Alleged Affirmations of Scientifically Accurate Verses

[Armand]

Islamic scholars recorded a unanimous consensus that the earth was round (see here and this fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz).

I've been told that Shaykh Bin Baz supported the ancient fable that the world was literally flat without any roundness and had made takfeer on all those who stood in rejection thereof. Allegedly he was criticized for this by the scholarly consensus and regarded ignorant.

Now that I see this fatwa I am lead to believe it was nothing but rumours and false gossip.

Wa salaam,

Armand

 

[Chuck]

Thank you and Baraka Allah feek... the 'The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources' link isn't working and it is something of a personal interest.. do you have it in your cache, I believe the entire website for that link is down..

that url is faulty, try this one: http://www.quranicstudies.com/artic...uran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html

 

[tetsujin]

Thank you for replying to the original post, I do appreciate it.

Greetings all and

Do some Muslims mistakenly try to use scientific miracles to validate the Qur'an? Yes. Is that approach fallacious? Certainly. Are some of these claims far-fetched and baseless? Probably. Are they peddled as a form of "marketing"? Sure.

Before we go any further, I would like to know which of the claims you have found to be far-fetched and baseless.

But none of that negates that there is an objective basis to many of the scientific correlations with passages of the Qur'an (some of which have been debated in detail on this forum) and while it is methodologically incorrect to advance them as the basis for Islam's validity, Muslims generally appreciate them as one facet of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an.

I clicked on the link. Sadly that thread plunged head first into ad hominem attacks in round one. I will take a look at it later, but it does put me off.

The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources is dealt with in the this refutation.

I will take a look at it. It's a 50 page print-off, and of course will take some time to consider.

As for the roundness of the earth, it is interesting that there has never been the kind of controversy over it in the Islamic world that was seen in other parts of the world. Within only a few centuries after the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islamic scholars recorded a unanimous consensus that the earth was round (see here and this fatwa of Shaykh Bin Baz).

By the way, it is NOT correct to say that even when magnified to our level the earth's surface is still not "spread out" or flattened but rather imperceptibly curved. The reason is that at this level of magnification, the geological features are the deterministic factor.

Regards

One can understand why it should not have been a problem for the Islamic world as it was for their Christian counterparts if you take a look at the times when such discoveries were made. The roundness of the earth was found centuries earlier and Muslim scholars loved the work of Claudius Ptolemaeus of Alexandria and dubbed it "Almagest" after corrupting the Greek word for his "greatest" compilation (approx. 150 AD). It was not the original work of Muslim scholars that lead to the consensus that the world was round. It was information already available.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

 

[Azy]

The alleged similarities between Qur'anic embryology and other pre-islamic sources is dealt with in the [URL="http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/medical-miracles/does-the-quran-plagiarise-ancient-greek-embryology.html]this refutation[/URL].

There are two main issues I have with this discussion and the 'refutation'.

Firstly, there are some generous interpretations of Quranic descriptions.

"Min Nutfah" implies that only a small number of the total cells produced by Nutfah

Nowhere does the Quran mention cells, this is conveniently implied at this point.

Linguistically, Al Maa-ad-Dafiq refers to a gushing, or self emitting fluid, or to a drop that is emitted out. In other words, it refers to a discharge that is self emitting, hence motile by itself. The use of microscope has shown that not only sperms, but the ovum also shows motility. The mature sperm is a free swimming actively motile germ cell consisting of a head and a tail. The tail provides motility to the sperm, and helps its transportation to the site of fertilisation.

Gushing fluid I can live with.
Describing the movement of sperm as 'self-emitting fluid' just doesn't work since
a) Sperm isn't a fluid, semen is, and semen is not motile.
b) Self-emitting does not mean motile. Try finding an example of these two words used interchangeably that isn't in an Islamic text... you won't, because they're not.

You have gone from 'gushing fluid' to 'motile gametes' by gradually changing the meaning of words since there is nothing of such detail in the text. Commentators routinely talk of cells, eggs and sperm when there is no such thing in the Quran, only 'fluids' in varying quantities.

"When forty two nights have passed over the Nutfah, Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says "0 Lord! Is it male or female?" And your Lord decides what He wishes and then the angel records it".

If after 42 night our Lord decides the characteristics and sex of a child is that going to make any difference to those determined at conception? Not likely.

Secondly, you're treating the earlier descriptions of development as if the authors were writing about something unknown in the way the Quran is supposedly doing. You might disagree with the wording of a description, or note the knowledge of processes is limited, but the works are based on experience. Physicians all around Europe, North Africa and the Middle East had been dissecting humans and animals for hundreds of years and documenting their findings.

It's a bit like an Amazonian native returning from trading with the outside world one day in 2008 and shortly afterwards declaring he has predicted the laws of planetary motion.

 

[asadxyz]

There are two main issues I have with this discussion and the 'refutation'.

Firstly, there are some generous interpretations of Quranic descriptions.
Nowhere does the Quran mention cells, this is conveniently implied at this point.
Gushing fluid I can live with.
Describing the movement of sperm as 'self-emitting fluid' just doesn't work since
a) Sperm isn't a fluid, semen is, and semen is not motile.
b) Self-emitting does not mean motile. Try finding an example of these two words used interchangeably that isn't in an Islamic text... you won't, because they're not.

You have gone from 'gushing fluid' to 'motile gametes' by gradually changing the meaning of words since there is nothing of such detail in the text. Commentators routinely talk of cells, eggs and sperm when there is no such thing in the Quran, only 'fluids' in varying quantities.
If after 42 night our Lord decides the characteristics and sex of a child is that going to make any difference to those determined at conception? Not likely.

Secondly, you're treating the earlier descriptions of development as if the authors were writing about something unknown in the way the Quran is supposedly doing. You might disagree with the wording of a description, or note the knowledge of processes is limited, but the works are based on experience. Physicians all around Europe, North Africa and the Middle East had been dissecting humans and animals for hundreds of years and documenting their findings.

It's a bit like an Amazonian native returning from trading with the outside world one day in 2008 and shortly afterwards declaring he has predicted the laws of planetary motion.

Dear AZY :
Above you said :

Originally Posted by Azy
The Prophet of IslamNot really a prerequisite as we know these ideas were already present in various places and languages..

I asked you question :

Peace
Would you please provide the proof/evidence that these idease were present in Arabic society and the channel through which the Prophet PBUH got them??

But you intentionally avoided this question and ran away showing a typical attitude of atheists when they become speechless.

Now you say :

Describing the movement of sperm as 'self-emitting fluid' just doesn't work since
a) Sperm isn't a fluid, semen is, and semen is not motile.
b) Self-emitting does not mean motile. Try finding an example of these two words used interchangeably that isn't in an Islamic text... you won't, because they're not.

Can you show me anywhere that strictly speaking (as you are insisting) it is the sperm which is motile?
Is this not flagella of the sperms which are motile ?
Or is it axoneme of the flagella which is motile ?
Or it is the microtubules of the axomeme which are motile ?
or it is the Dyneine motor protein which is motile ?
Or it the ATPs which provide energy for motion are actual moving factor ?
Where do you stand ??
Try to have some rational approach also .Please answer these two questions.
Thanks

 

[tetsujin]

I asked you question :

Would you please provide the proof/evidence that these idease were present in Arabic society and the channel through which the Prophet PBUH got them??

But you intentionally avoided this question and ran away showing a typical attitude of atheists when they become speechless.

If I may step in for a moment. I'll take up the challenge, but I need you to clarify your request.

All things considered, the claim is that:

1) the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, correct?

2) the prophet Muhammad was a successful tradesman, correct?

3) the prophet Muhammad would travel in and around arabia by profession, correct?

If you answered yes:

Since he could not read or write, would you like us to provide a detailed list of all the people the prophet spoke with and how the information was passed from person to person?

And

Since there will be very little in the ways of his written records of who he spoke with and who he met, if we are able to provide a plausible link to other people. What proof could we submit for you that would conclusively tell you that the prophet spoke to those people?

If you could clarify that for me/us, i will appreciate it.

As for the claim that the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, I haven't seen any proof of that. I hope someone can provide it for me.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

 

[asadxyz]

If I may step in for a moment. I'll take up the challenge, but I need you to clarify your request.

All things considered, the claim is that:

1) the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, correct?

2) the prophet Muhammad was a successful tradesman, correct?

3) the prophet Muhammad would travel in and around arabia by profession, correct?

If you answered yes:

Since he could not read or write, would you like us to provide a detailed list of all the people the prophet spoke with and how the information was passed from person to person?

And

Since there will be very little in the ways of his written records of who he spoke with and who he met, if we are able to provide a plausible link to other people. What proof could we submit for you that would conclusively tell you that the prophet spoke to those people?

If you could clarify that for me/us, i will appreciate it.

As for the claim that the prophet Muhammad was illiterate, I haven't seen any proof of that. I hope someone can provide it for me.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

Instead of beating about the bush and posing counter questions (A well know atheist strategy) provid the proof /evidence of in answering my question.

 

[tetsujin]

Instead of beating about the bush and posing counter questions (A well know atheist strategy) provid the proof /evidence of in answering my question.

I'm not beating around the bush, I asked you what kind of proof you would like because your question wasn't clear.

I hope you read my post.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

 

[asadxyz]

I'm not beating around the bush, I asked you what kind of proof you would like because your question wasn't clear.

I hope you read my post.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

The question was very clear .
You provide the proof of
1:that Galen's teaching was prevalent in The Arabic area (Mecca) during the era of Prophet Muhammad PBUH
2rophet Muhammad PBUH had access to these teachings and what was the source of it.Please name the "teacher" who taught him this science.
3:Give me any evidence where the Mushriks of Mecca who were deadly against him and could never spare him if they had even a little doubt that he was getting all this stuff from any teacher,objected him and blamed him of plagiarism.They called him as "crazy" Majnoon" ,bewitched person " Poet" a magician " but none of them ever blamed him of this plagiarism.

I am waiting for proof /evidence from you .

 

[Azy]

But you intentionally avoided this question and ran away showing a typical attitude of atheists when they become speechless.

I was waiting for this post. The reason I didn't answer you straight away is that an administrator posted here before I returned to the forum and saw your post. I thought it best to respond to that post in order that they might see sufficient cause to keep this thread open, as I feel there are many questions which are unanswered and many previous answers which merit further examination.

Can you show me anywhere that strictly speaking (as you are insisting) it is the sperm which is motile?
Is this not flagella of the sperms which are motile ?....

It is generally accepted in medical circles to talk of motile sperm.
See here, here, here, here, here, here, here etc.
It's a bit like saying "people don't run, it is their legs that run, no their muscle fibres that run" and so on.
You seem to have nicely avoided addressing the fact that whether you say the sperm is motile or the dyneine motor protein, it is not the fluid i.e. semen, and that no mention is ever made of sperm.

You provide the proof of
1:that Galen's teaching was prevalent in The Arabic area (Mecca) during the era of Prophet Muhammad PBUH

The problem with this and the following questions is that you're asking me to defend a claim I never made.
Noone here claims that the Arabs of Mecca had any such knowledge, go back and read my posts again. The medical works of the Greeks were known to the people of Syria, where the Prophet travelled on business.

 

[asadxyz]

Noone here claims that the Arabs of Mecca had any such knowledge, go back and read my posts again. The medical works of the Greeks were known to the people of Syria, where the Prophet travelled on business[/COLOR].

Ok provide the evidence that
1:Syrian people knew this science during that period
2:Travelling of the Holy Prophet to Syria except in childhood or may be occasional business trips.
3:About the education of the Holy Prophet which he Got from syria ,name of the insititute ,name of the teacher ,the subjects he studied over there.The proof for the period he spend for this education.
Please do not run away like typical atheists.

 

[Azy]

Ok provide the evidence that
1:Syrian people knew this science during that period

I already mentioned that Nemesius and Sergius of Syria used Galen's work as a basis for their own.

2:Travelling of the Holy Prophet to Syria except in childhood or may be occasional business trips.

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?

3:About the education of the Holy Prophet which he Got from syria ,name of the insititute ,name of the teacher ,the subjects he studied over there.The proof for the period he spend for this education.
Please do not run away like typical atheists.

Why would the prophet need to enrol in a school to learn a few paragraphs of knowledge that probably any doctor in the land was familiar with? The verses concerned are about (in english) 70-80 words in total.

 

[aamirsaab]

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?

That link isn't really proof though. A possibility (or rather an assumption) but nothing more. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Muhammad [saw] learnt any science from syria (neither thiest or aethiest have found anything with regards to this) I think we can establish that he did not learn any science from syria.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

From the supposed embryology references to the water cycle, everything stated seems to have been discovered already, in so far as the Qu'ran makes the references, by philosophers and naturalists from previous centuries.

I have to strongly disagree with you on that one for the following reasons.

1. Can you show me that the following concepts/facts where known to mankind prior to the revelation of the Qur'an?
1.1. Microscopic form of embryo's
1.2. The existence of different waves under the surface
1.3. The fraction (and partial reflection) of light due to those waves
1.4. The constant expansion of the universe
1.5. The underground structure of Mountains
1.6. the effect mountains have on earthquakes
(there are more, but those 'll do to start)

2. If you can show that some of these things were known somewhere in the history, can you show that Muhammed (peace be upon him) had access to that information?

Is it an acceptance of science as a means to validate a holy book? If so, why not accept all scientific understandings of this day, since the process by which human knowledge and societies progress in any scientific field is that same as the one that confirmed your beliefs.

I do accept all scientific understandings of this day! I assume you're referring to evolution here? Well evolution is a name that can refer to many theories, some of them scientific, some of them unscientific. But it seems best not to go off topic about that here. You can see my arguments about that in one of the evolution threads in the comparative religion forum, or just browse the evolution page of my website which is linked in my signature.

 

[tetsujin]

That link isn't really proof though. A possibility (or rather an assumption) but nothing more. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Muhammad [saw] learnt any science from syria (neither thiest or aethiest have found anything with regards to this) I think we can establish that he did not learn any science from syria.

The argument just doesn't follow. If you lack evidence for something, you cannot make a positive claim on that basis.

A correct argument would be to say "we do not know whether or not the prophet learned anything from syria, so we cannot conclude anything" That is not the basis for saying he definitely did not learn anything, or that he dedfinitely did.

I'm not nitpicking. If we're going to have a debate it must be logical.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

 

[aamirsaab]

The argument just doesn't follow. If you lack evidence for something, you cannot make a positive claim on that basis.

A correct argument would be to say "we do not know whether or not the prophet learned anything from syria, so we cannot conclude anything" That is not the basis for saying he definitely did not learn anything, or that he dedfinitely did.

I'm not nitpicking. If we're going to have a debate it must be logical.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

Fair point. But you really cannot use that alleged syria link to back up any arguments along the lines of muhammad obviously learnt some science from syria - as I said: noone has given any proof (actual hardcore proof) that muhammad[saw] had learnt any science from syria or that he plagiarised from any other texts (certain folk try the oh he copied the bible/tora/veda etc but not one has actually provided any evidence). At most it is an assumption.

 

[tetsujin]

2. If you can show that some of these things were known somewhere in the history, can you show that Muhammed (peace be upon him) had access to that information?

I'm just going to cut to the chase. If the claim is that the prophet was illiterate, then the prophet himself would not have written down these accounts. Proof would boil down to the probability of such information being transmitted to him during his daily life as a tradesman, and that's not proof.

So even if that information was presented to you or him, we wouldn't know if he understood it.

This is why I did not claim that the Quran was plagiarized. I simply asked why you would claim that it was divine revelation when no one else who knew at that time made such a claim.

I suggest you reread my initial post.

It's back to work for me.

All the best wishes,


Faysal

 

[asadxyz]

I already mentioned that Nemesius and Sergius of Syria used Galen's work as a basis for their own.

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but are you saying 'except on occasional business trips', as if there were some reason he could not talk to people and receive information when he is there on business?
Why would the prophet need to enrol in a school to learn a few paragraphs of knowledge that probably any doctor in the land was familiar with? The verses concerned are about (in english) 70-80 words in total.

This is how you are running away to provide the proof.The Holy Prophet might have only one or two visits.But other meccans had frequent visits for business.It means
1:Other people could learn these few words (according to you).How many of them learnt this knowledge from Syria
2:There were Kaafir and against the Holy Prophet PBUH.Did any one of them object and blamed the prophet for plagiarism ? If not why ? If yes provid the proof
Note : You are persistantly working on assumptions as the atheists do.

 

[جوري]

This is why I did not claim that the Quran was plagiarized. I simply asked why you would claim that it was divine revelation when no one else who knew at that time made such a claim.



Faysal

If no one else at the time accepted the claim of its divinity, how do you explain the spread of Islam at least locally? why wasn't it deemed simply another poetry book? there was the prophet and a handful of Muslims many of whom were tortured to death.. have you read at least about his trip through ta'ef ? and then in a matter of years all of Arabia became Muslim.. I am beginning to think you haven't a clue at all of early Islamic history, yet claim to have apostated?
People can always distinguish the style of the prophet's writing (hadiths) and that of the Quran.. No two suras read the same.. anyone can agree, that folks who write books/poetry, stick with one genre and have a particular style.. we certainly see the prophet' style in the hadiths.. but we see no one's style in the Quran.. it reads very differently... once you have found us the author of the Quran can we have the discussion of its divinity or lack thereof.. the book is its own testament!


cheers

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Fair point. But you really cannot use that alleged syria link to back up any arguments along the lines of muhammad obviously learnt some science from syria - as I said: noone has given any proof (actual hardcore proof) that muhammad[saw] had learnt any science from syria or that he plagiarised from any other texts (certain folk try the oh he copied the bible/tora/veda etc but not one has actually provided any evidence). At most it is an assumption.

I think the thrust of the argument is perhaps slightly different from the way you are understanding it.

The claim that the Prophet (pbuh) may have learned about scientific information in Syria is not intended as a definitive statement, simply a possibility.

Remember, this argument is used to oppose the argument that says "Amazing scientific information is contained in the Qur'an; there is no way an illiterate man of that time could know about it; it must have been a divine revelation; there is no other possible explanation." Well, there is another possible explanation, and that is that he found out about it from a person alive in his time.

We don't know the details of the case, but we don't really need to - all the available evidence suggests that it was at least possible, and that in itself is all that is needed to reject one big plank of the scientific miracles argument in its "pre-cognition" form.

Peace