CosmicPathos
Anathema
- Messages
- 3,923
- Reaction score
- 530
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Some of us might have seen videos of Aboo Ali, who is a muslim-turned-atheist, against Quran, God and Islam on youtube. Aboo Ali claims that he was a student of knowledge at Al-Azhar University. It indeed shocks when a knowledgeable Muslim turns to atheism. Imagine, today's most knowledgeable Islamic sheikh becoming an atheist tomorrow and the ripples it would cause across a Muslim society. May Allah (swt) protect sincere slaves of His from such doom.
Aboo Ali made some bold claims, and seemingly quite convincingly, that Quran is not a book of God but a book written by an Arab man who is taken to be a Prophet. Needless to say, his claims seemed articulate and indeed worthy of casting doubt in those who are not knowledgeable in Islam, science, history of science and critical reasoning.
Here is a step-by-step refutation of Aboo Ali's claims regarding Quran by Aby Yunus from his blog. I would not be posting the whole thing for its quite lengthy. The rest of refutations can be read on the link given above. Hassan is apparently the last name of Aboo Ali.
The Quran, Science, and Truth
Hassan, I also watched your video on scientific miracles in the Quran ( http://www.youtube.com/user/discussislam#p/u/9/uQg6x-K82IA ) and as a scientist I feel I am obliged to discuss your points in more detail.
In point 1 you suggest that the Prophet has access to the works of Aristotle, Hypocrites and Galen on early human development and that he manages to pick out the ideas that we today know are correct. To back up this point you say that the Quran also contains the inaccuracies of the early Greek ideas. One of these is that the Quran says:
‘’We created man from a drop of mingled fluid’’
76:2
This notion is not scientifically inaccurate but you say without providing any hint of proof that the Prophet was talking of the germinal fluid that hypocrites spoke of. This is a weak argument without any foundation.
You also mention the following verse:
‘’(Man) is created from a drop emitted. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.
86:6 to7
There are a few verses in the Quran which refer to man being created from sperm/semen (16:4; 75:36-37; 80:17-19; 76:2; 53:45-46). The word used to describe the sperm/semen in all of these examples is ‘nutfa’ which means a fluid drop. However this word is not found in the verse in question. Instead a more accurate translation for this verse is a ‘gushing fluid which is ejected’ and therefore makes this particular verse different compared to other verses describing sperm/semen. Indeed I should point out here that very few translators have translated the verse as saying ‘from a fluid drop ejected’. Most translators have used expressions such as ‘a gushing fluid/a turbulent fluid/a jetting fluid which is ejected. Since the word nutfa is not found in this verse it is a valid conclusion that using the term ‘fluid drop’, which is usually used to describe sperm/semen in the Quran, in the translation of this verse is not correct. A lot of people have therefore suggested that this verse is referring to blood which is ejected from the heart since the heart is obviously located between the spine and ribs. It is a fair scientific assessment that life starts when the heart starts pumping in the embryo and therefore such an interpretation would make good sense. Those who have attributed the verse to describing sperm ejected from the penis are quite simply mistaken. For a much more comprehensive discussion which I fully concur with regarding this issue is given by Mohammad Shafi J. Aga and can be found here:
http://islam.worldofislam.info/inde...circulation-in-human-body&catid=126&Itemid=44
For anyone specifically interested in this point, it is a must read. The discussion shows that a more accurate translation of the verse in question is as follows:
Man should then consider by what (means) he/she has been created. He/she has been created by (means of) gushing fluid. Which (fluid) comes out from between the spine and the ribs. Verily indeed capable of its return.
86:6 to 8
You also discuss the following verse:
‘’Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then out of that clot we made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create.’’
(23:14)
You suggest that the Prophet has plagiarized this verse from the works of Galen. Galen was a physician, medical researcher and philosopher of Greek origin residing in Rome who lived around 100AD. He wrote extensive works on medicine-related subjects – his surviving work runs to around 3 million words and it is thought that less than a third of his work survives. One of these works, but by no means one of his famous works, was his views on semen and early human development entitled ‘de semine’ or ‘on semen’. You say that the Prophet plagiarizes a passage from this work of Galen which describes four stages of development and add it includes Galens belief that bones are formed before flesh. Indeed, you show the Greek text in your video which the Prophet is alleged to have plagiarized. I have also seen this exact same claim on some ‘anti-Islamic’ websites. Indeed they show the exact same Greek text which you have shown in your video and they even go one step further in providing a translation of this text which is as follows:
‘’But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the fetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a fetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts. You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form “twigs”, as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed….
….The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time….it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow’’
Anyone who compares this passage to the verse of the Quran in question will see there are some obvious differences but one might suggest that Quranic verse follows roughly speaking Galens text above. However, as we shall see to jump to the conclusion that the Prophet plagiarized Galens work would be hasty. First of all I should make it clear that the Quranic verse does not state that bones are formed before flesh. For example, if we look more carefully at the verse, the word ‘then’ (in Arabic ‘thumma’) is not found between creation of bones and flesh. The verse simply states the bones that are created are clothed with flesh – it is simply wrong to claim the verse says bones are created first and then those bones are clothed with flesh. Secondly, in the Galen translation above, the last paragraph (concerning bones growing on flesh), is not even in the original Greek Galen text which is depicted on these websites and in your video. The English translation comes from Professor Phillip De Lacy (1992) and some pages of his book are actually available to view online at Google books:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The full Greek text of Galen is actually around 70 pages long. A lot of his views have today proven to be incorrect. The first part of the translation above can be found on page 93 of de Lacy’s book. After this passage Galen goes on to describe his views on how different parts of the fetus forms including the major organs. The last paragraph of the translation above containing sentences regarding flesh growing on bones is only found a few pages later and is translated in full on page 101 of de Lacy’s book:
‘’And now the third period of gestation has come. After nature has made outlines of all the organs and the substance of semen is used up, the time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time, sucking the fattest part out of them, it made them earthly and brittle and completely without fat; and causing the viscous matter that grew out from them in each case to grow out, it made at the ends of bone ligament that bind to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow. And for the creation of bones it used most of all the power of heat, cooking them all and drying them. This was better for them, as they would be hard and the fat would in this way be fully drained from them, like froth from boiling things. But where nature caused flesh to grow on the bones themselves before it covered them with membranes, all such bones were less brittle.’’
Of course most of these views have today been proven incorrect. None of these ideas appear in the Quran. Indeed Galen continues a couple of sentences later (Page 103 of de Lacy’s book):
‘’There are fibers of still another kind in the stomach, the intestines, both bladders, the uterus, and the heart, that take their origin from the semen; around these fibers, as around wicker work, nature caused the whole body of the inner organ to grow, this body being generated from blood.
For all the parts that are fleshy in form were generated from blood; but all that are membranous were drawn out from the semen. And for this reason the parts generated from blood, if they ever should be destroyed, are easily generated again, since they have in abundance the matter for their production; but those that are from semen are not at all or seldom generated again’’
Galen wrote his work partly as a challenge to some of Aristotle’s views who believed that the embryo/fetus was generated from the mothers menstrual blood and that the sperm was simply an agent that ‘activated’ the menstrual blood to start forming into a new life but that the sperm after causing activation was discarded or ‘evaporates’ and actually did not itself physically form into the embryo/fetus (note how the Quran does not have any hint of the totally inaccurate views of the more famous Aristotle).
Although Galens views were not as inaccurate as Aristotle’s, we can see from the translation above he also believed that semen was not involved in the formation in some parts of the growing fetus but that some parts were formed solely from the mothers arterial and venous blood. Again this does not reflect the views of the Quran. Indeed if one takes the time to read through ‘de semine’ in its entirety, although somewhat impressive given the time in which it was written, we would find it is littered with inaccuracies. Indeed the inaccurate ideas far outweigh the accurate ideas and indeed this is one of his much less famous works that survive today. None of these inaccuracies appear in the Quran which would perhaps be expected if the Prophet did indeed plagiarize the work of Galen.
When there are two texts (i.e. in this case the Quran and the work of Galen) that are discussing the same subject and both texts contain ideas which are later proven correct should we be surprised that there is at least some sort of similarity between them? For example, quite often in scientific research, two independent groups sometimes are working on the same subject and carry out the same experiments without any knowledge of each other. Occasionally the two groups unwittingly send the papers describing their results off for publication in scientific journals at around the same time. When both papers are eventually published it is often found they contain the same ideas and the conclusions they reach are strikingly similar. Does this mean that one of the groups has plagiarized the work of the other? Of course it doesn’t. In our case of course Galens work was documented long before the Quran was documented so someone could plausibly suggest that there is at least a potential for the Quran to have fabricated Galens work. However, since the Quran only contains somewhat similar ideas to that of Galen which have been proven correct and contains none of the much more abundant inaccurate ideas in Galens work we should conclude that the verses of the Quran in question were derived independently from Galens work.
As I mentioned earlier Galen wrote a vast range of works totaling around 600 treatises and this work on semen was very far from his most famous of works. In addition, Galens works were translated to Arabic around 200 years after the Prophets death. However the claim is that the Prophet may secretly somehow have had access to some of Galens work and that someone might have helped him secretly translate it from Greek to Arabic. Indeed if this was the case there must have existed some conspiracy between the Prophet and some of his followers where they plagiarized the work others and passed it off at Gods revelation to the rest of the population. Indeed, according to some claims passages of the Christian and Jewish scriptures were also plagiarized in a similar manner. Any historian on Islam would tell you that a conspiracy between the Prophet and a group of his followers to translate and plagiarize texts of a multitude of different languages is an extremely unlikely scenario.
Taking into account all the factors I have discussed regarding the Quranic verse in question and Galens work, the claim that the Prophet plagiarized the work of Galen is far-fetched.
In point 2 you discuss the following verse:
‘’And we sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind’’
57:25
You state that it was already known that meteors containing iron fell to the earth from space. This is simply not true. The German physicist, Ernst Florens Chaldini was the first to publish the idea that meteorites were actually rocks from space. He published his work, “On the Origin of the Pallas Iron and Others Similar to it, and on Some Associated Natural Phenomena”, in 1794. The scientific community of the time did not take him seriously and mocked his work. Although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century following work of the French scientist Jean Baptiste Biot and the British chemist Edward Howard.
You also state that ‘‘all elements came from outer space, by singling out iron, the Quran only appears to reveal its ignorance of this fact.’’
This statement is misleading and makes little sense. It is true that all elements on Earth come from space in the sense that the Earth and other planets form from debris of supernova explosions (this happens when stars die). The debris contains all the elements that condense and cool to form planets such as Earth. However, only a few different elements fall to Earth from space in the form of meteors – remember the verse in question says ‘’We ‘sent down’ iron’’. Meteorites can be divided into three broad categories: stony meteorites are rocks, mainly composed of silicate minerals; iron meteorites are largely composed of metallic iron-nickel; and, stony-iron meteorites contain large amounts of both iron-nickel and rocky material.
It is also worth pointing out that although rare, iron meteorites, are the major form of natural metallic iron on the Earth’s surface and that the first wrought iron used by mankind came from meteors.
However, having said all this I would like to add that God says he ’sends down’ many other things in the Quran (manna, quails, signs, revelations etc.). ‘Sending down’ could thus be a metaphorical term and may not necessarily mean something ‘fell to Earth’ from the heavens. In addition of course God does not specifically say that He ’sent down meteorites containing iron’.
Regarding points 3 and 4, I agree with Hassan that the evidence suggesting the Quranic verses in question contain scientific facts is somewhat weak.
In point 5 you discuss the following verse:
‘’Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and earth were one piece before we clove them assunder’’
21:30
You state that this verse is inaccurate since matter did not exist to be cloven asunder and that the earth did not split from the heavens.
Anyone with knowledge of the Arabic language will know that this is not a very accurate translation of the verse. A more accurate translation has been given by others:
‘’Do those who are Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them’’
Aisha Bewley
‘’Have the faithless not regarded that the heavens and the earth were interwoven and We unraveled them’’
Ali Quli Qara’i
‘’Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them’’
Shakir
The big bang theory and it derivative theories (i.e. inflationary cosmology) are theories which describes cosmic evolution from a tiny fraction of a second after what happened to bring the Universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. It tells us nothing about how the energy that gave birth to our universe came into existence and nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or frankly whether it really ever banged at all.
It is thought however that at the very earliest moments of the universe, the universe consisted of pure energy at unimaginably high density which some physicists have termed a singularity. Before this point matter did not exist and indeed although difficult to imagine neither did space or time. It is only after the singularity of pure vacuum energy appeared that space and time came into existence and with the universe undergoing a period of immense rapid inflation, matter and radiation also came into existence. The size of the universe before the inflation was much less than the size of a speck of dust but the expansion at this period was so unimaginably immense some physicists describe this as the ‘bang’ in the big bang theory.
Although difficult to imagine, many leading physicist today believe that space and time are themselves made of tiny elementary constituent particles although the nature of these indivisible constituents remains a mystery (according to string/M-theory these ‘particles’ may possibly be in the form tiny vibrating strings of energy which the theory predicts may also be the elementary constituents of ordinary matter – if this type of thing interests you I recommend Brian Greenes ‘The fabric of the cosmos’). Therefore the constituents that make up matter and the constituents that make up space and time, were derived from a singularity of pure energy.
How the entity then gave rise to diverse constituents such as matter and space and time is a question that perplexes physicists today. The problem is that the two theories we need to combine to investigate the universe at its earliest moments, general relativity and quantum mechanics, break down and reveal nonsensical answers when they are integrated. However there are a couple of promising but at the moment speculative theories today such as superstring/M-theory and quantum loop gravity that are capable of combining general relativity and quantum mechanics which physicists one day hope will be able shed some light on how matter and space came into existence and how time started ticking all from a single as yet mysterious entity way smaller than speck of dust.
Therefore the idea that the elementary constituents that make up the earth and that the elementary constituents that make up the heavens as once being joined as one is scientifically correct. Of course those who are critical will argue that the verse in the Quran means that the Earth and the heavens were literally stitched together. Since the Quran provides little detail in its description I must concede that they have a right to suggest this if they so wish. I on the other hand am sincerely quite amazed and indeed humbled by this verse. Indeed, if anyone were to say this verse to me 1400 hundred years ago with a straight face I would have thought that person was some sort of lunatic. The fact that we now know the verse provides some insight into the early evolution of our universe is astounding.
However, you also point out that the Prophet merely was just plagiarizing ideas from people such as the Sumerians who also believed that the Heavens and the Earth were once joined. In fact the notion that the Heavens and Earth were once joined can be traced as far back as the Hindu scriptures. Some people believe that a lot of ancient religions including Hinduism were originally Muslim religions which were later corrupted to include polytheism and idolatry. Indeed polytheism was at the heart of the Sumerian religion, and anyone who has studied the religion will know its ideas are completely detestable from an Islamic point of view – the idea that the Prophet would want to plagiarize ideas from a religion which is ‘anti-Islamic’ in its most fundamental nature seems to me far-fetched. I of course believe that this is a verse describing the origin of the world we inhabit which God has decided to reveal to Prophets from more ancient times as well as to the Prophet Muhammad.
In point 6 you discuss the second half of this verse:
‘’and we made every living thing of water’’
21:30
You say that it was already known that every living thing was created from water and as evidence state the following:
‘’Aristotle records that: Thales believed ‘that it (the nature of things) is water’ and Anaximander believed that; ‘’life came from the sea’’.
Thales was a Greek philosopher who lived around 600 BC. He believed that the world itself started from water and that the origin of all matter is water. According to Aristotle, Thales proposed that water, one of the four elements (the others being earth, air and fire), is the principle of all things and that all things ultimately are water. This clearly couldn’t be more different to what is stated in the Quran.
Anaximander also lived around 600 BC and speculated about the beginnings and origin of animal life. He claimed that animals sprang out of the sea long ago. He thought the first animals were born trapped in a spiny bark, but as they got older, the bark would dry up and break and as the early humidity evaporated, dry land emerged and, in time, humankind had to adapt. Anaximander put forward the idea that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth’s climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales. Even though he had no theory of natural selection some people consider him as evolution’s most ancient proponent.
But it is quite obvious that the views of Thales, Anaximander and Aristotle could not be more different than what is stated in the verse of the Quran in question. Another similar verse of the Quran is as follows:
‘’God has created every living creature from water. Among them are such as move on their bellies, and such as move on two legs, and such as move on four. God creates whatever He wills. Surely, God has full power over everything’’
24:45
Therefore it appears that the Quran correctly states that every living thing is made from water, but contains no hint of the inaccurate views of Thales and Anaximander.
Hassan, you state in your video that Muslims often invent claims of scientific miracles in the Quran using thoroughly dubious evidence (which of course in some cases this is true), however, if we are being honest you could easily be accused of a very similar thing on this point.
In point 7 you discuss the following verse:
‘’It is He who created night and day, and the sun and the moon, all swim along, each in its rounded course.’’
21:33
You state that the verse is simply reflecting the views of the geocentric model of the time when it was thought the Earth is the centre of the Universe and that the sun, moon and other stars and planets orbit around it. However there is nothing in the verse to support this view. Indeed there are many other verses in the Quran stating that the sun and the moon follow orbits but none of them implicate in any manner that they are following orbits around the earth. Before it was known that the sun orbits the centre of our Milky Way galaxy, people assumed that the Quran was simply supporting the geocentric model. It is now clear that this was assumption was wrong.
I agree with you regarding point 8. It is just a case of people trying to manufacture a scientific fact in the Quran when there is not one there. This type of thing annoys me just as much, if not more, as when people fail to acknowledge the amazing verses which are true.
In point 9 you discuss the following verse:
‘’Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: “Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.” They said: “We do come (together), in willing obedience.”
41:11
Most translators use the word ‘gas’ instead of smoke here. Some translators used the word heaven in place of the word sky in their translations. However, given the context of the verse I believe that sky is the correct translation. The verse is therefore most likely describing the formation of the earths atmosphere. It is thought that throughout the earths history it has had three different types of atmosphere. There are conflicting views on how its first atmosphere appeared, however most scientists believe that the very first atmosphere of the Earth must have been made of the same material as the sun and stars (i.e. hydrogen and helium). If that theory holds true then this verse of the Quran would make scientific sense.
In point 10 you discuss verses which describe there being seven heavens (2:29; 71:15-16). Due to the context of the numerous verses I agree that the verses are not relating to the earths atmosphere but are instead referring to seven universes. According to multiverse theories, there could well exist Universes other than the one we inhabit, although many consider such speculation as unscientific since almost by definition there is no experiment that can be done to test this prediction. However many leading physicists today believe it is a real possibility.
A couple of verses from the Quran are as follows:
‘’See ye not how God has created the seven heavens one above another’’
71:15
‘’We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars’’
37:6
The details of the verses may indeed be consistent with current theories. For example the idea that the universes may be organized ‘one above the other’ is consistent with the ‘bubble’ universes model. In addition, according to the model each universe may have different physical laws, therefore making it possible that stars only form in some or only one of those universes – this would be consistent with the second verse I have quoted (indeed physical laws and constants need to be precisely fine tuned at certain perfect values to miraculously allow the formation of stars such as our sun to occur).
Another interesting theory which is consistent with the existence of other universes is superstring/M-theory which was formulated by the likes of Edward Witten (Fields Medal winner and considered by many as the smartest physicist on the planet). In this theory though, there may not be strictly speaking additional universes, but instead additional dimensions which we cannot see or detect.
The theory proposes that we may live in a 3-brane (a world with three space dimensions) that we know as our universe. But according to the theory there exists 7 additional space dimensions that we can not see or detect but exist in a higher dimensional spacetime with our ‘universe’. Therefore according to the theory it is possible that our 3-brane world can exist with 6 other 1-brane worlds along a one dimensional axis giving a total of 7 independent worlds (although in theory the seven additional dimensions can be in any form i.e. there could exist our 3-brane and although difficult to imagine a 6-brane along a one dimensional axis). These worlds are largely independent and light and matter cannot travel between them (it is thought that only gravity might be able to) and again it is possible that stars only form in our 3-brane – this light is not able to escape to the other ‘universes’. If you are interested I recommend ‘The fabric of the cosmos’ and ‘The elegant universe’ both by Brian Greene for further reading.
Of course although these ideas have grabbed the attention of some of the smartest people alive, I need to point out that they are at the moment very speculative. The reason why I have discussed them is simply to demonstrate that although verses in the Quran may not make sense with current conventional scientific thinking, it does not mean that they are incorrect. My personal belief is that the scientific statements made in the Quran have throughout history been proven correct and they are therefore there to be proven correct. I therefore feel that physicists will one day be able to prove that there are additional worlds or universes – it would be amazing if at the same time they found there were 7 in total!
Hassan, you also state that the fact the Quran states there are seven heavens is merely plagiarizing the pre-Copernican model of the Universe. This is categorically false for two fundamentally obvious reasons. The two proponents of the pre-Copernican model were Aristotle and Plato. With the Earth at the centre, they believed that there existed a number of nine, not seven, spheres around the earth, and that these spheres contained the known planets and the fixed stars. The first seven spheres contained the moon, Sun and the five known planets. The second most outermost sphere contained the fixed stars and finally the outermost sphere contained ‘the sphere of the prime mover’ which was believed to get all the rotation within the system going. So according to the pre-Copernican model there are eight ‘heavens’ (although of course Plato and Aristotle did not view them as separate universes) containing the sun, moon, stars and planets or nine if you include the sphere of the prime mover. This is the first fundamental flaw. However the nail in the coffin for this accusation is that the pre-Copernican model states that the fixed stars are in the second most outermost sphere and that the lowest sphere actually contains the moon whereas the Quran clearly states that the stars are in the lowest heaven.
‘’We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars’’
37:6
Evidently, the accusation that the Quran’s seven heavens is relating to the spheres of the pre-Copernican model is simply wrong.
Summary
Hassan in your video a general argument is that some of the scientific facts were already known at the time of the Prophet – this is categorically false. In some of the cases above I have demonstrated that your claims were incorrect as for the other cases, every scientist will agree that although there were some scientific ideas around at the time of the Prophet none of the ones mentioned were proven facts – they were unproven scientific ideas. Therefore you are suggesting that the Prophet somehow miraculously managed to pick out the scientific ideas that would later prove correct and ignore the ideas that would later prove incorrect. This is quite some feat considering that most scientific theories that exist at a particular time are sooner or later proven incorrect. Only a very small proportion of scientific ideas from a given period stand the test of time and are proven correct. Indeed if I had the same knack of predicting which scientific ideas are likely to be correct as you suggest the Prophet had, I no doubt would have a couple of Nobel prizes under my belt already.
Every one of us in our own way are in the pursuit of truth. At the time of the Prophet this was encouraged as a pre-requisite of being a Muslim and this by and large remained an integral policy for Muslims. Indeed up until the 12th century the majority of the most important scientific discoveries that we know today are correct were made by Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries). However in my opinion as faith has been diluted over successive generations so has our yearning for the truth. It is in the interest of Muslims to get this love for truth back. I do not just mean scientifically but perhaps more importantly on social and moral issues. We must endeavor to realize the true teachings of the Quran and the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Prophets that came before him. I am confident that if all Muslims stuck to this principle then the faith of Islam would be held up in the highest regard as it once upon a time was. We could certainly do with more pre-9/11 ‘Teacher Hassans’ in this world.
Aboo Ali made some bold claims, and seemingly quite convincingly, that Quran is not a book of God but a book written by an Arab man who is taken to be a Prophet. Needless to say, his claims seemed articulate and indeed worthy of casting doubt in those who are not knowledgeable in Islam, science, history of science and critical reasoning.
Here is a step-by-step refutation of Aboo Ali's claims regarding Quran by Aby Yunus from his blog. I would not be posting the whole thing for its quite lengthy. The rest of refutations can be read on the link given above. Hassan is apparently the last name of Aboo Ali.
The Quran, Science, and Truth
Hassan, I also watched your video on scientific miracles in the Quran ( http://www.youtube.com/user/discussislam#p/u/9/uQg6x-K82IA ) and as a scientist I feel I am obliged to discuss your points in more detail.
In point 1 you suggest that the Prophet has access to the works of Aristotle, Hypocrites and Galen on early human development and that he manages to pick out the ideas that we today know are correct. To back up this point you say that the Quran also contains the inaccuracies of the early Greek ideas. One of these is that the Quran says:
‘’We created man from a drop of mingled fluid’’
76:2
This notion is not scientifically inaccurate but you say without providing any hint of proof that the Prophet was talking of the germinal fluid that hypocrites spoke of. This is a weak argument without any foundation.
You also mention the following verse:
‘’(Man) is created from a drop emitted. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.
86:6 to7
There are a few verses in the Quran which refer to man being created from sperm/semen (16:4; 75:36-37; 80:17-19; 76:2; 53:45-46). The word used to describe the sperm/semen in all of these examples is ‘nutfa’ which means a fluid drop. However this word is not found in the verse in question. Instead a more accurate translation for this verse is a ‘gushing fluid which is ejected’ and therefore makes this particular verse different compared to other verses describing sperm/semen. Indeed I should point out here that very few translators have translated the verse as saying ‘from a fluid drop ejected’. Most translators have used expressions such as ‘a gushing fluid/a turbulent fluid/a jetting fluid which is ejected. Since the word nutfa is not found in this verse it is a valid conclusion that using the term ‘fluid drop’, which is usually used to describe sperm/semen in the Quran, in the translation of this verse is not correct. A lot of people have therefore suggested that this verse is referring to blood which is ejected from the heart since the heart is obviously located between the spine and ribs. It is a fair scientific assessment that life starts when the heart starts pumping in the embryo and therefore such an interpretation would make good sense. Those who have attributed the verse to describing sperm ejected from the penis are quite simply mistaken. For a much more comprehensive discussion which I fully concur with regarding this issue is given by Mohammad Shafi J. Aga and can be found here:
http://islam.worldofislam.info/inde...circulation-in-human-body&catid=126&Itemid=44
For anyone specifically interested in this point, it is a must read. The discussion shows that a more accurate translation of the verse in question is as follows:
Man should then consider by what (means) he/she has been created. He/she has been created by (means of) gushing fluid. Which (fluid) comes out from between the spine and the ribs. Verily indeed capable of its return.
86:6 to 8
You also discuss the following verse:
‘’Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then out of that clot we made a lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create.’’
(23:14)
You suggest that the Prophet has plagiarized this verse from the works of Galen. Galen was a physician, medical researcher and philosopher of Greek origin residing in Rome who lived around 100AD. He wrote extensive works on medicine-related subjects – his surviving work runs to around 3 million words and it is thought that less than a third of his work survives. One of these works, but by no means one of his famous works, was his views on semen and early human development entitled ‘de semine’ or ‘on semen’. You say that the Prophet plagiarizes a passage from this work of Galen which describes four stages of development and add it includes Galens belief that bones are formed before flesh. Indeed, you show the Greek text in your video which the Prophet is alleged to have plagiarized. I have also seen this exact same claim on some ‘anti-Islamic’ websites. Indeed they show the exact same Greek text which you have shown in your video and they even go one step further in providing a translation of this text which is as follows:
‘’But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the fetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails. At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a fetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood, and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts. You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form “twigs”, as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed….
….The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time….it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow’’
Anyone who compares this passage to the verse of the Quran in question will see there are some obvious differences but one might suggest that Quranic verse follows roughly speaking Galens text above. However, as we shall see to jump to the conclusion that the Prophet plagiarized Galens work would be hasty. First of all I should make it clear that the Quranic verse does not state that bones are formed before flesh. For example, if we look more carefully at the verse, the word ‘then’ (in Arabic ‘thumma’) is not found between creation of bones and flesh. The verse simply states the bones that are created are clothed with flesh – it is simply wrong to claim the verse says bones are created first and then those bones are clothed with flesh. Secondly, in the Galen translation above, the last paragraph (concerning bones growing on flesh), is not even in the original Greek Galen text which is depicted on these websites and in your video. The English translation comes from Professor Phillip De Lacy (1992) and some pages of his book are actually available to view online at Google books:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
The full Greek text of Galen is actually around 70 pages long. A lot of his views have today proven to be incorrect. The first part of the translation above can be found on page 93 of de Lacy’s book. After this passage Galen goes on to describe his views on how different parts of the fetus forms including the major organs. The last paragraph of the translation above containing sentences regarding flesh growing on bones is only found a few pages later and is translated in full on page 101 of de Lacy’s book:
‘’And now the third period of gestation has come. After nature has made outlines of all the organs and the substance of semen is used up, the time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time, sucking the fattest part out of them, it made them earthly and brittle and completely without fat; and causing the viscous matter that grew out from them in each case to grow out, it made at the ends of bone ligament that bind to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow. And for the creation of bones it used most of all the power of heat, cooking them all and drying them. This was better for them, as they would be hard and the fat would in this way be fully drained from them, like froth from boiling things. But where nature caused flesh to grow on the bones themselves before it covered them with membranes, all such bones were less brittle.’’
Of course most of these views have today been proven incorrect. None of these ideas appear in the Quran. Indeed Galen continues a couple of sentences later (Page 103 of de Lacy’s book):
‘’There are fibers of still another kind in the stomach, the intestines, both bladders, the uterus, and the heart, that take their origin from the semen; around these fibers, as around wicker work, nature caused the whole body of the inner organ to grow, this body being generated from blood.
For all the parts that are fleshy in form were generated from blood; but all that are membranous were drawn out from the semen. And for this reason the parts generated from blood, if they ever should be destroyed, are easily generated again, since they have in abundance the matter for their production; but those that are from semen are not at all or seldom generated again’’
Galen wrote his work partly as a challenge to some of Aristotle’s views who believed that the embryo/fetus was generated from the mothers menstrual blood and that the sperm was simply an agent that ‘activated’ the menstrual blood to start forming into a new life but that the sperm after causing activation was discarded or ‘evaporates’ and actually did not itself physically form into the embryo/fetus (note how the Quran does not have any hint of the totally inaccurate views of the more famous Aristotle).
Although Galens views were not as inaccurate as Aristotle’s, we can see from the translation above he also believed that semen was not involved in the formation in some parts of the growing fetus but that some parts were formed solely from the mothers arterial and venous blood. Again this does not reflect the views of the Quran. Indeed if one takes the time to read through ‘de semine’ in its entirety, although somewhat impressive given the time in which it was written, we would find it is littered with inaccuracies. Indeed the inaccurate ideas far outweigh the accurate ideas and indeed this is one of his much less famous works that survive today. None of these inaccuracies appear in the Quran which would perhaps be expected if the Prophet did indeed plagiarize the work of Galen.
When there are two texts (i.e. in this case the Quran and the work of Galen) that are discussing the same subject and both texts contain ideas which are later proven correct should we be surprised that there is at least some sort of similarity between them? For example, quite often in scientific research, two independent groups sometimes are working on the same subject and carry out the same experiments without any knowledge of each other. Occasionally the two groups unwittingly send the papers describing their results off for publication in scientific journals at around the same time. When both papers are eventually published it is often found they contain the same ideas and the conclusions they reach are strikingly similar. Does this mean that one of the groups has plagiarized the work of the other? Of course it doesn’t. In our case of course Galens work was documented long before the Quran was documented so someone could plausibly suggest that there is at least a potential for the Quran to have fabricated Galens work. However, since the Quran only contains somewhat similar ideas to that of Galen which have been proven correct and contains none of the much more abundant inaccurate ideas in Galens work we should conclude that the verses of the Quran in question were derived independently from Galens work.
As I mentioned earlier Galen wrote a vast range of works totaling around 600 treatises and this work on semen was very far from his most famous of works. In addition, Galens works were translated to Arabic around 200 years after the Prophets death. However the claim is that the Prophet may secretly somehow have had access to some of Galens work and that someone might have helped him secretly translate it from Greek to Arabic. Indeed if this was the case there must have existed some conspiracy between the Prophet and some of his followers where they plagiarized the work others and passed it off at Gods revelation to the rest of the population. Indeed, according to some claims passages of the Christian and Jewish scriptures were also plagiarized in a similar manner. Any historian on Islam would tell you that a conspiracy between the Prophet and a group of his followers to translate and plagiarize texts of a multitude of different languages is an extremely unlikely scenario.
Taking into account all the factors I have discussed regarding the Quranic verse in question and Galens work, the claim that the Prophet plagiarized the work of Galen is far-fetched.
In point 2 you discuss the following verse:
‘’And we sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind’’
57:25
You state that it was already known that meteors containing iron fell to the earth from space. This is simply not true. The German physicist, Ernst Florens Chaldini was the first to publish the idea that meteorites were actually rocks from space. He published his work, “On the Origin of the Pallas Iron and Others Similar to it, and on Some Associated Natural Phenomena”, in 1794. The scientific community of the time did not take him seriously and mocked his work. Although meteors have been known since ancient times, they were not known to be an astronomical phenomenon until early in the 19th century following work of the French scientist Jean Baptiste Biot and the British chemist Edward Howard.
You also state that ‘‘all elements came from outer space, by singling out iron, the Quran only appears to reveal its ignorance of this fact.’’
This statement is misleading and makes little sense. It is true that all elements on Earth come from space in the sense that the Earth and other planets form from debris of supernova explosions (this happens when stars die). The debris contains all the elements that condense and cool to form planets such as Earth. However, only a few different elements fall to Earth from space in the form of meteors – remember the verse in question says ‘’We ‘sent down’ iron’’. Meteorites can be divided into three broad categories: stony meteorites are rocks, mainly composed of silicate minerals; iron meteorites are largely composed of metallic iron-nickel; and, stony-iron meteorites contain large amounts of both iron-nickel and rocky material.
It is also worth pointing out that although rare, iron meteorites, are the major form of natural metallic iron on the Earth’s surface and that the first wrought iron used by mankind came from meteors.
However, having said all this I would like to add that God says he ’sends down’ many other things in the Quran (manna, quails, signs, revelations etc.). ‘Sending down’ could thus be a metaphorical term and may not necessarily mean something ‘fell to Earth’ from the heavens. In addition of course God does not specifically say that He ’sent down meteorites containing iron’.
Regarding points 3 and 4, I agree with Hassan that the evidence suggesting the Quranic verses in question contain scientific facts is somewhat weak.
In point 5 you discuss the following verse:
‘’Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and earth were one piece before we clove them assunder’’
21:30
You state that this verse is inaccurate since matter did not exist to be cloven asunder and that the earth did not split from the heavens.
Anyone with knowledge of the Arabic language will know that this is not a very accurate translation of the verse. A more accurate translation has been given by others:
‘’Do those who are Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them’’
Aisha Bewley
‘’Have the faithless not regarded that the heavens and the earth were interwoven and We unraveled them’’
Ali Quli Qara’i
‘’Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them’’
Shakir
The big bang theory and it derivative theories (i.e. inflationary cosmology) are theories which describes cosmic evolution from a tiny fraction of a second after what happened to bring the Universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. It tells us nothing about how the energy that gave birth to our universe came into existence and nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or frankly whether it really ever banged at all.
It is thought however that at the very earliest moments of the universe, the universe consisted of pure energy at unimaginably high density which some physicists have termed a singularity. Before this point matter did not exist and indeed although difficult to imagine neither did space or time. It is only after the singularity of pure vacuum energy appeared that space and time came into existence and with the universe undergoing a period of immense rapid inflation, matter and radiation also came into existence. The size of the universe before the inflation was much less than the size of a speck of dust but the expansion at this period was so unimaginably immense some physicists describe this as the ‘bang’ in the big bang theory.
Although difficult to imagine, many leading physicist today believe that space and time are themselves made of tiny elementary constituent particles although the nature of these indivisible constituents remains a mystery (according to string/M-theory these ‘particles’ may possibly be in the form tiny vibrating strings of energy which the theory predicts may also be the elementary constituents of ordinary matter – if this type of thing interests you I recommend Brian Greenes ‘The fabric of the cosmos’). Therefore the constituents that make up matter and the constituents that make up space and time, were derived from a singularity of pure energy.
How the entity then gave rise to diverse constituents such as matter and space and time is a question that perplexes physicists today. The problem is that the two theories we need to combine to investigate the universe at its earliest moments, general relativity and quantum mechanics, break down and reveal nonsensical answers when they are integrated. However there are a couple of promising but at the moment speculative theories today such as superstring/M-theory and quantum loop gravity that are capable of combining general relativity and quantum mechanics which physicists one day hope will be able shed some light on how matter and space came into existence and how time started ticking all from a single as yet mysterious entity way smaller than speck of dust.
Therefore the idea that the elementary constituents that make up the earth and that the elementary constituents that make up the heavens as once being joined as one is scientifically correct. Of course those who are critical will argue that the verse in the Quran means that the Earth and the heavens were literally stitched together. Since the Quran provides little detail in its description I must concede that they have a right to suggest this if they so wish. I on the other hand am sincerely quite amazed and indeed humbled by this verse. Indeed, if anyone were to say this verse to me 1400 hundred years ago with a straight face I would have thought that person was some sort of lunatic. The fact that we now know the verse provides some insight into the early evolution of our universe is astounding.
However, you also point out that the Prophet merely was just plagiarizing ideas from people such as the Sumerians who also believed that the Heavens and the Earth were once joined. In fact the notion that the Heavens and Earth were once joined can be traced as far back as the Hindu scriptures. Some people believe that a lot of ancient religions including Hinduism were originally Muslim religions which were later corrupted to include polytheism and idolatry. Indeed polytheism was at the heart of the Sumerian religion, and anyone who has studied the religion will know its ideas are completely detestable from an Islamic point of view – the idea that the Prophet would want to plagiarize ideas from a religion which is ‘anti-Islamic’ in its most fundamental nature seems to me far-fetched. I of course believe that this is a verse describing the origin of the world we inhabit which God has decided to reveal to Prophets from more ancient times as well as to the Prophet Muhammad.
In point 6 you discuss the second half of this verse:
‘’and we made every living thing of water’’
21:30
You say that it was already known that every living thing was created from water and as evidence state the following:
‘’Aristotle records that: Thales believed ‘that it (the nature of things) is water’ and Anaximander believed that; ‘’life came from the sea’’.
Thales was a Greek philosopher who lived around 600 BC. He believed that the world itself started from water and that the origin of all matter is water. According to Aristotle, Thales proposed that water, one of the four elements (the others being earth, air and fire), is the principle of all things and that all things ultimately are water. This clearly couldn’t be more different to what is stated in the Quran.
Anaximander also lived around 600 BC and speculated about the beginnings and origin of animal life. He claimed that animals sprang out of the sea long ago. He thought the first animals were born trapped in a spiny bark, but as they got older, the bark would dry up and break and as the early humidity evaporated, dry land emerged and, in time, humankind had to adapt. Anaximander put forward the idea that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth’s climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales. Even though he had no theory of natural selection some people consider him as evolution’s most ancient proponent.
But it is quite obvious that the views of Thales, Anaximander and Aristotle could not be more different than what is stated in the verse of the Quran in question. Another similar verse of the Quran is as follows:
‘’God has created every living creature from water. Among them are such as move on their bellies, and such as move on two legs, and such as move on four. God creates whatever He wills. Surely, God has full power over everything’’
24:45
Therefore it appears that the Quran correctly states that every living thing is made from water, but contains no hint of the inaccurate views of Thales and Anaximander.
Hassan, you state in your video that Muslims often invent claims of scientific miracles in the Quran using thoroughly dubious evidence (which of course in some cases this is true), however, if we are being honest you could easily be accused of a very similar thing on this point.
In point 7 you discuss the following verse:
‘’It is He who created night and day, and the sun and the moon, all swim along, each in its rounded course.’’
21:33
You state that the verse is simply reflecting the views of the geocentric model of the time when it was thought the Earth is the centre of the Universe and that the sun, moon and other stars and planets orbit around it. However there is nothing in the verse to support this view. Indeed there are many other verses in the Quran stating that the sun and the moon follow orbits but none of them implicate in any manner that they are following orbits around the earth. Before it was known that the sun orbits the centre of our Milky Way galaxy, people assumed that the Quran was simply supporting the geocentric model. It is now clear that this was assumption was wrong.
I agree with you regarding point 8. It is just a case of people trying to manufacture a scientific fact in the Quran when there is not one there. This type of thing annoys me just as much, if not more, as when people fail to acknowledge the amazing verses which are true.
In point 9 you discuss the following verse:
‘’Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: “Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.” They said: “We do come (together), in willing obedience.”
41:11
Most translators use the word ‘gas’ instead of smoke here. Some translators used the word heaven in place of the word sky in their translations. However, given the context of the verse I believe that sky is the correct translation. The verse is therefore most likely describing the formation of the earths atmosphere. It is thought that throughout the earths history it has had three different types of atmosphere. There are conflicting views on how its first atmosphere appeared, however most scientists believe that the very first atmosphere of the Earth must have been made of the same material as the sun and stars (i.e. hydrogen and helium). If that theory holds true then this verse of the Quran would make scientific sense.
In point 10 you discuss verses which describe there being seven heavens (2:29; 71:15-16). Due to the context of the numerous verses I agree that the verses are not relating to the earths atmosphere but are instead referring to seven universes. According to multiverse theories, there could well exist Universes other than the one we inhabit, although many consider such speculation as unscientific since almost by definition there is no experiment that can be done to test this prediction. However many leading physicists today believe it is a real possibility.
A couple of verses from the Quran are as follows:
‘’See ye not how God has created the seven heavens one above another’’
71:15
‘’We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars’’
37:6
The details of the verses may indeed be consistent with current theories. For example the idea that the universes may be organized ‘one above the other’ is consistent with the ‘bubble’ universes model. In addition, according to the model each universe may have different physical laws, therefore making it possible that stars only form in some or only one of those universes – this would be consistent with the second verse I have quoted (indeed physical laws and constants need to be precisely fine tuned at certain perfect values to miraculously allow the formation of stars such as our sun to occur).
Another interesting theory which is consistent with the existence of other universes is superstring/M-theory which was formulated by the likes of Edward Witten (Fields Medal winner and considered by many as the smartest physicist on the planet). In this theory though, there may not be strictly speaking additional universes, but instead additional dimensions which we cannot see or detect.
The theory proposes that we may live in a 3-brane (a world with three space dimensions) that we know as our universe. But according to the theory there exists 7 additional space dimensions that we can not see or detect but exist in a higher dimensional spacetime with our ‘universe’. Therefore according to the theory it is possible that our 3-brane world can exist with 6 other 1-brane worlds along a one dimensional axis giving a total of 7 independent worlds (although in theory the seven additional dimensions can be in any form i.e. there could exist our 3-brane and although difficult to imagine a 6-brane along a one dimensional axis). These worlds are largely independent and light and matter cannot travel between them (it is thought that only gravity might be able to) and again it is possible that stars only form in our 3-brane – this light is not able to escape to the other ‘universes’. If you are interested I recommend ‘The fabric of the cosmos’ and ‘The elegant universe’ both by Brian Greene for further reading.
Of course although these ideas have grabbed the attention of some of the smartest people alive, I need to point out that they are at the moment very speculative. The reason why I have discussed them is simply to demonstrate that although verses in the Quran may not make sense with current conventional scientific thinking, it does not mean that they are incorrect. My personal belief is that the scientific statements made in the Quran have throughout history been proven correct and they are therefore there to be proven correct. I therefore feel that physicists will one day be able to prove that there are additional worlds or universes – it would be amazing if at the same time they found there were 7 in total!
Hassan, you also state that the fact the Quran states there are seven heavens is merely plagiarizing the pre-Copernican model of the Universe. This is categorically false for two fundamentally obvious reasons. The two proponents of the pre-Copernican model were Aristotle and Plato. With the Earth at the centre, they believed that there existed a number of nine, not seven, spheres around the earth, and that these spheres contained the known planets and the fixed stars. The first seven spheres contained the moon, Sun and the five known planets. The second most outermost sphere contained the fixed stars and finally the outermost sphere contained ‘the sphere of the prime mover’ which was believed to get all the rotation within the system going. So according to the pre-Copernican model there are eight ‘heavens’ (although of course Plato and Aristotle did not view them as separate universes) containing the sun, moon, stars and planets or nine if you include the sphere of the prime mover. This is the first fundamental flaw. However the nail in the coffin for this accusation is that the pre-Copernican model states that the fixed stars are in the second most outermost sphere and that the lowest sphere actually contains the moon whereas the Quran clearly states that the stars are in the lowest heaven.
‘’We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars’’
37:6
Evidently, the accusation that the Quran’s seven heavens is relating to the spheres of the pre-Copernican model is simply wrong.
Summary
Hassan in your video a general argument is that some of the scientific facts were already known at the time of the Prophet – this is categorically false. In some of the cases above I have demonstrated that your claims were incorrect as for the other cases, every scientist will agree that although there were some scientific ideas around at the time of the Prophet none of the ones mentioned were proven facts – they were unproven scientific ideas. Therefore you are suggesting that the Prophet somehow miraculously managed to pick out the scientific ideas that would later prove correct and ignore the ideas that would later prove incorrect. This is quite some feat considering that most scientific theories that exist at a particular time are sooner or later proven incorrect. Only a very small proportion of scientific ideas from a given period stand the test of time and are proven correct. Indeed if I had the same knack of predicting which scientific ideas are likely to be correct as you suggest the Prophet had, I no doubt would have a couple of Nobel prizes under my belt already.
Every one of us in our own way are in the pursuit of truth. At the time of the Prophet this was encouraged as a pre-requisite of being a Muslim and this by and large remained an integral policy for Muslims. Indeed up until the 12th century the majority of the most important scientific discoveries that we know today are correct were made by Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries). However in my opinion as faith has been diluted over successive generations so has our yearning for the truth. It is in the interest of Muslims to get this love for truth back. I do not just mean scientifically but perhaps more importantly on social and moral issues. We must endeavor to realize the true teachings of the Quran and the true teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Prophets that came before him. I am confident that if all Muslims stuck to this principle then the faith of Islam would be held up in the highest regard as it once upon a time was. We could certainly do with more pre-9/11 ‘Teacher Hassans’ in this world.
Last edited:
, if you're interested PM me.