07.03.08
Overnight invasion from Harun Yahya group
The Harun Yahya people must have found the titled post ‘Evolution, A Muslim Perspective’ on google and and thought it an opportunity.
I will look the other way here since their attempt to use me for their purposes will see me using them for my purposes, which are no more than an opportunity to attract Muslim googlers to my site, for my view of evolution, which is not creationist.
Welcome. I hope the view of evolution here, which includes a critique of Neo-Darwinism, might help to ‘tighten up your Darwin critique’. It needs a little work, guys and gals.
James said,
July 3, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Somehow, I got a book from these clowns without even requesting it…sure seems fishy.
nemo said,
July 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Many of the comments (51!) shows a variety of confusions, but I feel I should allow them some space to express themselves. They seem to be caught up in a cult of the author, when the real issue is simply the critique, etc…
We will see
Adam said,
July 4, 2008 at 1:28 am
HArun YAhya is the best writer I have ever read. He collapsed the evolution theory. Evolution is just a deception.
James said,
July 4, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“HArun YAhya is the best writer I have ever read. He collapsed the evolution theory. Evolution is just a deception.”
Yikes…these Yahya groupies are some scary f*ckers. There should be a contest between these guys and the Hare Krishnas to determine which group is creepier.
Joe Morreale said,
July 5, 2008 at 10:56 am
THOSE WHO SAY OR BELIEVE THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION ARE IN A SERIOUSLY DELUDED STATE! AND IN VAIN VAIN CONTINUES TO THUMSUCK PROPAGANDA.
AFTER LOOKING INTO MANY OF ADNAN OKTARS WORKS IT IS CRYSTAL-CLEAR THAT IT IS A DISGRACEFUL DECEPTION.
HIS WORKS SHOW VIA MANY ADMISSIONS OF EVOLUTIONISTS THEMSELVES THAT IT IS A FAIRY-TALE KEPT ALIVE ON THE AGENDA FOR IDEOLOGICAL REASONS (MATERRIALISM).
TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE FEW EVIDENCES THAT ARE BEING REFERRED TO TURNS OUT TO BE NO SUCH THING BUT PROPAGANDA THAT NEVER GOES PAST THE HYPOTHESES/SPECULATION STAGE
WHICH IS BASED ON:
IMAGINATION + SPECULATION FUELLED BY WISHFUL THINKING!
EVOLUTION HAS BEEN INVALIDATED AT EVERY LEVEL FROM MOLECULAR ALL THE WAY TO PALEONTOLOGY - AND THERE IS NO WAY BACK. PEOPLE WHOS WORLD-VIEW HAS BEEN RUINED SIMPLY HAVE TO COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT AND NOT VAINFULLY AND HOPELESSLY HANG ON TO PROPAGANDA AS IF HYPNOTISED.
IF THIS IS INDEED DEMOCRACY THEY SHOULD ALLOW CREATIONISM TAUGHT ALONGSIDE DARWINISM IN SCHOOLS AND LET CHILDREN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. BUT THEY WONT BECAUSE THEY WILL THEN CLEARLY SEE THAT EVOLUTION IS NO DIFFRERENT THEN THE FAIRY-TALE CARTOONS THAT THEY WATCH!
THEY ARE UNDERSTANDABLY AFRAID BECAUSE WHOEVER DOES RESEARCH INTO THE SUBJECT CAN NO LONGER SINCERELY BELIEVE
IN IT ANY LONGER.
IT IS ALL OVER
DARWINISM-WATCH.COM KEEPS YOU UPDATED WITH THE PROPAGANDA
I am including again on this site a summary from a previous blog
The topics i have spoken about in the previous 2008/04/07 blog:
(1) The pychological aspect - How throughout history atheists, who have out of arrogance and rebellion refused to submit to the Creator and the excuses they seek to justify their atheism. Today they think that science with the evolution scenario has provided them that justification.
(2) How the theory of evolution has been totally disproven and demolished especially from 80s onwards by science (from molecular eg cell to paleontology eg fossils) and countless admissions of disappointed evolutionists themselves
(3) How it is sustained and kept alive by deceptive propaganda via academia, media, hollywood etc.
They stubbornly ignore the evidence and continue propagating the same nonsence to the ignorant masses and come up with so-called evidences which time and time again are shown to be nothing concrete beyond the usual hypothetical and speculative nonsence based upon wishful-thinking
(4) The propaganda methods and techqniques that are employed in the deception carried out in the name of ideological concerns i.e materialism and its unobjective stance and rejection of any supernatural explanation of the universe although it is clear, obvious and irrefutable from a rational, logical, reason and scientific point of view that God and Creation is a most solid and concrete reality.
(5) The 150 years of frauds and scandals committed in the attempt to prove a fairy tale eg Haeckels embryos, piltdown man scandal, stanley millers experiment, missing links deceptions and on and on…
(6) The disasters (wars and conflicts) that Social Darwinism has caused and continues to cause - fascism, communism, neo-capitalism. The subtle indoctrinating (eg competiveness in economic arena to the encouraging of immorality and breakdown of family values) of children from early academia, media(icluding childrens cartoons), hollywood that life is a stuggle, big fish eats little fish, might is right etc, etc
(7) How the architects and maintainers of the current Secular World Order are the Freemasons and how evolution/materialism is a very important tool to their agenda.
An example: The undemocratic nature regarding the teaching of science in schools - the refusal to teach both possibilities - Creationism and Darwinism and leave people to make up their own minds.
The bloodiest era in our history (late 19th century onwards) has occured since the collapse of religious values due in great part to the man-made secular systems which have led to world wars and social moral breakdowns.
This refutes the commonly held notions that religions bring conflict as the truth of the matter is that atheism,fascism, communism and neo-capitalism have statistically made FAR MORE victims physically as well as psychologically in total than all previous recorded history.
Religion when misapplied can and does cause massive damage but in terms of generalities and numbers when compared with secular stytems and the lack of religious values in society at large it remains superior as there is and never can be any superior alternative to the deterrent of genuine belief and fear of God and the Hereafter.
(8) The myth that religion and science are incompatable.That religion has to be materialistic - a erroneous &undemocratically and forcefully imposed dogmatic stance
In truth Science is an investigation into the workings in nature from which you can derive conclusion of a a supernatural creation or a natural one.
Recommend? (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link antidarwinist2010
Joe Morreale said,
July 5, 2008 at 10:58 am
In truth science is a investigation of the workings in nature from which you then draw conclusions to how the Universe came into being: Chance-based evolution dressed up as a scientifically imaginary false deity called natural selection(mother nature!) , Guided Evolution or Creation (not by evolution)?
The first is out of the question as Science has shown, the second could have been possible but again science has shown that God did not create it that way and the third is in actual fact the scientifically solid fact of creation NOT via evolution (at least not in living things changing in to different living things, ape and then man scenario)
(9) How history has not been presented to us correctly. How the Muslisms are the founders and creators of modern science( discoveries/ experimential method) and how they led Europe out of their Dark Ages into their Renaissance.
(10) The refutation of evolution in the Quran by weak and apologetic Muslims who do not know or willingly ignore the scientific deception which is evolution and how they load certain verses of the Quran in order to fit it in with their evolutionary preconceptions.
see How Darwinism is incompatable with the Quran
(11) The delusion of the majority opinion. In Galileos time the majority of his contemporaries believed him to be wrong but in fact he was right. Therefore being in the majority is no proof of one being in the right.
How pyschological complexes and academic peer pressure and a long deep-rooted history (over 100years) of deception that religion and science cannot co-exist in scientific and academic circles(institutions/unis) which are nearly all in the hands of evolutionists supported by secular world order machine leads to this scenario wherby Materialism is considered sacrosanct and untouchable.
This again shows how democracy is in fact made a mockery of and how the masses are brain-washed and deceived.
(12) The scientific reality of the Quran which proves irrefutably its Divine Origin see Scienceislam.com where several non-muslim scientists and their admissions
(13) I have mentioned several books which can be referred to regarding the refutation of evolution and its propaganda deceptions eg Evolution Deceit, The Dark Spell of Darwinism,Global Freemasonry,The Disaters that Darwinism Brought to Humanity, A Definitive Reply to Evolutionist Propaganda etc
Joe Morreale said,
July 5, 2008 at 11:02 am
THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS AND THE QURAN (Last and Final Revelation/Guidance to mankind) IS INDEED HIS WORD
The Qu’ran provides dozens of verses which precede ESTABLISHED modern scientific finding by 12-1400 years! and hence discarding any material explanations as to it’s origin.
see admissions of non-muslim scientists on Scienceislam.com
I will include only a few here which relate to (1) Origin of the Universe (2) Geology/earth
(3) Embryology/man and the Hereafter:
BIG BANG AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE AND SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES
21:30-31 “Do not the Unbelievers see how the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We cloved them asunder? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”
51:47 “With power and skill did We construct the firmament and verily it is We who is expanding it.”
34:3 “….by Him who knows the unseen- from Whom is not hidden the least atom in the heavens and the earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but it is in the record perspicuous.”
GEO-SPHERICAL SHAPE OF EARTH AND FUNCTION OF MOUNTAINS
79:30 “And the earth, moreover, has He made egg shaped.”
78:6-7 “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs?”
CREATION OF MAN
86:5-7 ” Now let man but think from what he was created!He is created from a drop emitted, proceeding between the back bone and the ribs.”
32:8 “And We made his progeny from a quintessance of the nature of a fluid despised.”
75:37-39 “Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (i.e ejaculated) in lowly form?”Then did he become a clinging clot: then did (Allah) make and fashion him in due proportion.” And of him He made two sexes, male and female.”
39:6 “He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after the other, in three veils of darkness.”
23:12-14 “Man did We create from a quintessance (of clay); then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then We made of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature. So blesses be Allah, the best to create!”
TO THOSE WHO DENY THE HEREAFTER - THE FINGERPRINTS
75:3-4 “Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tip of his fingers.”
There is no compulsion in religion and i invite those sincere and objective-hearted to the truth.
As for those stubborn,arrogant, rebellious and obstinate-hearted atheists will put the following question: (call it old creationist argument or whatever)
YOU HAVE NEVER DIED BEFORE SO WHAT IS YOUR BACK-UP PLAN?!
Joe Morreale said,
July 5, 2008 at 11:11 am
THE QU’RAN WHICH IS THE LAST AND FINAL REVELATION/GUIDANCE TO MANKIND PROVES THAT GOD EXISTS AND THAT IT IS HIS WORD
Who says so?
ADMISSIONS OF NON-MUSLIM SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES ON: SCIENCEISLAM.COM
AND NO VERBAL ACROBATICS OR REFERRING TO COWBOY SOURCES OR SITES
CAN CHANGE THAT. IT IS A VAIN AND FUTILE ENDEAVOUR
The French Scientist of French Academy of Science Dr Maurice Bucaille ifor eg shows this in his book:
The Bible , the Qu’ran and Science examined in the light of Modern Knowledge
A Christian Dr William Campbell (Usa) wrote an attempted refutation of this book and then challenged live in Chicago 2000 Dr Zakir Naik (India) in a dialogue on:
THE QU’RAN AND THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE - watch how Zakir Naik exposes the many clear-cut errors of the Bible and successfully defends the unassailable Qu’ran.
He has also done two other lectures on the subject:
The Qu’ran and Modern Science, compatable or incompatable?
Is the Qu’ran the God’s word?
These are just a few examples of many people who had heard about the scientific aspects of the Qu’ran and it’s total agreement with ESTABLISHED scientific facts and purposefully learned Arabic to verify it for themselves before confirming that it is indeed the truth.
LITTLE WONDER THEN THAT ISLAM CONTINUES TO BE THE FASTING SPREADING RELIGION (including significantly many people high up in society eg doctors, scientists , engineers etc) as it is the only scripture which has no mistakes, contradictions or scientific errors in it.
As for the theory of evolution, it is pointless to keep debating about it any longer because any sincere hearted person can see that it is a fairy tale kept “alive” by deception and propaganda for ideological concerns (materialism) which is an important tool for the agenda of the architects of the current Secular World secular Order i.e The Freemasons
And before doughnuts start dismissing it as some fanciful conspiracy which has been made up DO SOME RESEARCH INTO THE SUBJECT - eg see Harun Yayha’s Global Freemasonry
For more detail to see how evolutionists engage in propaganda and deceive the public see the following:
The Dark of Darwinism - How Darwinists twist the truth to turn people away from God
A Definitive Reply to evolutionist Propaganda
To keep upto-dated see: Darwinism-watch.co
The fabrication of the myth that Religion and Science cannot co-exist has been fully exposed, refuted and demolished.
It is only awaiting for it’s official announcement on the mainstream which will soon be happening God Willing as:
(1) Many people who have come to know of the deception of evolution have abandoned believing in it eg in US and Europe.
(2) Those who still “believe” in it are not doing so SINCERELY but clinging to it in vain out of sentimental insistance and stubbornness. They do not want to abandon their atheism and adherence to their wishful-thinking.
Unfortunately they are in submission to their whims and desires rather than their Creator - a foolish choice indeed when one considers that the evidence against them is solid and that they are going to die one day.
IT IS MOST HUMILIATING FOR A PERSON WHEN HE KNOWS:
(1)HE IS IN THE WRONG
(2) KNOWS THAT OTHERS KNOW THAT HE IS IN THE WRONG AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THEN THAT:
(3) IF ONE DIES IN SUCH A STATE, HOW CAN HE DENY OR EXPECT THAT HE DESERVES ANYTHING APART FROM GOOD HAPPENING TO HIM AFTERWARDS?
Joe Morreale said,
July 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
Adana Oktar is in trouble with the Law for alleged financial iregularities due to a Masonic Plot. The Masons have had enough of his many years of being able to operate in the open in Masonically controlled Secular Turkey.
His monumental work of Atlas of Creation has placed the scientific deception of evolution more and more in the open which is a threat to their Secular New World order.
Anyone who has seen What Adnan Oktar’s (see his biography) has had to go through from the beginning of his mission from his enemies (marxists, masons etc) will clearly see what is going on which is
SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
HE IS A TRUE OTTOMAN TURK OF OUR TIMES THAT HAS RUFFLED A FEW FEATHERS IN HIGH PLACES.
BUT IT IS TOO LATE FOR THOSE TO WHOM HE HAS CAUSED DISCOMFORT. HIS WORK IS FREE ON THE INTERNET AND THERE IS NO ESCAPE!
TRUTH AS ALWAYS STANDS FIRM AGAINST FALSEHOOD
Jack L. said,
July 18, 2008 at 7:09 am
I am afraid those Harun-Yahya-groupies will only paste their texts, and have no interest in reading your blog, nemo.
But Joe’s points are interesting: the science of biology appears to be completely hijacked by Freemasons. Who could have thought of that?
Joe Morreale said,
July 18, 2008 at 10:53 am
Calling the Qur’an amazing is not something done only by Muslims, who have an appreciation for the book and who are pleased with it; it has been labeled amazing by non-Muslims as well. In fact, even people who hate Islam very much have still called it amazing.
One thing which surprises non-muslims who are examining the book very closely is that the Qur’an does not appear to them to be what they expected. What they assume is that they have an old book which came fourteen centuries ago from the Arabian desert; and they expect that the book should look something like that - an old book from the desert. And then they find out that it does not resemble what they expected at all. Additionally, one of the first things that some people assume is that because it is an old book which comes from the desert, it should talk about the desert. Well the Qur’an does talk about the desert - some of its imagery describes the desert; but it also talks about the sea - what it’s like to be in a storm on the sea.
Some years ago, the story came to us in Toronto about a man who was in the merchant marine and made his living on the sea. A Muslim gave him a translation of the Qur’an to read. The merchant marine knew nothing about the history of Islam but was interested in reading the Qur’an. When he finished reading it, he brought it back to the Muslim and asked, “This Muhammed, was he a sailor?” He was impressed at how accurately the Qur’an describes a storm on a sea. When he was told, “No as a matter of fact, Muhammed lived in the desert,” that was enough for him. He embraced Islam on the spot. He was so impressed with the Qur’an’s description because he had been in a storm on the sea, and he knew that whoever had written that description had also been in a storm on the sea. The description of “a wave, over it a wave, over it clouds” was not what someone imagining a storm on a sea to be like would have written; rather, it was written by someone who knew what a storm on the sea was like. This is one example of how the Qur’an is not tied to a certain place and time. Certainly, the scientific ideas expressed in it also do not seem to originate from the desert fourteen centuries ago.
Many centuries before the onset of Muhammed’s Prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet, interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur’an which states:
” He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that…”
Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement would have looked unusual, even to an Arab. For him, the dharrah was the smallest thing there was. Indeed, this is proof, that the Qur’an is not outdated.
Another example of what one might expect to find in an”old book” that touches upon the subject of health or medicine is outdated remedies or cures. Various historical sources state that the Prophet gave some advice about health and hygiene, yet most of these pieces of advice are not contained in the Qur’an. At first glance, to the non-Muslims this appears to be a negligent omission. They cannot understand why Allah would not “include” such helpful information in the Qur’an. Some Muslims attempt to explain this absence with the following argument: “Although the Prophet’s advice was sound and applicable to the time in which he lived, Allah, in His infinite wisdom, knew that there would come later medical and scientific advances which would make the Prophet’s advice appear outdated. When later discoveries occurred, people might say that such information contradicted that which the Prophet had given. Thus, since Allah would never allow any opportunity for the non-Muslims to claim that the Qur’an contradicts itself or the teachings of the Prophet, He only included in the Qur’an information and examples which could stand the test of time.”
However, when one examines the true realities of the Qur’an in terms of its existence as a divine revelation, the entire matter is quickly brought into its proper perspective, and the error in such argumentation becomes clear and understandable. It must be understood that the Qur’an is a divine revelation, and as such, all information in it is of divine origin. Allah revealed the Qur’an from Himself. It is the words of Allah, which existed before creation, and thus nothing can be added, subtracted or altered. In essence, the Qur’an existed and was complete before the creation of Prophet Muhammed, so it could not possibly contain any of the Prophet’s own words or advice. An inclusion of such information would clearly contradict the purpose for which the Qur’an exists, compromise its authority and render it inauthentic as a divine revelation.
Consequently, there was no “home remedies” in the Qur’an which one could claim to be outdated; nor does it contain any man’s view about what is beneficial to health, what food is best to eat, or what will cure this or that disease. In fact, the Qur’an only mentions one item dealing with medical treatment, and it is not in dispute by anyone. It states that in honey there is healing. And certainly, I do not think that there is anyone who will argue with that!
If one assumes that the Qur’an is the product of a man’s mind, then one would expect it to reflect some of what was going on in the mind of the man who “composed” it. In fact, certain encyclopedias and various books clam that the Qur’an was the product of hallucinations that Muhammed underwent. If these claims are true - if it indeed originated from some psychological problems in Muhammed’s mind - then evidence of this would be apparent in the Qur’an. Is there such evidence? In order to determine whether or not there is, one must first identify what things would have been going on in his mind at that time and then search for these thoughts and reflections in the Qur’an.
It is common knowledge that Muhammad had a very difficult life. All of his daughters died before him except one, and he had a wife of several years who was dear and important to him, who not only proceeded him in death at a very critical period of his life. As a matter of fact, she must have been quite a woman because when the first revelation came to him, he ran home to her afraid. Certainly, even today one would have a hard time trying to find an Arab who would tell you, “I was so afraid that I ran home to my wife.” They just aren’t that way. Yet Muhammed felt comfortable enough with his wife to be able to do that. That’s how influential and strong woman she was. Although these examples are only a few of the subjects that would have been on Muhammed’s mind, they are sufficient in intensity to prove my point. The Qur’an does not mention any of these things - not the death of his children, not the death of his beloved companion and wife, not his fear of the initial revelations, which he so beautifully shared with his wife - nothing; yet, these topics must have hurt him, bothered him, and caused him pain and grief during periods of his psychological reflections, then these subjects, as well as others, would be prevalent or at least mentioned throughout.
A truly scientific approach to the Qur’an is possible because the Qur’an offers something that is not offered by other religious scriptures, in particular, and other religions, in general. It is what scientists demand. Today there are many people who have ideas and theories about how the universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, “If you have theory, do not bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are wrong or not.”
Such a test was exactly why the scientific community listened to Einstein towards the beginning of the century. He came with a new theory and said, “I believe the universe works like this; and here are three ways to prove whether I am wrong!”. So the scientific community subjected his theory to the tests, and within six years it passed all three. Of course, this does not prove that he was great, but it proves that he deserved to be listened to because he said, “This is my idea; and if you want to try to prove me wrong, do this or try that.” This is exactly what the Qur’an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically it states, “If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false.” Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do “This or this or this, ” and thus it is still considered true and authentic. I suggest to you that the next time you get into dispute with someone about Islam and he claims that he has the truth and that you are in darkness, you leave all other arguments at first and make this suggestion. Ask him, “Is there any falsification test in your religion? Is there anything in your religion that would prove you are wrong if I could prove to you that it exists - anything?” Well, I can promise right now that people will not have anything - no test, no proof, nothing! This is because they do not carry around the idea that they should not only present what they believe but should also offer others a chance to prove they’re wrong. However, Islam does that. A perfect example of how Islam provides man with a chance to verify it authenticity and “prove it wrong” occurs in the 4th chapter. And quiet honestly, I was surprised when I first discovered this challenge. It states:
“Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslim.Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual presentation of such a challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is inconsistent with man’s personality. One doesn’t take an exam in school after finishing the exam, write a note to the instructor at the end saying, “This exam is perfect. There are no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!”. One just doesn’t do that. The teacher would not sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur’an approaches people. Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur’an repeatedly deals with its advice to the reader. The Qur’an informs that reader about different facts and then gives the advice: “If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you should ask those who have knowledge.” This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything.
Yet in every age there have been Muslims who have followed the advice of the Qur’an and made surprising discoveries. If one looks to the works of Muslim scientists if many centuries ago, one will find them full of quotations from the Qur’an. These works state that they did research in such a place, looking for something. And they affirm that the reason they looked in such and such a place was that the Qur’an pointed them in that direction. For example, the Qur’an mentions man’s origin and then tells the reader, “Research it!” It gives the reader a hint where to look and then states that one should find out more about it. This is the kind of thing that Muslims today largely seem to overlook - but not always, as illustrated in the following example. A few years ago, a group of men in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia collected all if the verses in the Qur’an which discuss embryology - the growth of the human being in the womb. They said, “Here is what the Qur’an says. Is it the truth?” In essence, they took the advice of the Qur’an: “Ask the men who know.” They chose, as it happened, a non-Muslim who is a professor of embryology at the University of Toronto. His name is Keith Moore, and he is the author of textbooks on embryology - a world expert on the subject. They invited him to Riyadh and said, “This is what the Qur’an says about your subject. Is it true? What can you tell us?” While he was in Riyadh, they gave him all of the help that he needed in translation and all of the cooperation for which he asked. And he was so surprised at what he found that he changed his textbooks. In fact, in the second edition of one of his books, called Before we are born… in the second edition about the history of embryology, he included some material that was not in the first edition because of what he found in the Qur’an. Truly this illustrates that the Qur’an was ahead of its time and that those who believe in the Qur’an know what other people do not know.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur’an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur’an’s description of the human being as a “leech-like clot” (’alaqah) at one stage - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, “I never thought of that before,” and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline read: “SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT BOOK!”! It seems obvious from this example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, “Don’t you think That maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did something crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things.”
The professor immediately pointed out to him that he [i.e., the reporter] had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, “It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they could not have seen it!”. All of the descriptions in the Qur’an of the appearance of the embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, “Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory.” In fact, when he was asked “How do you explain this information in the Qur’an?” Dr. Moore’s reply was, “It could only have been divinely revealed.”!
Although the aforementioned example of man researching information contained in the Qur’an deals with a non-Muslim, it is still valid because he is one of those who is knowledgeable in the subject being researched. Had some layman claimed that what the Qur’an says about embryology is true, then one would not necessarily have to accept his word. However, because of the high position, respect, and esteem man gives scholars, one naturally assumes that if they research a subject and arrive at a conclusion based on that research, then the conclusion is valid. One of Professor Moore’s colleagues, Marshall Johnson, deals extensively with geology at the University of Toronto.
He became very interested in the fact that the Qur’an’s statements about embryology are accurate, and so he asked Muslims to collect everything contained in the Qur’an which deals with his specialty. Again people were very surprised at the findings. Since there are a vast number subjects discussed in the Qur’an, it would certainly require a large amount of time to exhaust each subject. It suffices for the purpose of this discussion to state that the Qur’an makes very clear and concise statements about various subjects while simultaneously advising the reader to verify the authenticity of these statements with research by scholars in those subjects. And as illustrated by the Qur’an has clearly emerged authentic. Undoubtedly, there is an attitude in the Qur’an which is not found anywhere else. It is interesting how when the Qur’an provides information, it often tells the reader, “You did not know this before.” Indeed, there is no scripture that exists which makes that claim. All of the other ancient writings and scriptures that people have, do give a lot of information, but they always state where the information came from.
For example, when the Bible discusses ancient history, it states that this king lived here, this one fought in a certain battle, another one had so may sons, etc. Yet it always stipulates that if you want more information, then you should read the book of so and so because that is where the information came from. In contrast to this concept, the Qur’an provides the reader with information and states that this information is something new. Of course, there always exists the advice to research the information provided and verify its authenticity. It is interesting that such a concept was never challenged by non-Muslims fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, the Makkans who hated the Muslims, and time and time again they heard such revelations claiming to bring new information; yet, they never spoke up and said, “This is not new. We know where Muhammad got this information. We learned this at school.”
They could never challenge its authenticity because it really was new! In concurrence with the advice given in the Qur’an to research information (even if it is new), when ‘Umar was caliph, he chose a group of men and sent them to find the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn. Before the Qur’anic revelation, the Arabs had never heard of such a wall, but because the Qur’an described it, they were able to discover it. As a matter of fact, it is now located in what is called Durbend in the Soviet Union. It must be stressed here that the Qur’an is accurate about many, many things, but accuracy does not necessarily mean that a book is a divine revelation. In fact, accuracy is only one of the criteria for divine revelations.
For instance, the telephone book is accurate, but that does not mean that it is divinely revealed. The real problem lies in that one must establish some proof of the source the Qur’an’s information. The emphasis is on the reader. One cannot simply deny the Qur’an’s authenticity without sufficient proof. If, indeed, one finds a mistake, then he has the right to disqualify it. This is exactly what the Qur’an encourages. Once a man came up to me after a lecture I delivered in South Africa. He was very angry about what I had said, and so he claimed, “I am going to go home tonight and find a mistake in the Qur’an.” Of course, I said, “Congratulations. That is the most intelligent thing that you have said.” Certainly, this is the approach Muslims need to take with those who doubt the Qur’an’s authenticity, because the Qur’an itself offers the same challenge. An inevitably, after accepting it’s challenge and discovering that it is true, these people will come to believe it because they could not disqualify it. In essence, the Qur’an earns their respect because they themselves have had to verify its authenticity. An essential fact that cannot be reiterated enough concerning the authenticity of the Qur’an is that one’s inability to explain a phenomenon himself does not require his acceptance of the phenomenon’s existence or another person’s explanation of it.
Specifically, just because one cannot explain something does not mean that one has to accept someone else’s explanation. However, the person’s refusal of other explanations reverts the burden of proof back on himself to find a feasible answer. This general theory applies to numerous concepts in life, but fits most wonderfully with the Qur’anic challenge, for it creates a difficulty for one who says, “I do not believe it.” At the onset of refusal one immediately has an obligation to find an explanation himself if he feels others’ answers are inadequate. In fact, in one particular Qur’anic verse which I have always seen mistranslated into English, Allah mentions a man who heard the truth explained to him. It states that he was derelict in his duty because after he heard the information, he left without checking the verity of what he had heard. In other words, one is guilty if he hears something and does not research it and check to see whether it is true. One is supposed to process all information and decide what is garbage to be thrown out and what is worthwhile information to be kept and benefited from at a later date. One cannot just let it rattle around in his head. It must be put in the proper categories and approached from that point of view. For example, if the information is still speculatory, then one must discern whether it’s closer to being true or false. But if all of the facts have been presented, then one must decide absolutely between these two options. And even if one is not positive about the authenticity of the information, he is still required to process all of the information and make the admission that he just does not know for sure. Although this last point appears to be futile, in actuality, it is beneficial to the arrival at a positive conclusion at a later time in that it forces the person to at least recognize, research and review the facts. This familiarity with the information will give the person “the edge” when future discoveries are made and additional information is presented. The important thing is that one deals with the facts and does not simply discard them out of empathy and disinterest.
The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur’an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - “Exhausting the Alternatives.” In essence, the Qur’an states, “This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?” In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduces to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other. On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur’an for hundreds of years and who claim, “One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad, thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!” They are convinced that Muhammad (SAW) was fooled somehow. Then on the other hand, there is another group which alleges, “Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad, was a liar!” Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting. In fact, many references on Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by saying that Muhammad (SAW) was crazy and then end by saying that he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both!
For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, “How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?” He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur’an came in answer to questions. Someone would ask Muhammad (SAW) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, “Does anyone know the answer?” This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can be either one or neither, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are unquestionably mutually exclusive personal traits.
The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, “What is the origin of the Qur’an?” He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, “If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur’an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar.” So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, “Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet.” At this point then you have to ask him, “If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?” Finally backed into a corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind. Forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, “Well, maybe he wasn’t a liar. He was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet.” And thus he begins the futile circle again.
As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur’an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah. For example, who told Muhammad about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north? Who told him about embryology? When people assemble facts such as these, if they are not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the assumption someone brought Muhammad the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: “If Muhammad was a liar, where did he get his confidence? Why did he tell some people out right to their face what others could never say?” Such confidence depends completely upon being convinced that one has a true divine revelation. For example, the Prophet (SAW) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (SAW) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and then would go to the stranger and ask him, “What did he tell you? Did he say, ‘Black.’? Well, it’s white. Did he say, ‘Morning.’? Well, it’s night.” He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (SAW) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur’an was revealed to him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the Fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, “I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well I want to become a Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?” But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. In essence, Muhammad (SAW) said, “You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!” But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. How could Muhammad possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfill the Qur’anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of Prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah’s messenger; for in order to put forth suck a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.
Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (SAW) had in his own Prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (SAW) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, “Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave.” Or “Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet.” Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, “Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!”
Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people, where does one get this kind of attitude? In fact, such a frame of mind is not characteristic of a liar or a forger at all. So, as has been previously mentioned, the non-Muslims go around and around in a circle, searching for a way out - some way to explain the findings in the Qur’an without attributing them to their proper source. On one hand, they tell you on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, “The man was a liar,” and on the other hand, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday they tell you, “He was crazy.” What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both excuses to explain the information in the Qur’an.
About seven years ago, I had a minister over to my home. In the particular room which we were sitting there was a Qur’an on the table, face down, and so the minister was not aware of which book it was. In the midst of a discussion, I pointed to the Qur’an and said, “I have confidence in that book.” Looking at the Qur’an but not knowing which book it was , he replied, “Well, I tell you, if that book is not the Bible, it was written by a man!” In response to his statement, I said, “Let me tell you something about what is in that book.” And in just three to four minutes I related to him a few things contained in the Qur’an. After just those three or four minutes, he completely changed his position and declared, “You are right. A man did not write that book. The Devil wrote it!” Indeed, possessing such an attitude is very unfortunate - for many reasons. For one thing, it is a very quick and cheap excuse. It is an instant exit out of an uncomfortable situation. As a matter of fact, there is a famous story in the Bible that mentions how one day some of the Jews were witnesses when Jesus raised a man from the dead. The man had been dead for four days, and when Jesus arrived, he simply said, “Get up!” and the man arose and walked away. At such a sight, some of the Jews who were watching said disbelievingly, “This is the Devil. The Devil helped him!” Now this story is rehearsed often in churches all over the world, and people cry big tears over it, saying, “Oh, if I had been there, I would not have been as stupid as the Jews!” Yet ironically, these people do exactly what the Jews did when in just three minutes you show them only a small part of the Qur’an and all they can say is, “Oh, the Devil did it. The devil wrote that book!”. Because they are truly backed into a corner and have no other viable answer, they resort to the quickest and cheapest excuse available. Another Example of people’s use of this weak stance can be found in the Makkans’ explanation of the source of Muhammed’s message. They used to say, “The devils bring Muhammad that Qur’an!” But just as with every other suggestion made, the Qur’an gives the answer. One verse in particular states:
“And they say, ‘Surely he is possessed [by jinn], ‘but it [i.e., the Qur’an] is not except a reminder to the worlds.”
Thus it gives an argument in reply to such a theory. In fact, there are many arguments in the Qur’an in reply to the suggestion that devils brought Muhammad (SAW) his message. For example, in the 26th chapter Allah clearly affirms:
“No evil ones have brought it [i.e., this revelation] down. It would neither be fitting for them, nor would they be able. Indeed they have been removed far from hearing.”
And in another place in the Qur’an, Allah instructs us:
“So when you recite the Qur’an seek refuge in Allah from Shaytaan, the rejected.”
Now is this how Satan writes a book? He tells one, “Before you read my book, ask God to save you from me.”? This is very, very tricky. Indeed, a man could write something like this, but would Satan do this? Many people clearly illustrate that they cannot come to one conclusion on this subject. On one hand, they claim that Satan would not do such a thing and that even if he could, God would not allow him to; yet, on the other hand, they also believe that Satan is only that much less than God. In essence they allege that the Devil can probably do whatever God can do. And as a result, when they look at the Qur’an, even as surprised as they are as to how amazing it is, they still insist, “The Devil did this!” Thanks be to Allah, Muslims do not have that attitude. Although Satan may have some abilities, they are a long way separated from the abilities of Allah. And no Muslim is a Muslim unless he believes that. It is common knowledge even among non-Muslims that the Devil can easily make mistakes, and it would be expected that he would contradict himself if and when he wrote a book. For indeed, the Qur’an states:
“Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”
In conjunction with the excuses that non-Muslims advance in futile attempts to justify unexplainable verses in the Qur’an, there is another attack often rendered which seems to be a combination of the theories that Muhammad (SAW) was crazy and a liar. Basically, these people propose that Muhammad was insane, and as a result of his delusion, he lied to and misled people. There is a name for this in psychology. It is referred to as mythomania. It means simply that one tells lies and then believes them. This is what the non-Muslims say Muhammad (SAW) suffered from. But the only problem with this proposal is that one suffering from mythomania absolutely cannot deal with facts, and yet the whole Qur’an is based entirely upon facts. Everything contained in it can be researched and established as true. Since facts are such a problem for a mythomaniac, when a psychologist tries to treat one suffering from that condition, he continually confronts him with facts. For example, if one is mentally ill and claims, “I am the king of England,” a psychologist does not say to him “No you aren’t. You are crazy!” He just does not do that. Rather, he confronts him with facts and says, “O.K., you say you are the king of England. So tell me where the queen is today. And where is your prime minister? And where are your guards?” Now, when the man has trouble trying to deal with these questions, he tries to make excuses, saying Uh… the queen… she has gone to her mother’s. Uh… the prime minister… well he died.” And eventually he is cured because he cannot deal with the facts. If the psychologist continues confronting him with enough facts, finally he faces the reality and says, “I guess I am not the king of England.” The Qur’an approaches everyone who reads it in very much the same way a psychologist treats his mythomania patient. There is a verse in the Qur’an which states:
“Oh mankind, there has come to you an admonition [i.e., the Qur’an] from your Lord and a healing for what is in the hearts - and guidance and mercy for the believers.”
At first glance, this statement appears vague, but the meaning of this verse is clear when one views it in light of the aforementioned example. Basically, one is healed of his delusions by reading the Qur’an. In essence, it is therapy. It literally cures deluded people by confronting them with facts. A prevalent attitude throughout the Qur’an is one which says, “Oh mankind, you say such and such about this; but what about such and such? How can you say this when you know that?” And so forth. It forces one to consider what is relevant and what matters while simultaneously healing one of the delusions that the facts presented to mankind by Allah can easily be explained away with flimsy theories and excuses. It is this very sort of thing - confronting people with facts - that had captured the attention of many non-Muslims. In fact, there exists a very interesting reference concerning this subject in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.
In an article under the subject of the Qur’an, the Catholic Church states, “Over the centuries, many theories have been offered as to the origin of the Qur’an… Today no sensible man accepts any of these theories.”!! Now here is the age-old Catholic Church, which has been around for so many centuries, denying these futile attempts to explain away the Qur’an. Indeed, the Qur’an is a problem for the Catholic Church. It states that it is revelation, so they study it. Certainly, they would love to find proof that it is not, but they cannot. They cannot find a viable explanation. But at least they are honest in their research and do not accept the first unsubstantiated interpretation which comes along. The Church states that in fourteen centuries it has not yet been presented a sensible explanation. At least it admits that the Qur’an is not an easy subject to dismiss. Certainly, other people are much less honest. They quickly say, “Oh, the Qur’an came from here. The Qur’an came from there.” And they do not even examine the credibility of what they are stating most of the time. Of course, such a statement by the Catholic Church leaves the everyday Christian in some difficulty. It just may be that he has his own ideas as to the origin of the Qur’an, but as a single member of the Church, he cannot really act upon his own theory. Such an action would be contrary to the obedience, allegiance and loyalty which the Church demands. By virtue of his membership, he must accept what the Catholic Church declares without question and establish its teachings as part of his everyday routine. So, in essence, if the Catholic Church as a whole is saying, “Do not listen to these unconfirmed reports about the Qur’an,” then what can be said about the Islamic point of view? Even non-Muslims are admitting that there is something to the Qur’an - something that has to be acknowledged - then why are people so stubborn and defensive and hostile when Muslims advance the very same theory? This is certainly something for those with mind a to contemplate - something to ponder for those of understanding!
Recently, the leading intellectual in the Catholic Church - a man by the name of Hans - studied the Qur’an and gave his opinion of what he had read. This man has been around for some time, and he is highly respected in the Catholic Church, and after careful scrutiny, he reported his findings, concluding, “God has spoken to man through the man, Muhammad.” Again this is a conclusion arrived at by a non-Muslim source - the very leading intellectual of the Catholic Church himself! I do not think that the Pope agrees with him, but nonetheless, the opinion of such a noted, repute public figure must carry some weight in defense of the Muslim position. He must be applauded for facing the reality that the Qur’an is not something which can be easily pushed aside and that, in fact God is the source of these words. As is evident from the aforementioned information, all of the possibilities have been exhausted, so the chance of finding another possibility of dismissing the Qur’an is nonexistent. For if the book is not a revelation, then it is a deception; and if it is a deception, one must ask, “What is its origin” And where does it deceive us?” Indeed, the true answers to these questions shed light on the Qur’an’s authenticity and silence the bitter unsubstantiated claims of the unbelievers. Certainly, if people are going to insist that the Qur’an is a deception, then they must bring forth evidence to support such a claim. The burden of proof is on them, not us! One is never supposed to advance a theory without sufficient corroborating facts; so I say to them, “Show me one deception! Show me where the Qur’an deceives me! Show me, otherwise, don’t say that it is a deception!” An interesting characteristic of the Qur’an is how it deals with surprising phenomena which relate not only to the past but to modern times as well. In essence, the Qur’an is not and old problem. It is still a problem even today - a problem to the non-Muslims that is. For everyday, every week, every year brings more and more evidence that the Qur’an is a force to be contended with - that its authenticity is no longer to be challenged! For example, one verse in the Qur’an reads;
“Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder, and made from water every living thing? Will they not then believe?”
Ironically, this very information is exactly what they awarded the 1973 Noble Prize for - to a couple of unbelievers. The Qur’an reveals the origin of the universe - how it began from one piece - and mankind continues to verify this revelation, even up to now. Additionally, the fact that all life originated from water would not have been an easy thing to convince people of fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, if 1400 years ago you had stood in the desert and told someone, “All of this, you see (pointing to yourself), is made up of mostly water,” no one would have believed you. Proof of that was not available until the invention of the microscope. They had to wait to find out that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell, is made-up of 80% water. Nonetheless, the evidence did come, and once again the Qur’an stood the test of time. In reference to the falsification tests mentioned earlier, it is interesting to note that they, too, relate to both the past and the present. Some of them were used as illustrations of Allah’s omnipotence and knowledge, while others continue to stand as challenges to the present day. An example of the former is the statement made in the Qur’an about Abu Lahab. It clearly illustrates that Allah, the Knower of the Unseen, knew that Abu Lahab would never change his ways and accept Islam. Thus Allah dictated that he would be condemned to the Hellfire forever. Such a chapter was both an illustration of Allah’s divine wisdom and a warning to those who were like Abu Lahab.
An interesting example of the latter type of falsification tests contained in the Qur’an is the verse which mentions the relationship between the Muslims and the Jews. The verse is careful not to narrow its scope to the relationship between individual members of each religion, but rather, it summarizes the relationship between the two groups of people as a whole. In essence, the Qur’an states that the Christians will always treat the Muslims better than the Jews will treat the Muslims. Indeed, the full impact of such a statement can only be felt after careful consideration of the real meaning of such a verse. It is true that many Christians and many Jews have become Muslims, but as a whole, the Jewish community is to be viewed as an avid enemy of Islam. Additionally, very few people realize what such an open declaration in the Qur’an invites. In essence, it is an easy chance for the Jews to prove that the Qur’an is false - that it is not a divine revelation. All they have to do is organize themselves, treat the Muslims nicely for a few years and then say, “Now what does your holy book say about who are your best friends in the world - the Jews or the Christians? Look what we Jews have done for you!” That is all they have to do to disprove the Qur’an’s authenticity, yet they have not done it in 1400 years. But, as always, the offer still stands open!
All of the examples so far given concerning the I various angles from which one can approach the | Qur’an have undoubtedly been subjective in nature; I however there does exist another angle, among others, which is objective and whose basis is mathematical. It is surprising how authentic the Qur’an becomes when one assembles what might be referred to as a list of good guesses. Mathematically, it can be explained using guessing and prediction examples. For instance, if a person has two choices (i.e., one is right, and one is wrong), and he closes his eyes and makes a choice, then half of the time (i.e., one time out of two) he will be right. Basically, he has a one in two chance, for he could pick the wrong choice, or he could pick the right choice. Now if the same person has two situations like that (i.e., he could be right or wrong about situation number one, and he could be right or wrong about situation number two), and he closes his eyes and guesses, then he will only be right one fourth of the time (i.e., one time out of four). He now has a one in four chance because now there are three ways for him to be wrong and only one way for him to be right. In simple terms, he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; OR he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two; OR he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; OR he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two. Of course, the(only instance in which he could be totally right is the last scenario where he could guess correctly in both situations. The odds of his guessing completely correctly have become greater because the number of situations for him to guess in have increased; and the mathematical equation representing such a scenario is 1/2 x 1/2 (i.e., one time out of two for the first situation multiplied by one time out of two for the second situation).
Continuing on with the example, if the same person now has three situations in which to make blind guesses, then he will only be right one eighth of the time (i.e., one time out of eight or 1/2 X 1/2 X 1/2). Again, the odds of choosing the correct choice in all three situations have decreased his chances of being completely correct to only one time in eight. It must be understood that as the number of situations increase, the chances of being right decrease, for the two phenomena are inversely proportional.
Now applying this example to the situations in the Qur’an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur’an has made correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they were all just correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur’an are numerous, and thus the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically nil. If there are a million ways for the Qur’an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then it is unlikely that someone was guessing. The following three examples of subjects about which the Qur’an has made correct statements collectively illustrate how the Qur’an continues to beat the odds.
In the 16th chapter the Qur’an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food.l2 Now, a person might guess on that, saying, “The bee that you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess female.” Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the Qur’an is right. But it also happens that was not what most people believed at the time when the Qur’an was revealed. Can you tell the difference between a male and a female bee? Well, it takes a specialist to do that, but it has been discovered that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food. However, in Shakespeare’s play, Henry the Fourth, some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare’s time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.
So, back to the list of good guesses, concerning the topic of bees, the Qur’an had a 50/50 chance of being right, and the odds were one in two.
In addition to the subject of bees, the Qur’an also discusses the sun and the manner in which it travels through space. Again, a person can guess on that subject. When the sun moves through space, there are two options: it can travel just as a stone would travel if one threw it, or it can move of its own accord. The Qur’an states the latter - that it moves as a result of its own motion.’3 To do such, the Qur’an uses a form of the word sabaha to describe the sun’s movement through space. In order to properly provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the implications of this Arabic verb, the following example is given. If a man is in water and the verb sabaha is applied in reference to his movement, it can be understood that he is swimming, moving of his own accord and not as a result of a direct force applied to him. Thus when this verb is used in reference to the sun’s movement through space, it in no way implies that the sun is flying uncontrollably through space as a result of being hurled or the like. It simply means that the sun is turning and rotating as it travels. Now, this is what the Qur’an affirms, but was it an easy thing to discover? Can any common man tell that the sun is turning? Only in modern times was the equipment made available to project the image of the sun onto a tabletop so that one could look at it without being blinded. And through this process it was discovered that not only are there three spots on the sun but that these spots move once every 25 days. This movement is referred to as the rotation of the sun around its axis and conclusively proves that, as the Qur’an stated 1400 years ago, the sun does, indeed turn as it travels through space.
And returning once again to the subject of good guess, the odds of guessing correctly about both subjects - the sex of bees and the movement of the sun - are one in four!
Seeing as back fourteen centuries ago people probably did not understand much about time zones, the Quran’s statements about this subject are considerably surprising. The concept that one family is having breakfast as the sun comes up while another family is enjoying the brisk night air is truly something to be marveled at, even in modern time. Indeed, fourteen centuries ago, a man could not travel more than thirty miles in one day, and thus it took him literally months to travel from India to Morocco, for example. And probably , when he was having supper in Morocco, he thought to himself, “Back home in India they are having supper right now.” This is because he did not realize that, in the process of traveling, he moved across a time zone. Yet, because it is the words of Allah, the All-Knowing, the Qur’an recognizes and acknowledges such a phenomenon. In an interesting verse it states that when history comes to an end and the Day of Judgment arrives, it will all occurring an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the daytime and some people at night. This clearly illustrates Allah’s divine wisdom and His previous knowledge of the existence of time zones, even though such a discovery was non-existent back fourteen centuries ago. Certainly, this phenomenon is not something which is obvious to one’s eyes or a result of one’s experience, and this fact, in itself, suffices as proof of the Qur’ans authenticity.
Returning one final time to the subject of good guesses for the purpose of the present example, the odds that someone guessed correctly about all three of the aforementioned subjects - the sex of bees, the movement of the sun and the existence of time zones - are one in eight!
Certainly, one could continue on and on with this example, drawing up longer and longer list of good guesses; and of course, the odds would become higher and higher with each increase of subjects about which one could guess. But what no one can deny is the following; the odds that Mohammed an illiterate, guessed correctly about thousands and thousands of subjects, never once making a mistake, are so high that any theory of his authorship of the Qur’an must be completely dismissed - even by the most hostile enemies of Islam!
Indeed, the Qur’an expects this kind of challenge. Undoubtedly, if one said to someone upon entering a foreign land, “I know your father. I have met him,” probably the man from that land would doubt the newcomer’s word, saying, “You have just come here. How could you know my father?” As a result, he would question him, “Tell me, is my father tall, short, dark, fair? What is he like?” Of course, if the visitor continued answering all of the questions correctly, the skeptic would have no choice but to say, “I guess you do know my father. I don’t know how you know him, but I guess you do!” The situation is the same with the Qur’an. It states that it originates from the One who created everything. So everyone has the right to say, “Convince me! If the author of this book really originated life and everything in the heavens and on the earth, then He should know about this, about that, and so on.” And inevitably, after researching the Qur’an, everyone will discover the same truths. Additionally, we all know something for sure: we do not all have to be experts to verify what the Qur’an affirms. One’s iman (faith) grows as one continues to check and confirm the truths contained in the Qur’an. And one is supposed to do so all of his life.
May God (Allah) guide everyone close to the truth.
SUPPLEMENT
An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had read something on it, conducted researched wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings: people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Qur’an:
Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur’an mentions a certain city by the name of ‘Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe or not, there on the list was the name of the city of ‘Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of ‘Iram!
“Say, ‘I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos and singly, and then reflect…..’ In conclusion I ask you to consider with care the following:
“And they say, ‘Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord?’ Say, ‘Indeed, the signs are with Allah, and I am but a clear warner.’ But is sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book [i.e. Qur’an] which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in that is mercy and a reminder to people who believe.
Joe Morreale said,
July 18, 2008 at 10:56 am
I would like to thank Denis Giron for his presentation, let me begin by stating that Denis stated that there can be many human explanations, and he gave many examples of how, you know, Aristotle could have done it this way, and stuff like that, Here is the point to be noted, from the very beginning, I already stated that, yes, just because you have a scientific statement in the book, that does not automatically mean that it is the Word of God. In fact gave all the eight different scenarios in the algorithm, I would like for everyone to turn to the algorithm, and I cited.. I went one step beyond there, and I cited you all the of the eight possible human explanations for each and every single one of these verse.
Anyways, let me start of by commenting on what Denis has said. He said the thing about bees, some people have mentioned male bees, some people have mentioned female bees, and some people have mentioned sexless bees.. well.. there is a very good reason for this. Because it is a 50/50 chance! It’s either male of
female! So some people got it right, some people got it wrong. That’s why you see some books you will fine male bee, some books say female bee. But my point is, that the Quran got it right. Again I also showed you, that it does not matter what the other books state, and of course, I think Denis agreed with me on this point. He was only saying, I’m just showing you that it can be done by human beings. He is not saying the author of the Quran was plagiarizing, because of course we know that is illogical, or else he would have copied a lot of the wrong information as well in that book.. so … you know .. I think that point has been noted. Anyways, that is my point on bee.
So, the probability of guessing the right bee is ½. It doesn’t matter what book you find it in, the probability is ½ , soo that is very important as we continue… it’s ½. Anyways lets talk about Iram. He said that, it is possible, first of all he agrees with me, that if you look at any book or any historical books, there never have been mentioned about any city named Iram. It was only mentioned in the Quran. He was saying it was hypothetically possible, that maybe….. some way…… some how……. the author of the Quran somehow knew of the city called Iram, I don’t know how, but maybe some way he has done that. So , ok, he basically said, that basically, that’s again, maybe it was a coincidence or or it was luck and I cited that in my algorithm. So he did not agree that, but he said Sodom and Gomorrah were also mentioned there. Bringing up the Old Testament is actually irrelevant in tonight’s discussion. Because we as Muslims believe that the Old Testament was revealed by God. We believe that. But, it has been changed, it has been altered to basically suit man’s need. Also same thing goes with Talmud. Basically you will find some of God’s Word in actually many of the books because the have corrupted that book. And that is not just my view but it also the Christian, I’m sorry, it is actually the Biblical view, read Jeremiah 8:8 in which it says, “how can you we are wise, when we have the law of the Lord, when the LYING pen of the scribes have handled it falsly”. So, that’s even what the
Old Testament its selfs claims. So anyways, I don’t want to get too much on the Bible here, again that could be another red herring.
Ok, let’s talk about barriers. He said that Aristotle had some familiarity with it. I already mentioned that in my beginning. I told you how Aristotle believed how.. how.. the salt and water… salt and fresh water gets mixed. Or, I’m sorry, how you explain the phenomenon of salt and fresh water. He explained it like
eating a food, and then when you food… when you go to the bathroom, then you know…. what comes out, he said that’s like how salt and fresh water. This is… I have already explained all of that… that … Notice, this is the point to be noted: That Aristotle, had NO clue, NO idea, that there was actually a physical barrier between the salt and fresh water. He had no idea of this. And notice also another thing, that the things which he did write about salt and fresh water, that is all observable to man. Meaning if I were to conduct experiments on salt and fresh water, and I had no, and a man 1400 years ago were able to do this he would be able to also come to the same conclusions. So his observations were observable. That’s a point to be noted also. So, yes, he talked about that pycnocline, but he didn’t talk about the barrier.
As far as going back to the my issue of “waters can not transgress” in that ayat, again I think agree with Denis or Denis Giron, this is all a matter of interpretation. What do you mean by, “waters can not transgress”? What some people will say, “because it is it self not a clear wall”. Some people will say,
“look, what it means is that you have 2 bodies of water.. the salinity the temperature on that side, and the salinity, temperature, density on that side is something else…” so that shows that these 2 bodies of water do not mix. So some people will explain it like that. Like I said, I agree that it is almost impossible to try to find this type of scientific error, But I agreed with him that we will not discuss that tonight. We can perhaps make a separate debate like how I debated Richard Carrier, in which he unsuccessfully , basically tried to show that there were scientific errors in the Quran. But anyways, let
me move on.
He also spoke about the darkness in the seas. Now let me pause here for one second, because I want to make a very important note also. I forgot to make it in the beginning. Denis Giron, is not saying that these verses do not agree with modern science, he never made that claim on any of these. Basically what he said
was that there were possible human explanations for it. So, that’s also very important which should be noted. He said, that, “well you know, the issues of the darkness of the seas, well…..you know when I’m in a pool and I see less visible water, you know, and I can see I can see my feet less visable, MAYBE the author of the Quran saw the same thing and then he used his intellengence or something and figured out that yes.. the deep dark seas, or in the dark deep ocean it is complete darkness. Again, this is all conjecture. The point is, that the issue about the depth and darkness of the deep dark seas you will not find in any book. So basically, what Denis is basically saying here, is that this could have been a coincidence or luck. Go back to the algorithm, which I have posted for you and look at what is coincidence.. I think its “B” no, I’m sorry “C” that is luck. So he is basically saying, what he is doing, is that he is
bouncing back and forth, he saying , “that’s luck” . .. I’m sorry, “that could be a good guess”… “that could be a coincidence”….. “that could be a good guess”… “that could be a coincidence……” he is bouncing back and forth between the two
options, because he agrees they do match up with modern science.
So anyways, let me go on to the issue of nearer land. He bought up an issue of, you know, most commentators translate… I’m sorry, the lowest point on the earth is near Jerusalum. And that is, so basically, the Quran used a word for that in which you will find both “nearer land” as well as the lowest point. My question to him was, ” why did the author of the Quran USE a particular word which has both meanings. This is my question number one. He said, “most people translate it as nearer land”. That is because, for the people who don’t know science, or lets say for the person living 1000 years ago, that’s going to make more sense to him than “lowest land”. But my point stands, it does not matter you can use any one of the meanings, “nearer land” or “lowest point”, the word means BOTH. So basically, to put it in a nut shell, what Denis is basically saying, is that, “it is an amazing coincidence”. It is an amazing coincidence that the author of the Quran used a word which has both meanings.
Ok. He said about the issues of sent down Iron. He said God also sent down a book. Again, these are all red herrings. That does not mean anything. He did not refute the point, that this is a scientifically correct statement. Basically, what he is saying about “sending down Iron”, is that…. this could be a coincidence. Another coincidence. “Maybe he was referring, like its God’s gift or something..” But even in that interpretation, again, that does agree with modern science because it is very clear, that the Quran is stating, that Iron could not be produced by earth.
Leaf of grass is from the stars, again this is something, he said, “well you know, the elements, the basic elements of it, could have been, cold have been created from outside of the universe”. Read the verse, it says, “leaf of grass is from stars”. And of course, the person is referring to the stars up above. We know that’s not scientific. This is a scientific error with you have pointed out in the book. But perhaps, someone can look at it and say, “ok, there could be some scientific bases for it”. I’m going to give that to you, no problem.
About Orbits, he said, “Orbits.. you see Ptolemy also believed this and Aristotle..”. I pointed out before earlier, that it is IRRELEVANT. It is completely irrelevant what people wrote about it before. The question is, “how did was the author of the Quran able to decipfer what are the true statements in an ocean of falsehood?” Therefore, the mere fact, that this is something
mentioned before does not disprove this as evidence. The verse which I gave you is in complete agreement with modern science. The sun and the moon do indeed have orbits. And of course, I don’t believe that Denis is here tonight to even suggest the idea that maybe this was a plagiarization. Because of course, you would copy man of the wrong errors. He was only trying to show, that, a human being could have done it. Again, what Denis is basically saying on this point, is that it is another COINCIDENCE, that the Quran is matching up with modern science.
Ok, having said all of that, I would just like to bring up another point here. I’m going to kind of share with you a small little story here, and I think from this small story its going to give us some valuable lessons. So I’m kinda gona get off topic here, but it is very much directly related to what we are talking about. Now, you know, I was watching TV, and I was watching a murder trial, I’m just going to make it a mock murder trial. There was a man who was accused of killing his girl friend. And there were many pieces of evidences, and there were may pieces of evidences that the prosecutors had against him, there were 6 pieces of evidence.
There was a man who was accused of killing his girl friend. And there were many pieces of evidences, and there were may pieces of evidences that the prosecutors had against him, there were 6 pieces of evidence. First, he claimed that he was going to kill his girlfriend, number one. Number 2, he actually bought a knife
the same week that his girlfriend was stabbed, and it was the same type of knife. Number 3, he was last seem with her one hour before her death in a fight,and he was pushing her in the car. Number 4, blood was found in his car also. Number 5, he claimed that he mysteriously lost the knife that he bought just a
couple of days before. Number 6, the very same day of the murder, he said to a local friend that, “Im going to take care of her, so that she will never bother anyone again”.
Ok, so anyways, her is my point. There is no question in anyone’s mind, that this man is clearly guilty of the murder of this this woman. And there is no court around in the entire world who would not prosecute this man and send him to jail, based upon this evidence. I don’t think there is any question about that inside anyone’s mind. But, what if he tried to plead innocent… what if this man tried to plead innocent? I don’t think this man who has done this will claim, that all of the 6 pieces of evidence given, was ALL a coincidence. And that’s a fact. In fact the explanation is soo silly, that even the defendant would not offer that nor would the attorney in a court of law come up on court day and say, “Yes, ALL fo those 6 pieces of evidence was all just an amazing coincidence!”.
Anyways, let me move on to my point here. My point is that we could look at each and every one of these pieces of evidences INDIVIDUALLY, remember this is a key word, INDIVIDUALLY.And we look at this piece of evidence. Like, let’s take the first example: “he claimed that he was going to kill his girlfriend”. Well, you know, that in itself is not conclusive evidence to prosecute him, right? To convict him? Because you know, like I was saying, to my wife and my brother,”man, if don’t get out of my room, I’m going to kill ya..!” Does that mean, that I actually wanted to kill my wife and my brother? Well, of course not. So, this is basically the same situation we are seeing with the Quranic verses. That, yes, there could be, it may be from a higher source or it may not be. The same thing is happening here with with each and every one of these pieces of evidences. May be he is guilty may be is not. In both(science in the Quran and
murder trial) cases the evidence is inconclusive based on this one piece of evidence alone. If we just looked at this evidence alone. Now of course, that holds true for each and every one of these 6 pieces of evidences. Alone it will be very hard to prosecute this man, and he would get away.
But now, here is what I would like to ask people to do. Let us take a look at the evidences not individually, but COLLECTIVELY. Let us look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY. So when we ask the question, “how do you explain ALL of these 6 pieces of evidence happening to you”? Then it becomes clear that this is not a
COINCIDENCE! Because.. because what you are doing is that youre saying “ok..ok..fine… you claimed you were going to kill your girlfriend, ok, that in itself is not proof. But, hey, you also bought a knife the same week! How do you explain BOTH of these?!?! So what I am asking you to do tonight, is not look at the evidence individually, but look at it colectively. And basically, if you were to look at this evidence collectively which I just did, I don’t think there is any question that this man is guilty. Because what your brain just basically did,
weather you realize it or not… You looked at #1 , that he claimed he was going to kill his girlfriend, in your mind you came up with a probability, maybe 1/10 that he is innocent, or 1/50.. whatever. And then you look at the second piece of evidence, and then your brain basically did the same thing; well, that may be a 1/50 chance. So you multiplied the probability of the first one, and the probability of the second piece of evidence and then you went down and did all 6 pieces of evidences, and you came up with a number like 1/10,000,000. The
chances are, that it is 1/10,000,000 that all of this was just done by chance, or … or..by just pure luck, that it is clear that you are guilty, because the chances the chances of you being innocent are soo low.
Anways, now what I am asking for people to do is put the same logic to the Quran! Look at the evidence collectively, not just individually. Up to this point, Denis and also myself, we were looking at the evidence collectively (ops I meant individually). Now, lets look at the evidence collectively, and lets see what we come up with. Ok, the Author of the Quran made 8 brilliant
scientifically correct statements, which of course I basically mentioned. So thus far we have seen many versus in the Quran which foretell science and Archaeology before it was discovered. So we are going to look at the 8 pieces of evidences collectively. If everyone can turn to the algorithm, which I gave to you. Lets look at E: Common Sense. What we are doing now, is we are asking the question:
“How do we account for ALL of these verses in the Quran which agree with Modern Science?” Not individual verses. This is the question we are not beginning to answer. Infact I’m going to cut and paste this question, because it is pretty important.
How do you account for ALL of these verses which agree with modern science? Well, look at “E”, I don’t think it is “Common sense”. So you can cross that out. Perhaps the scientific fact was observable, as in the case of Aristotle? Ah, no. Many of these things are not observable, like the issues of the bees, as
well as iron being sent down… none of that stuff is observable. “G: Perhaps the information already preexisted in history?”. And of course we know that is not true, in the sense that the Author of the Quran plagiarized from some other source. Well, I don’t think that is true either because in order to make this
claim, you will have to show other stuff which the which the author of the Quran also copied from the book. Because, if you are coping from a corrupt source, weather it be Aristotle, Bible, whatever, you’re also going to be coping the same
errors. So, on your little list, go ahead and cross out E,F,G.
Lets look at A and C now. Perhaps the author of the Quran was a great scientist or great genius. And that is how he came up with these great conclusions! Which is of course, what Denis tried to allude to with the issue of the darkness of the deep ocean. That MAY BE the Quran was a very smart guy, and he figured it out from looking at the hazy water on the feet. Lets take a look at these options here. We all know, that scientists make discoveries by trial and error. That is how they make discoveries. As we saw in the case of Aristotle, he made 7
scientific errors IN REGARDS to bee study, right? So my question is, “how many scientific errors do we find in the Quran in relations to that subject he was studying and it was 1/0. So we know, that the author of the Quran was not a scientist. Again another point is, and … it dosent matter how good a scientist
you are, the statements in the Quran can only be discovered with the aid of modern technology, and advanced equipment and sophisticated methods. Like, the lowest point of the earth, Iron, bee orbits. No matter how good of a scientist you are, you will never come to this conclusion. So, we know, that the Author
of the Quran, was not a scientist, or a genius. And another point, how was the author of the Quran able to escape 1,000 pages of hadeeth literature? And even his close friends like Abu Bakr, and Aisha his wife…. he(author of the Quran) hid his true profession as a scientist to the whole world. How was he able to do so, in light of the fact, in light of the fact, that the life of Muhammed(PBUH) was a open book? We even know how he went to the bathroom. That’s how mudane issues we recorded about him. So all I’m trying to say, is I don’t think he was a great scientist, or basically he was a genius. And I think Denis is also saying
the samething, that is why he said.. be pretty much leaned towards the idea,that this was a coincidence or pretty much a good guess. Coincidence or good guess. So basically what you can do know, go ahead and cross out A and C.
Lets look at “coincidence”. Now remember, coincidence means, that you had no intentions of making these scientific statements, it was a complete accident. Coincidence can also be ruled out. because we see here from the statements that the Author of the Quran is making a concerted effort to speak about science. The Author fo the Quran is WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY attempting to speak about scientific principles and how our universe was created, and how things work in their. One good example, was the verse on Embryology. First, there was an
Alaqah, then there was a Mudgah…. I’m sure Denis knows what I’m taking about. But, coincidence means, that you had no intention of doing so! It was a complete accident. So on that point I don’t think so. And with coincidence, we know luck is involved. Lets look at what are the probabilities of making these kinds of
“coincidences”. Let me ask you this question, “what do you think of the possibilities, of if I claim to be a Prophet, and I wrote a book, and in that book, I started writing my beliefs, and my views down. What do you think, are the possibilities, that I will write something down by accident, that will agree, with a scientifically correct statement, that people don’t know about
NOW… but, it will be discovered TOMORROW?”. And this is all done by accident. I had no intention of saying something scientific, I was just describing my dog! So, what do you think of the chances of that happening? Lets make a probability here. Anyways, let me add some more food for thought. Well, actually, before I do that, let me tell you the number which I came up with. I came up with 1/500,000. Actually I came up with 1/5,000,000 but I wanted to make things easy for Denis here. Here is the reason how I came up with that number, 1/500,000. I
say that because, think of all the people in the world who have written something in their life today. How many people do you know, that was writing something, I don’t care what it was, it could have been an email to a girlfriend, a resume, a spy novel, a horror novel.. and in that book, they wrote something they wrote something which actually agreed with modern science, which
scientist have discovered later. And this was all done unintentionally and by accident”? Well, I think that happens to 1 out of every 500,000. That is the number I came up with.
Lets look at this last option. May be, it was a good guess. You know, a person trying to guess in the year 600 as far as what these scientific probabilities (I meant to say, principles) are… the probabilities are astronomical as far as what it could be. Lets go ahead and see… lets say, the Author of the Quran was going to GUESS at all of this stuff. The probability of the bee is ½. Right? Because the bee could be either male of female. So, it is ½. But, what about Iram? What if the author of the Quran GUESSED about the city which Archaeologists only discovered later? So here is the question I’m asking. Lets say, everyone just sit here and guess. Or lets say, I’m just going to sit here and guess. I’m going to guess about a city…. Which no one knows about today… but…. It exists… but Archaeologists will one day, discover this city…. And …. I’m going to try to guess the name of that city!! So what do you think of the probabilities of me
actually being successful in doing that? Well, I put it at 1/1000. I’m sorry, 1/10,000. That is the probability of that guess. So basically, for all of the scientific miracles, all 8, I made them 1/10,000, with the exception of bee, bee is ½. So if we were to multiply 1/10,000 by 8 times:
1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X 1/10,000 X1/10,000 X 1/10,000 = 1/ 1 X 10^28
, we come with a number about 1/ 1 X 10^28. That is the probability that the Author of the Quran made 8 guesses and on every guess he got it right, that is the probability of him doing that. So… I don’t think guesswork or coincidence.
Coincidence, is really bad, you have to tack on a 1/500,000 number ratio for that. So when you do the math, no matter how you dot it, it just doesn’t work. The chances of all this being guesswork or coincidence as Denis was basically alluding to, the numbers are soo ridiculously high, no one would ever assume
such a thing. 1/ 1 X 10^28, that’s the probability of it happening. Therefore, on your list of possibilities, you can go ahead and cross out coincidence (D), and you can go ahead and cross out guess work(B). What you should have on your paper basically is that leaves ONE last alternative. ONE final alternative, which has not been crossed out yet:
IF Quranic Statement = Scientific fact
THEN:
(it can be one or more of the following 8 possibilities)
A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genius
B. A very good guess,luck
C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist
D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to match up with science),luck, and the author had no intention of talking about science; it was an accident. No intention.
E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)
F. The scientific fact is observable
G. The information already pre-existed in history (this can only be entertained
if we have historical errors)
H. A source greater than man was involved
And when you look at this alternative, you will see, that is it “a source greater than man (H)”. That is the only logical and reasonable expectation. So in conclusion, we look at all these other possibilities (A-G) all these other “HUMAN EXPLANATIONS”, of all this stuff happening, and we did not look this(each scientific statement) individually, we analyzed it collectively, and none of the human explanations hammer out. T hey don’t make sense. We know that the author of the Quran could not have been a scientist (C) , we know this is not guess work(B), we know that it is not coincidence (D).
If we were just looking at one verse, and one verse by itself, ok… may be we can come to that conclusion (human explanations A-G), but when we look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY, then there is no question, that this book, this Quran could not have been authored by a man. A force greater than man had to have been
the source and the author of the Quran (H). The Mathematics simply prove that. So my question for Denis tonight is:
“if you do not accept this last alternative (H), then you provide us with a logical rational human explanation not for each verse individually! The collective.. look at the evidence collectively.”
Joe Morreale said,
July 18, 2008 at 10:58 am
Thank you. Basically, to put it in a nut shell, what Denis Giron is saying, he is saying:
I don’t want to look at the evidence collectively.
That’s pretty much what he is saying. He saying, I don’t want to explore what are the possibilities, or anything like that. You see, my job here, I’m not here to make the blind to see, I’m not here to give life to the dead. You know, I’m not here to force my views on anyone. Basically I’m here just to make what I understand clear, and I used Mathematics, and I used it CORRECTLY and PRECISELY. Which Denis Giron DID NOT future. He said, “well some people can misuse it (probabilities). Even in his analogy, I’m not sure what was the misuse, but anyways, maybe there was some misuse in his head.
Ok, he said, “I’ll tell how you explain all these verses….” . He tried one.. one time he tried to explain the evidences collectively. He said, “I reinterpreted all of the verses”. I DID NO SUCH THING!! If I did this, then why didn’t you catch me in your first 30 minutes or ( I mean ) your first one hour? Why didn’t you catch me over there if I pulled some kind of stunt like that?
I said, that in the Quran it is clearly specifying that it is a female bee. I said in the Quran in the Quran the word used in the Quran has a dual meaning of lowest land. How do you explain that? I did not sit here and say, “oh, by the way, you see this verse means … (for example) Jeff went up the hill, and actually when Jeff went up the hill… what that means is that Jeff went to a higher a higher understanding of knowledge”. Man, I didn’t do none of that.
So he has to come and show me where I twisted the verse. And that goes ….actually I refuted this argument in first one hour presentation. That this is a common logical fallacy made by Atheists. I said that… look, so long as one logical valid interpretation is valid, they it can be used as evidence. And I proved that in my first one hour, I don’t have time to rehash all that information. Denis did NOT refute what I said. He simply committed the same..… he repeated the same argument which I already refuted! Rather, than refuting what I said… “No No No…” he should have came back and said, “No Nadir, If I can spin another logical interpretation which doesn’t agree with science (like he did with the Iron verse, even that was a poor attempt), than that does disprove your evidence!”.
He’s not actually putting anything. What Denis basically did tonight, is that he said:
I don’t want to look at your evidence COLLECTIVELY and I’m going to go back and look at each piece of evidence INDIVIDUALLY!
That’s pretty much his stance tonight. And as I said, I can not force people to believe in things, that’s not my job here. So my point is, so long as what I told you in the Quran, actually…. I just let the Quran read for itself. I did not twist anything.
He said, “I was simply showing that it is possible for a human to make these statements.” But what I did, I said:
“Ok, here are the eight (human)possibilities Denis! And if it is possible, then which one of these 8 are? (meaning, if it was humanly possible to make these statements, what category would these scientific statements fall under?Coincidence, guess, luck…etc.)
He doesn’t what to do that. He doesn’t want to touch the algorythm! I cited for you 8 of the logical (human) possibilities. He’s basically, he’s dancing around it. He will not commit and say… “oh no… no.. no it’s this” “oh no no , its that.” “or may be it is combination of this, this and this: A, B, C, D.”
He wont do that! Because that is where he feels most comfortable. So long in his heart, he can say for each verse INDIVIDUALLY, I can come up with a human explanation. That’s where he feels most comfortable. Ok.That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. But you are not refuting what I said.
Anyways, he said about deep dark seas, that, the Quran didn’t mention the level. Who cares!?! The Quran mentions at the deep dark sea, there is NO LIGHT. That is what is stated in the Quran.
He said basically, he did not even answer my question. He’s not answering my question about the nearer land in the Quran. My question to him is, “how do you explain, that the Author of the Quran used a word which one of the meanings is the lowest point, and we know that is the lowest point.” Science today tells us that is the lowest point. He basically said, “its possible to have a human explanation.” Again, he is just looking at it individually.
The issue of Walt Wittman is a red herring. Weather if there is scientific statements in any other book, “no problemo!”. We will use our algorithm and we will use it against ANY book, any place, anywhere. The statement about the journey work of the stars, my response is this Denis:
“It could be one of 8 possibilities. Look at your algorythm, it could be one of those 8: (D)coincidence, (B)luck, good guess, (C) scientist, (F)observable and the list goes on. I already stated all of that.
But anyways, I already pointed out, that there are 8 statements in the Quran which agree with modern science. Actually there is more that that. But I only had time to go over 8. And I said, what are the probabilities of all of this being luck? He admits that this stuff is not guess work! He admits that this stuff is not coincidence! He admits,yes,the Author of the Quran is not a scientist! Then if you admit all of this stuff, Denis, then, what is the source of ALL of this information????? Again, I’m asking you to look at the information collectively, but he doesn’t want to. “No problemo.”
His analogy of the misuse of probabilities, I believe people can misuse a lot of things, I believe people can dupe themselves in refusing to look at evidence. People can misuse anything. There is really nothing worth refuting over there.
Anyways, so my point is, I’m just going to have to repeat myself. If we look in the Quran, in fact, let me pull up my old presentation here, which I was just pointing out, that in that murder trial, if we look at each piece of evidence INDIVIDUALLY. Each piece of evidence individually, yes, it has a “human explanation”, as how Denis likes to put it. I’m using his words. Each piece of evidence if we just look at it individually, may be may be not he is the murderer. But, when you look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY,… you say, “ok… hold on a second…first of all you wrote a letter that you were going to kill your girlfriend… AND THEN you also bought a knife that same week.” And in your mind what you are asking is, “what is the probability of you doing ALL of these things?”. And so, you mind is making a probability and you are multiplying it. And then you add another piece of evidence (to multiply).. and another piece of evidence.
What would you say about the defense attorney who came up on that court date and said, “you know what? There is is a human explanation for each one of these! On each one of thes pieces of evidence its very possible that, my defendant is innocent!” (the attorney is refusing to look at the evidence collectively). People would laugh at him!!!! J J J
Anyways, so the SAME logic, the same common sense, hate to even use the word logic, if we use it to the Quran, and we ask the question:
“how do you explain ALL of the verses in the Quran, these scientific 8 statements in the Quran which clearly speaks about modern science?”
you will never come up with any other logical alternative other than there has to be a greater source than man who is the Author of the Quran. We know this is not guess work, if we run the probabilities on guess work, it is IMPOSSIBLE. If you run the probabilities on coincidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE. We know the author of the Quran was not a scientist. There is no way you stare at a piece of Iron and say to yourself, “it did not come to this earth”. We know that is not the case. I pointed out, that just because you can spin another interpretation, that does not prove my evidence. I proved that with my analogy of the big bang. We know that this is not observable. Then what other alternative is left? The only alternative that is left, is that, this can be from only one source, and that is from a greater power than man.
*Because no man can make 8 scientifically correct statements which is way before its time.*
Even .. lets hypothetically say all of the 8 statements were inside books which were written before. Lets say, everyone at verbatim was written before. Still, how did the Author of the Quran know, “Hey, you know what, that’s the correct one! I’m going to use this concept of how the universe was created, about Iron, versus all the WRONG, false beliefs. That argument doesn’t work
And so, anyways, I only have 30 seconds, if you logically analyze the statements in the Quran, there can be no other conclusion you can make, other than, that the author of the Quran could not have been a man, it had to have been a greater source. When you look at the evidence COLLECTIVELY. I did not spin my own false interpretations on any of this stuff, so with that, I see my time is up, and my last point is that:
No other book in the World, can demonstrate what the Quran has demonstrated today
And my time is up. Thanks
Debate from ‘examinethe truth’ site
AKHTER said,
July 19, 2008 at 8:09 am
Islam And Darwinism
Islam believes in the theory of creation and Darwinists believe in the Theory of Evolution. In this article briefly it is discussed that the life on earth is created by God; it is not accidental or by chance. The atheists and the materialists negate the existence of God and consider human life and even mind to be a form of matter. Darwin’s theory of Evolution has influenced the minds of people and their character has been influenced as well. Such people do not believe in divine morals and values. They do not believe in God, soul and Hereafter. Islam says that God has created this universe and Humans with a specified goal. In Sura the Heifer in verse 117 the Quran says: “To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: when He decrees a matter, He says to it: “Be”, and it is.” Similarly in Sura Yasin in verse no. 82 the Quran announces: “Verily, when He intends a thing, His command is, “Be”; and it is”. The Quran has used two words for creation “Khalaq” and “Amr”. “Amr” is immediate command and immediate creation. Suppose about the creation of soul the Quran says: They ask you about soul, say; the soul is the command of my Lord” – All humans and the cosmos has been regarded as “Khalq”. The man comes in to being through a proper natural system. Without sexual intercourse and conception no life can take shape. But when the Quran refers about the birth of Jesus Christ; it is not natural or usual way of birth. It is through special command. Similarly the mothers of Yahya and Ishmael had gone old and barren and could not produce children. But the Quran mentions about their birth through special command. The natural laws and usual system of creation is regarded as Khalq. Hence the Quran in Sura Al-Imran in verse 190 says; “Behold! In the creation of heavens and the earth, and the alternation of Night and Day – there are indeed signs for men of understanding.” There are many verses in the Quran dealing with the subject of creation. Then there is also the concept of evolutionary process in creation but it is not in Darwinian sense but in the sense of developing stages of cosmos. The Quran in Sura The Height in verse 54 announces; “Your Guardian – Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days.” Then in Sura “the cattle” in verse 2 the Quran says; “He it is who created you from clay; and then decreed a stated term) for you). An there is in His presence another determined term; yet you doubt within yourselves”. The six days and stated term indicate the process and stages of creation by God. The creation of the universe in six days is the Biblical concept as well. Man is the blend of Matter and Soul. When God created Adam out of clay he infused his spirit in it. The Quran very explicitly narrates the story of the creation of Adam. The materialists do not believe in creation and spirit and regard the universe only the product of blind material forces. Now let us discuss what Darwin propounded. Darwinism bases on materialism. The ancient Greek materialists like Democritus believed in Ev