"regions (of the earth)" addition "of the earth" is meant in Arabic or it is just the understanding of the translators?
Proving the Existence of Allah to an Atheist
by Dr. Zakir Naik
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
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]
"regions (of the earth)" addition "of the earth" is meant in Arabic or it is just the understanding of the translators?
Chuck,
Earth is an addition.
The verse you are referring to is:
The word in arabic is Al-Aafaaq.
Yusuf Ali has translated it as farthest regions. Pickthall as horizons. Khan/Hilali as universe.
Ibn Kathir wrote:
such as conquests and the advent of Islam over various regions and over all other religions.
So we understand that it would mean something like the "furthest frontiers".
that makes more sense
:applaud:
Very nice thread.
Especially the part on congratulating an atheist for using it's brain
However there's one lil' comment I'd like to make regarding the logical concept of God. I'm not certain that everbody would accept this concept. Surely a misconception could be at the base of disbelieve with many, but some people just don't "believe" I don't know if it has something tod o with pride, fear, love commen sense, dunno.... some just disagree for the sake of it apperantly
All I got to say is Zakir Naik is the man. I remember watching a debate between him and some Christian guy (who I believe runs/works for the website answering-Islam), and not only is it apparent that Dr. Naik has the Qur'an memorized, cause he was referencing verses from it left and right like it was no problem, but he had much of the Bible memorized as well. Which was kind of humorous because the other guy had to sit there and look up the verses out of the Bible and Dr. Naik was just spouting them off like it was no thing. It was truly amazing especially since the other guy had his whole speech all written out and preplanned, and had all these fancy slides to show, and then Dr. Naik just gets up there and does his speech from scratch.
Oh yeah very nice post by the way, I found it quite humorous.
Dr. Zakir Naik vs. Dr. William CampbellThe video can be viewed here:
Chicago
The Qur'an & The Bible in the light of science
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
I totally agree with Br. _salam_ on this debate. It was a humiliating defeat for Answering Islam (and they were forced to admit it), and a tremendous victory by Dr. Zakir Naik.
I highly recommend it to everyone.
Btw, Br. _salam_, did you watch it on the net, or in person? I only watched it on the net.
Yes I remember that talk, I kind of felt sorry for William Campbell at the end, he couldnt answer a single question, he just couldnt speak after his argument had been shot down flat.
Oh I just saw the debate online.
I've been meaning to ask this question for a while. Dr Campell in his debate with Zakir Naik said that at the time, the words the Qur'an uses for embyology,the words meant somethin else, and had different meanings than they have today.Zakir Naik's response was that the Qur'an is for all time, so the meanings of the word apply today and perfectly conciliate with science. This is what i gathered he said, correct me if i am wrong and misunderstood
But his explanation doesn't make sense, because if the meanings of the words have been changed, then isn't it a possibility that muslims changed the meaning of the word if, Allah forbid, they realised the Qur'an was not in conciliation with science. Please help on this topic
The dictionaries referred to for arabic definitions were recorded in early Islamic history, hence the words were not defined according to scientific understanding.
So what was Dr Campbell on about? his whole argument was based on the example of the meaning of pig, how at the time of Moses and Muhammed PBUT, it meant swine, but now a new meaning of pig is police as slang. So he was saying Muslims and Jews can't say "we are allowed to eat swine as when it says in the Qur'an don't eat pigs it means don't eat police, as thats is what it means, so we can't eat police but can eat swine". So using this argument he was saying how at the time of Muhammed PBUH the meanings were different, and they don't mean clot and congealed blood etc. Zakir Naiks response to this was Qur'an is for all of time so modern meanings can apply, at least that is what i think he said
There's a difference between muhkam verses and mutashabihat verses. The former are the clear verses pertaining to legal rulings, etc. while the latter refers to unclear descriptive verses. So Dr. Zakir Naik is correct that many alternative definitions can be used to understand the mutashabihat.
It might help you to read what was written by Dr. Omar Abdel Rehman:
ReferencesIn Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;
something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.
a) something which clings
Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.
b) a suspended thing
The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.
c) a leech-like structure
The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).
In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.
cool i didi not know thatformat_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
There's a difference between muhkam verses and mutashabihat verses. The former are the clear verses pertaining to legal rulings, etc. while the latter refers to unclear descriptive verses. So Dr. Zakir Naik is correct that many alternative definitions can be used to understand the mutashabihat.
It might help you to read what was written by Dr. Omar Abdel Rehman:
References
mashallah...i didnt know Dr Cambel ran answering-islam...did they mention it in a lecture?
Salaam,
I think its okay as long as all he's doing with the knowledge is to show people the contradictions in their religions and prove to them that Islaam is correct... But that's how I feel... Also I've never heard that hadith before, is that the whole thing? Because usually in ahadith the prophet (SAW) explains the reason for forbidding something... But I could be wrong, and correct me if I am...
Salaam
Asallama Alaikum I heard of that as well.I think studying the scriptures of the Christians and Jews are okay as long as you have a strong eeman.If you don't then study it well you could convert very easily.That's what happened to my cousin.When he was 17 he started to study philosophy.He started to have doubts about Islam,unfortunely he became an atheist.Till today.May Allah open his heart once again ameen.Dr.Zakir Naik I don't think so.Mash'allah he has alot of knowledge and I'm sure he knows what he's doing.
Does anybody know Umar Ibn Khattab (r.a) was reading a page of the Torah? For what purpose?
I heard a talk, can't remember which one, but someone asked this exact question. They asked Zakir Naik why do you study other people's scriptures, and he put a really good argument forward. He said the hadith was referring to reading Torah Injeel etc. for guidance,that you shouldnt read it for guidance as that was apparently 'Umar RA was doing, and later 'Umar (RA) asked for forgiveness. Zakir Naik went on to use his favourite ayaah, "O people of the book, come to common terms as between us and you", and he said you can come to common terms by studying their sciptures and then agreeing with them for example there is only one God. Also he quoted an ayyah
"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]
Going on to say how can you argue with people of the book, or come to common terms, or give da'wah to them with our reading their scriptures. I personally think its really good, so many people have reverted to Islam listening to talks from people like Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik, Jamal Badawi Shabir Ally etc, because of the comparative studies. There is so much stuff you can use, like for example to christians, you can say nowhere does Prophet Isa claim divinity in the Bible, scientific errors how can it be from God, and all the prophecies of prophet Muhammed SAW in Hindu, Buddhist,Jewish and Christian scriptures. How can you do that without reading thier book
JazakAllah Khayr Moss.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks