best', that is all what comes to the mind of a muslim, when he see, there is no more issue to proove something or even he has no proof at all than just to refer to the fairy tales book called 'Quaran' or 'bible' or whatever.

 

[- Qatada -]

oh man, and ya know the tactic of muslims?


'Allah knows best', that is all what comes to the mind of a muslim, when he see, there is no more issue to proove something or even he has no proof at all than just to refer to the fairy tales book called 'Quaran' or 'bible' or whatever.

And you've ever read the Qur'an? :? If not - then please don't make false, or atleast pre-concieved claims.




Regards.