Some Christian critics who know basic Arabic are claiming the Quran teaches us that Allah prays. They normally use this argument in an attempt to counter and pacify the Muslim use of the Bible which points to Jesus praying (Matthew 26:39).
Rather than focussing on Christianity let us look at the issue in hand; does Allah pray according to the Quran?
The claimants claim the Arabic translation (2:157, 33:43, 33:56) means Allah prays. However, once we consult the EXPERT translators, the lexicon, the commentaries and early Muslim clarification we realise the claimants are completely ignorant of word usage and thus incorrect.
Through the course of this article you will realise it really is a case of the Christian critic against the experts in the field, the experts do NOT agree with the Christian critics!
The structure of the article is thus, there will be a presentation of evidence against their claim based on different authorities:
*Expert Translators
*The Lexicon (Authoritative Arabic Dictionary)
*Expert Commentators
*Early Muslim views
After this evidence is passed over there will be a specific address (refutation) to a vocal critic’s (Sam Shamoun) written work in the interest of thoroughness. I chose Shamoun’s work as he seems to be the most vociferous in claiming Allah prays and is a source material for any subsequent claimant.
The Expert Translators (Masters in the Arabic language) disagree with the Christian critics
There are three Quranic verses which the claimant uses to make their claim. These three verses are translated below by THREE DIFFERENT translators; do these experts in the Arabic language think the Quran teaches us that Allah prays? No, you can see for yourself:
Quran 2:157
Dr. Mohsin : They are those on whom are the Salawât (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.
Pickthal : Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.
Yusuf Ali : They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Lord and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance.
Quran 33:43
Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allâh to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islâmic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.
Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you, and His angels (bless you), that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and He is Merciful to the believers.
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers
Quran 33:56
Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels (ask Allâh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salât[] on (ask Allâh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islâmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As¬Salâmu 'Alaikum).
Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him, with all respect.
The stubborn Christian critic, upon seeing these translations, will say these translations are produced by Muslims so we do not trust them. This is all rather silly but we shall indulge their argument further.
Well let us look at how the Christian missionary JM Rodwell translated the verses in question. Let us look at how AJ Arberry translated the verses in question, AJ Arberry is endorsed by the Christian MISSIONARY Robert Morey [1].
To further highlight the expert opinion we can bring the opinion of the CHRISTIAN missionary Rodwell (who is a translator of the Quran), does he think the Quran teaches Allah prays? No!
Rodwell agrees with the expert (Muslim) translators above. The same applies to AJ Arberry, he too agrees with the translations above and the same applies to George Sale:
Quran 33:56
George Sale 33:56
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: O true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation.
John Medows Rodwell 33:56
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet! Bless ye Him, O Believers, and salute Him with salutations of Peace.
Arthur John Arberry 33:56
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace.
Quran 33:43
Arthur John Arberry 33:43
It is He who blesses you, and His angels, to bring you forth from the shadows into the light. He is All-compassionate to the believers.
George Sale 33:43
It is He who is gracious unto you, and his angels intercede for you, that He may lead you forth from darkness into light; and He is merciful towards the true believers.
John Medows Rodwell 33:43
He blesseth you, and His angels intercede for you, that He may bring you forth out of darkness into light: and Merciful is He to the Believers.
Quran 2:157
AJ Arberry 2:157
Upon the rest blessings and mercy from their Lord and those---they are the truly guided
JM Rodwell 2:157
On them shall be blessings from their Lord, also mercy: and these! They are rightly guided
George Sale 2:157
Upon them shall be blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they are rightly directed.
So there they have it. It is NOT a Muslim conspiracy theory. The Christian critics should base their arguments on facts rather than conspiracy theories. Furthermore, if they are still in doubt why don’t they consult Lane’s Lexicon?
The Lexicon: Does the authoritative dictionary agree with the Christian missionaries? No.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.
Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)
From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].
Nowhere does Lane agree with the critic’s claims but Lane agrees with the expert translators (mentioned above). So the Christian critic is quite simply bringing stuff of conjecture to the table and has no in depth knowledge of Arabic word usage.
Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”
Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too. So lane the expert is agreeing with the Muslim translators but disagreeing with the critic’s unauthorized claims
So the experts in the field of Arabic disagree with the Christian critic’s bizarre claim. Thus it is clear Allah does not pray and the Muslim expert translators are correct. If there is still a stubborn critic holding onto his/her claim then they can view the commentary material.
Do the Expert Commentators Agree with the Christian critics? No.
If the critic was serious about their claim they would have consulted the commentaries as these reflect the early Arab (Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs) opinion related to word usage.
Let us open up Al-Tustari’s commentary (2:157), in fact al-Tustari explains all three verses in question and DISAGREES with the Christian critic.
Al-Tustari explains the word used in 2:157 (“al-salawat”):
“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord”
So we realise the verses in question does not refer to God (Allah) praying. Thus the translators are backed up by the early Muslim expert(Al Tustari). Al-Tustari goes further and explains the word used in the two other references (33:43 and 33:56) as blessings referring to forgiveness:
“As for its meaning of 'forgiveness', it is referred to in His words, Exalted is He, He it is who blesses you [33:43], meaning: 'He forgives you', and [again in His words]: as do His angels… [33:43], by which is meant: 'They seek forgiveness for you'. In the same vein are His words: Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet [33:56], which mean: 'Truly God forgives the Prophet, and the angels seek forgiveness for him.'” [3]
So Al-Tustari explained these verses and the related word usage hundreds of years prior to the Christian critics coming on the scene with their broken Arabic looking to re-interpret sources according to their missionary agendas. The fact remains, Al-Tustari (the expert) does NOT agree with the critics; he did NOT believe any of the three verses (2:157, 33:43, and 33:56) taught Allah prays. Who are these critics to disagree with the early Muslim commentator?
If by chance there is STILL a critic espousing their claim then they can view early Arab thought concerning the verses in question.
Do Other Early Arab Experts Agree with the Christian Critics? No.
To be totally comprehensive let us open up another Tafsir master piece. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir literature also proves the critics are clearly in error as it points to other early Muslim (Arab) experts. When we read Ibn Kathir we note Allah’s Salah is explained:
“Al-Bukhari said: "Abu Al-`Aliyah said: "Allah's Salah is His praising him before the angels, and the Salah of the angels is their supplication.'' “ [4]
So we realise Abu Al-Aliyah did not believe Allah prayed! The same goes for At-Thawri and other scholars, neither At-Thawri or the other scholars thought the Quran taught Allah prays:
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]
Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.
None of these experts is claiming the references mean Allah prays and these experts knew the language remarkably well. In fact Lane uses these experts as source material for his lexicon! Who are these Christian critics to argue with the early Muslim (Arab) experts in the Arabic language?
Conclusion
The copious evidence presented showing the critics to be wrong is sufficient for anybody of a reasonable disposition to realise the Quran does not teach Allah prays.
Essentially the audience, is asked to choose between the Christian critic’s shoddy scholarship or the Muslim expert translators, the dictionary, the commentators and the early Arabs. It is a no brainer; clearly authority is correct and the agenda based missionaries are mistaken.
A Response to A Christian Critic
In the interest to deliver a comprehensive piece of work to the reader I have appended an article addressing the shoddy scholarship of the chief supporter of the Christian missionary claim. The gentleman, ironically enough, has a history of bringing his own unauthorized Quran translations to the table; previously he was found to have translated a Quranic verse in order to present Islam as a religion which allows bestiality! [5]
Nevertheless, his work shall be quickly combed through in a scholarly fashion, his work is entitled:
Islam and the prayers of Allah An examination of the worship and praise which Allah performs (by Sam Shamoun)
Yahya Snow responds:
Shamoun’s deceptive ways on 2:157
Shamoun wastes no time and immediately claims:
“We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad”
The question is does Shamoun take into account the fact that Y.Ali, Pikthal, Hilali/Khan, Arberry, Rodwell and Sale all disagree with him? No.
Shamoun presents his OWN translation for the 2:157, here it is:
“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy (rahmatun), and it is they who are the guided-ones. S. 2:157”
Why does Shamoun not cite a translator to back him up? It is because all the translators (even Palmer) disagree with him!
Shamoun translates “salawatun” (salawat) as “the prayers”. Shamoun would have saved himself from the embarrassment if he had consulted an EXPERT, Al-Tustari has already (hundreds of years prior to Shamoun) defined the word used in 2:157 (“salawat”):
“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord” [3]
To further pour refutation and authoritative admonishment on Shamoun’s shoddy translation we can look to Palmer and Rodwell (as well as the Y.Ali, Pikthal and Hilali/Khan). None of these translators agree with Shamoun’s shoddy translation.
A.J Arberry translates is as “blessings” whilst E.H PALMER translates is as “blessings” too:
“These on them are blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they it is who are guided.” (EH Palmer 2:157)
There is a real significance to Palmer which highlights the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Sam Shamoun. This shall be elaborated upon.
However, Shamoun does not even bother to inform his audience he simply made his OWN translation of 2:157. He does not inform them why he did this either! This is a misdirection of the audience but it gets worse. As Shamoun for the other two references (33:34 and 33:56) uses E.H. Palmer’s translation of the Quran.
Why did he not use Palmer’s for 2:157? It is obvious, because Palmer disagrees with Shamoun and translates the verse the same vein as the Muslim translators.
Sam Shamoun is playing games of inconsistency and partial information in order to misdirect the audience. If Shamoun was of a consistent scholarly substance he would have cited many translators (as I have done) or at least stuck with one translator for all three verses. Shamoun does not do this. He employs Palmer for two of the references but not the third as Palmer does not agree with Shamoun on 2:157, hence why Shamoun makes his OWN translation up and does not even announce this to his audience (readers).
Shamoun’s desperation in making his OWN translation of 2:157 highlights no expert translator agrees with him; if he had a translator who agreed with him he would have cited him or her. This is depraved deception and disrespectful to the unwitting reader.
Shamoun’s lack of expertise on 33:43 and 33:56
These two references can be discussed simultaneously as the relevant word in both Verses is derived from the same Arabic word (“salla”)
Shamoun brings E.H Palmer’s translation for both:
He it is who prays (yusallee) for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43 Palmer
Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer
Shamoun does add the transliterated Arabic words (bracketed) to the translation. It would have been responsible to note this was the doing of Sam Shamoun but Shamoun does not do the scholarly thing. However, this is not such a big issue.
Does Shamoun mention to his audience that the other translators (including the Christian missionary Rodwell) all translate these two verses in question differently from Palmer? No.
Is Palmer’s translation of 33:43 and 33:56 convincing?
So effectively it is a case of Palmer translating it as “pray” but the other experts disagree with Palmer and teach it to it refer to “bless” (or “gracious”) and NOT “pray”:
Quran 33:43
Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you..
Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you..
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you..
Arthur John Arberry
It is He who blesses you..
John Medows Rodwell
He blesseth you..
George Sale
It is He who is gracious unto you..
Quran 33:56
Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW)…
Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet…
Arthur John Arberry
God and His angels bless the Prophet...
John Medows Rodwell
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet..
George Sale
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet..
Now, if Shamoun was scholarly he would have looked into how Palmer translates the related word (“salawat”) in 2:157. Palmer translates the related word as “blessings” and NOT prayers. Thus Palmer is not only isolated and in disagreement with the other translators but is INCONSISTENT in his translation which suggests and error on the part of Palmer.
So it would be unscholarly to use Palmer’s translation in this regard (33:43 and 56) to support a claim. However, our friend (Sam Shamoun) ignores principles of balanced scholarship and proceeds to use Palmer to support his claim.
If Shamoun is still unwilling to accept Palmer’s error then we can take the issue to Lane’s Lexicon.
Edward William Lane is an expert in the Arabic language. Lane explains the word (“salla”) used in the two verses (33:43and 56). Surely Lane will settle it once and for all.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.
Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)
From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].
Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”
Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too [2]. So Lane, the expert, is agreeing with the all the other translators but disagreeing with Palmer.
So we realise Palmer is not only inconsistent but not supported by his fellow translators nor the authoritative lexicon.
This points to Palmer being in error, thus it would be unscholarly of Shamoun or any other critic to use Palmer’s error in order to build their claim.
To further show Palmer is in error we can consult the early Muslim expert Ath-Thawri and other scholars:
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]
Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. Al-Tustari disagrees with Palmer as well [3]. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.
It is also fair to note Palmer is not to blame for this Christian critic claim as the critics manipulate and take advantage of Palmer’s error and inconsistency. As all the other experts and source material disagree with Palmer, I am of the view, if Palmer had a chance to revise his work he would change his translation to agree with the other translators and Lane’s Lexicon.
The more concerning element is the refusal of the Christian critics (including Shamoun) to portray the full picture to their audience. Agendas will be agendas!
Shamoun Brings Irrelevant Hadith Literature to the Table or Misrepresents it Completely
Shamoun, again wastes no time and states:
“The hadith reports also mention Allah praying for people”, he then brings a translation of a Hadith:
“1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Allah AND His angels AND the people of the heavens AND the earth, EVEN the ants in their rocks AND the fish, PRAY for blessings on those who teach people good." [at-Tirmidhi] (Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)””
Shamoun, is extremely unscholarly here as at-Tirmidhi has ALREADY EXPLAINED the meaning concerning “pray” related to Allah. At-Tirmidhi clearly does not think Allah prays as he explains the term:
Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. [4]
Thus the word “pray” is concerning Allah sending Mercy upon the recipient. That is all, it does not refer to Allah literally praying. So Shamoun should cross reference the Arabic phraseology before presenting such material, that way he would not look so unscholarly.
As we have seen previously, Lane’s Lexicon, Al-Tustari and the expert translators disagree with Shamoun’s rendering of the word.
Shamoun Butchers Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir Literature
Shamoun swiftly moves onto his translation of Ibn Kathir, he writes:
“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him [saying]: “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say [to them] ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets and my messengers,’” and Allah then sent down on his messenger: “Allah and His angels pray…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; translated from the Arabic online edition; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun is unscholarly again, not only has Lane’s Lexicon explained the word in question (“salla” “pray”) but Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the SAME chapter explains the verse via at-Tirmidhi:.
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]
So it is clear Ibn Kathir did not think “pray” (salla) meant what Shamoun tries to intimate. The real question is why did Shamoun translate his own bit from Ibn Kathir BUT ignore the explanation of Allah’s Salah within the SAME chapter of Ibn Kathir?
It is obvious, Shamoun wanted to misdirect the audience. The fact remains, Ibn Kathir’s EXPLANATION of Allah’s Salah is from the same section as the passage Shamoun translates so there is NO chance Shamoun did not view the explanation, thus it is clear Shamoun is trying to dupe the audience.
Shamoun Opening up the Dictionary
Shamoun then presents a basic translation of the words in question:
“What makes this rather amazing is that according to the Islamic sources the words salawat and salah refer to worship and glorification:
Ibn Al-Atheer in his highly acknowledged dictionary of the Arabic language, 'Al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Athar' has explained "Sala'h" as follows:
'Al-Sala'h' and 'Al-Salawaat': used for a particular kind of worship. Its literal origin is supplication (prayer). Sometimes, 'Sala'h' is referred to by mentioning any one or more of its parts. It is also said that the literal origin of the word is 'to glorify' and the particular worship is called 'Sala'h', because it entails the glorification of the Lord. (The Meaning of the Word "Sala'h", May 19, 2001; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun simply presents the standard meaning of the words used in everyday situations but does not present the meanings of words in relation to Allah. Thus Shamoun hides the in depth analysis of the word usage.
Al-Tustari has ALREADY taught us “al-Salawat” refers to a bestowal of Mercy when it refers to Allah (as in 2:157) and NOT what Shamoun suggests. Why did Shamoun not give the fuller picture?
As for Salah ,this was explained in IBN KATHIR, it is worthy of note to mention (again) that Shamoun has READ IBN KATHIR’S Tafsir related to Salah, why did Shamoun not present it? It is clear as it scuppers Shamoun’s claims. Thus Shamoun is not after honest scholarship but is after deception.
From Ibn Kathir:
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]
So Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims KNEW Allah’s Salah did NOT mean Allah prayed! It referred to his Blessing of Mercy ( Al-Tustari: a bestowal of Mercy)
“Salla” and “Salawat” with Sam Shamoun
Shamoun also gives examples of the words “salla” and “salawat” and tries to argue his case BUT FORGETS to mention his examples are not linked to Allah. The experts including Lane all teach that the words in question have a different meaning once linked to Allah. It really is getting repetitive now.
Thereafter Shamoun drifts of topic he starts talking about praises and referring to work of those who counter him. I feel what has been said here is sufficient. If you feel the rest of his article requires attention then please let me know (or alternatively if somebody else has countered Shamoun’s article the let me know as I can link to it, God Willing).You can read Shamoun’s article in full here:http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/allah_worships.html
Conclusion
Shamoun uses slight of hand and audience misdirection by withholding the full picture from the readers. Effectively Shamoun disagrees with the expert translators, Lane’s Lexicon, Tafsir writers and early experts in the Arabic language. Does Shamoun bring any proof to show all these authorities to be wrong? No.
The facts remain Shamoun has no authority and is basing his views on conjecture and wishful thinking. It seems as though Shamoun simply puts this claim out there because he is frustrated with Muslims pointing to the Biblical account of Jesus worshipping as evidence against Jesus being God. So Shamoun seems to be motivated by insincere goals.
If he really believes God worships then that is down to him but in his frustration at Muslim objections to his belief (that God worships in the Bible) Shamoun should not overstep scholarly bounds and make half-hearted attempts to make the same claim against God in the Quran.
Shamoun, seems unscholarly, deceptive immature with his claim.
So does Allah worship? Well, the experts say NO.
References
[1] Robert Morey’s The Islamic Invasion, Christian Scholar Press, 1992 pg 21
[2] An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872, pg 1720
[3] Tafsir Al-Tustari, (2:157), trans. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler
[4] Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Surah 33), Dar as-Salam Publishing
[5] http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=788§ion=family_society&subsection=
Tuesday 25 May 2010
Tuesday 18 May 2010
An Appeal to Reason before Debating David Wood or Sam Shamoun
An Appeal to Good sense and Responsibility by Yahya Snow
A debate series has been organised in Michigan involving Christians and Muslims. I am pro-dialogue and discussion but the Muslims involved are Muslims who have high standings within their respective communities, therefore these Muslims have responsibilities which span considerable lengths both in an interfaith capacity as well as within their own faith.
The itinerary of the debate shows Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal is due to debate Sam Shamoun and David Wood.
I feel prior to accepting this debate the Sheikh (Ahmed Mohammed Awal) had not fully researched his opponents nor considered the implications of debating them.
David Wood
A number of Muslims have already shunned David Wood due to his unacceptable behaviour. Moreover, David Wood has done absolutely nothing to rectify his faults and has recently depicted material which is both unchristian and offensive to Muslims as well as other groups. This material included nudity (from the submission video) as well as religiously inflammatory material from the South Park show.
A responsible Christian (and a responsible debater) would not have showcased such material. Sadly, Wood tried to defend his actions; one of his more peculiar and unconvincing defences was under the guise of “art”.
A number of links highlighting Wood’s unscholarly and irresponsible behaviour:
Wood irresponsibly offending different religious groups for no reason whatsoever as well as displaying nudity which is unchristian in itself:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/david-wood-displaying-nudity-and.html
An appeal to Wood’s partner (Which Wood censored…surely he only censored it due to his knowing of his behaviour to be unacceptable):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/question-for-nabeel-qureshi-concerning.html
An audio rebuke of David Wood’s behaviour:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/david-wood-rebuked-by-muslims-and.html
I hope the respected Sheikh takes time to view this material and ponders upon the inevitable negativities which could result from a firm agreement to debate Wood. I would also ask Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal to contrast his thoughts with any potential positives that could come from withdrawing from a debate with David Wood. The major positives would surely include (Insha’Allah):
1. David Wood seriously reconsidering his recent behaviour
2. A loud and clear message would be sent to people within apologetics and Truth-seeking about the importance of reserved behaviour
3. Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal would enhance the reputation of decent apologists and send a message of self-reflection to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Sam Shamoun
In the interest of fairness it would also be relevant to point out Sam Shamoun’s behaviour of late has been more than shoddy of late. In fact, due to his propensity to hound and abuse colleagues of mine a letter of rebuke was produced. Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal would do well to read this posting concerning Sam Shamoun and rethink his agreement relating to a debate with Shamoun:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-letter-to-answeringislam.html
Dr James White
From my research into White I formed the view that White is a man of responsible behaviour, a well-reputed individual as well as an individual who does not come with the unfortunate baggage Wood and Shamoun come with. A discussion/debate with White would not meet any opposition from a fair Muslim in my view.
I hope Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal, Sheikh Mohammad Jowad Al-Ansari and Dr James White read this posting as I feel their (Wood's and Shamoun's) recent behaviour excludes them from sharing a podium with respected individuals.
Saturday 15 May 2010
The "Smoking Gun" To End The "Mary, Sister of Aaron" Debate Decisively
It turns out that a critic of Islam, Sam Shamoun, has produced a lengthy article concerning the “Mary: Sister of Aaron issue” Shamoun's article is entitled "Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Sister of Aaron". Strangely enough, Shamoun includes this article in his "Quran contradiction" section
Predictably he tries to keep the argument alive via his article. As my counterpart, David Wood, produced a video presentation vocalising Shamoun’s written work I have unwittingly already responded to much of Shamoun’s material in my response to David Wood.
Rather than reiterating the points of refutation made at David Wood’s work I will leave the reader to view the links below:
Written form:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/re.html
Summarised audio form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tdoQvz5-ZY
The Critic's Final Stand Has Ended
However, Shamoun did seem to be addressing Muslim responses to his claims and he cited the references Muslims brought up in order to prove the usage of idioms (such as the “sister of Aaron”) by the past generations.
Muslims, admittedly, have supplied references from the Bible which do not exactly match the pattern of the expression used in Surah 19:28 (sister of Aaron) though the references supplied do prove the usage of non-literal phraseology and titles.
Shamoun dismisses a Muslim author’s reference by stating:
“In every single example that the author provided, the word used in connection with one’s lineage, to descendants, isn’t "brother of" or "sister of" but rather "son of" or "daughter of"! Not a single example provided by the author which refers to a person’s lineage ever use the expression "brother of" or "sister of."”
Though the Muslim has a point in bringing up these references the more obstinate critic (such as Shamoun) is not going to accept them as they want to see a “smoking gun” (phraseology of the same nature, using the word “sister”)
The "Smoking Gun"
Recently, the “smoking gun” has been found. Ironically, it has been found in the words of JESUS within the Gospel of Mark (3:35)!
Jesus produces a non-time-dependant saying by stating:
“Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother”. (Mark 3:35)
As this quote from Jesus is not reliant on time or place we can safely say this is the “smoking gun” Shamoun and other critics have been looking for from the Muslims.
As the quote from Jesus is not time-dependant , Esther, Asiya and Sarah are considered the sisters of Jesus as they did the will of God
A lady in 2010, doing the will of God, is also the sister of Jesus according to Mark 3:35.
Thus, we have our clear evidence that phraseology of the nature used by the Jews in the Quran (19:28) was used by and understood by other Jews too (as highlighted by the Jew named Jesus).
A Quick Recap
"O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" (Yusuf Ali’s translation of Quran19:28)
Surah 19:28 points to a group of Jews calling Mary by the term “sister of Aaron”. Of course Aaron lived and passed away well before Mary. Muhammed explained this passage as to be an idiom (not to be taken literally), thus it was simply a custom of the people of the past to name people in this fashion based on past pious personalities. [1]
Most critics accept Muhammad’s explanation, but the more obstinate wanted evidence of such idiomatic usage by past Jewish/Christian communities. The Muslims did supply evidence of non-literal expressions/titles being used within the Bible.
Some of these critics accepted this evidence but others were not satisfied (such as Shamoun) and they wanted a “smoking gun”
Well, Sam Shamoun and other critics who have been clinging onto the remnants of this tired and refuted argument have their “smoking gun”, ironically it was right under their noses, in the New Testament (Mark 3:35).
An Appeal to Reason
I sincerely hope Sam Shamoun and the other remaining stubborn critics behave in an intellectually honest fashion now and relinquish any hold on this refuted argument they still have. I would urge them to stop propagating (spreading) this argument as it would be total intellectual injustice to continue to do so.
References
[1] In Sahih Muslim, no. 5326
If you have any queries concerning this article please contact the author (Yahya Snow)
Allah knows best
Predictably he tries to keep the argument alive via his article. As my counterpart, David Wood, produced a video presentation vocalising Shamoun’s written work I have unwittingly already responded to much of Shamoun’s material in my response to David Wood.
Rather than reiterating the points of refutation made at David Wood’s work I will leave the reader to view the links below:
Written form:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/re.html
Summarised audio form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tdoQvz5-ZY
The Critic's Final Stand Has Ended
However, Shamoun did seem to be addressing Muslim responses to his claims and he cited the references Muslims brought up in order to prove the usage of idioms (such as the “sister of Aaron”) by the past generations.
Muslims, admittedly, have supplied references from the Bible which do not exactly match the pattern of the expression used in Surah 19:28 (sister of Aaron) though the references supplied do prove the usage of non-literal phraseology and titles.
Shamoun dismisses a Muslim author’s reference by stating:
“In every single example that the author provided, the word used in connection with one’s lineage, to descendants, isn’t "brother of" or "sister of" but rather "son of" or "daughter of"! Not a single example provided by the author which refers to a person’s lineage ever use the expression "brother of" or "sister of."”
Though the Muslim has a point in bringing up these references the more obstinate critic (such as Shamoun) is not going to accept them as they want to see a “smoking gun” (phraseology of the same nature, using the word “sister”)
The "Smoking Gun"
Recently, the “smoking gun” has been found. Ironically, it has been found in the words of JESUS within the Gospel of Mark (3:35)!
Jesus produces a non-time-dependant saying by stating:
“Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother”. (Mark 3:35)
As this quote from Jesus is not reliant on time or place we can safely say this is the “smoking gun” Shamoun and other critics have been looking for from the Muslims.
As the quote from Jesus is not time-dependant , Esther, Asiya and Sarah are considered the sisters of Jesus as they did the will of God
A lady in 2010, doing the will of God, is also the sister of Jesus according to Mark 3:35.
Thus, we have our clear evidence that phraseology of the nature used by the Jews in the Quran (19:28) was used by and understood by other Jews too (as highlighted by the Jew named Jesus).
A Quick Recap
"O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" (Yusuf Ali’s translation of Quran19:28)
Surah 19:28 points to a group of Jews calling Mary by the term “sister of Aaron”. Of course Aaron lived and passed away well before Mary. Muhammed explained this passage as to be an idiom (not to be taken literally), thus it was simply a custom of the people of the past to name people in this fashion based on past pious personalities. [1]
Most critics accept Muhammad’s explanation, but the more obstinate wanted evidence of such idiomatic usage by past Jewish/Christian communities. The Muslims did supply evidence of non-literal expressions/titles being used within the Bible.
Some of these critics accepted this evidence but others were not satisfied (such as Shamoun) and they wanted a “smoking gun”
Well, Sam Shamoun and other critics who have been clinging onto the remnants of this tired and refuted argument have their “smoking gun”, ironically it was right under their noses, in the New Testament (Mark 3:35).
An Appeal to Reason
I sincerely hope Sam Shamoun and the other remaining stubborn critics behave in an intellectually honest fashion now and relinquish any hold on this refuted argument they still have. I would urge them to stop propagating (spreading) this argument as it would be total intellectual injustice to continue to do so.
References
[1] In Sahih Muslim, no. 5326
If you have any queries concerning this article please contact the author (Yahya Snow)
Allah knows best
Wednesday 12 May 2010
SkepticsAnnotatedQuran Refuted
Article by Yahya Snow refuting the Skeptics Annotated Quran team (Skeptics Annotated Bible)
So the SkepticsAnnotatedBible group have produced a piece on the Quran (SkepticsAnnotatedQuran).
They put forward 45 scientific/historical issues they have with the Quran. They are very brief so this article will answer their issues as briefly as possible.
Generally much of their material is repetitive and the themes of their material are ignorance and ridicule. These answers show the sceptics were being unreasonable and even ignorant in bringing these forty five points up.
1. And He taught Adam all the names."
Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31
The sceptics are being flippant and using manipulative exaggeration.
They say it must have taken a long time; not so, if they read Tafsir Al-Jalalayn they would note that the belief is that Allah taught Adam the names by “placing knowledge of them into his heart”.
So if the sceptics thought a little laterally (or just read the Tafsir) they would not have made the claim of taking a lot of time.
2. Humans created from a single man. 4: 1
Well, if this sceptical team had read the verse in full they will note the Quran elaborates on this point in the same verse.
It teaches that Adam was created first and from him Eve was created and then the rest of humanity come through the procreation of Adam and Eve. Thus it is reasonable to say that humans were created from a single man as Adam was the first and then Eve was created from Adam and then through procreation the rest of humanity came. So Adam was a starting point and the Quran is completely correct.
If they had read the verse in its entirety they would have understood the point about the “single person”. Sure, the sceptics may not agree with creationism but this does not make it incorrect. The question is why did they not bother to read the whole verse for a fuller explanation?
3. The Quran repeats the silly story about Cain and Abel (though they are unnamed in the Quran). 5:27-31
The sceptics attack the story via ridicule but they do not even attempt to disprove it. I’m not sure why they included this reference in their list as they don’t even try to disprove it.
As for story of the first murder; of course during the history of humanization there will be a human who was the first to commit the crime of murder and you would not be surprised if God told people through His Book about this story. If you read the passage all the way to verse 32 you realise that the story is told and man is taught that murder is a huge crime.
The sceptics show their anti-religion bigotry here. They ridicule this story as “silly” yet they cannot disprove it. The only reason they ridicule it is because they are naturalists. Naturalists are people who do not believe in the supernatural. Again, despite their ridicule, they cannot disprove this story. For clarification and thoroughness their reference to the story being repeated is due to the fact it is also in the Bible. It is still wise to point out the childish nature in which they dismiss a story they cannot disprove.
4. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81
The sceptics clearly misrepresent the verses. The verses dos not teach homosexuality to be “unnatural”. Please go back and read the verses again rather than misrepresenting them.
From these verses we learn that the people of Lot are the first ones from humanity to commit such deeds, we learn it is seen as a sin. This is confirmed by the Quranic experts as “the commentators say that first they started this evil act” [1]
The sceptics should be a little more scholarly rather than jumping in and making incorrect attributions to the Quran.
In any case, even if a book did claim homosexuality to be unnatural, there is no firm proof to disprove this “unnatural” claim; if the sceptics were intellectually honest they would have noted this. However, it is wise to reiterate the fact that these Quranic verses (7:80-81) do not claim homosexuality to be unnatural but do we do learn from these verses that it is a sin. The Quran is completely correct, it is the sceptics who are mistaken.
[1] Islam on Homosexuality, Mufti Muhammad Zafeeruddin, Darul Ishaat, 1996
5. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124
Crucifixion was a simple method and hardly required rocket science for a society to come up with crucifixion. Have the sceptics got any evidence to show that it was impossible for Egyptians to crucify individuals? No, of course they have not. They simply made this claim up with no supporting evidence. Hardly scholarly!
To correct the sceptics; crucifixion is thought to have originated from Persia and it was also used in Egyptian, Carthaginian, Seleucid, Assyrian and other civilisations.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary confirms that the Egyptians did use crucifixion [1]. Thus the Quran is completely correct but the sceptics clearly did not research the history of crucifixion, they simply made a caim up without any supporting knowledge.
See:
[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html
6. When Allah revealed himself to Moses, the mountain (Mt. Sinai?) came crashing down. 7:143
Actually the sceptics lack comprehension skills here, Allah revealed Him to a mountain which Moses was looking upon, this mountain collapsed to dust. There is no information given concerning the name of the mountain. I’m not too sure why they included this point in their list, it certainly does not disprove anything concerning the Quran.
Perhaps they included it because it seems implausible to the sceptics due to the fact that they disbelieve in supernatural occurrences. Again, why include this in your list when you do not even attempt to disprove it? Is it because you want your list to look lengthy?
7. Humans created from a single man. 7:189
Previously discussed in point 2 concerning 4:1. (Please view)
8. "They fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him."
Allah thinks (in his heart) that humans have their brains in their breasts. 11:5
It is obviously a figure of speech which we still use today. Have you not heard somebody ask “tell me what is in your heart”. It is not taken literally, it simply represents the innermost feelings/thoughts/secrets.
The commentary on this verse also shows the reference to “the breasts” is concerning the “innermost secrets”. The Quran is not saying people have brains in their hearts. The sceptics must take us for fools if they think people cannot see it is a figure of speech. The Quran is not in error but the sceptics are being unreasonable.
9. Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system? 12:4
No, seeing eleven planets in a dream does not mean there are eleven planets in our solar system. If an individual sees five suns in his dream does this mean he is claiming there to be five suns in our solar system? Of course not. The sceptics lose all sense of logic here.
The Quran simply relays Joseph telling his father about his dream. The Quran is not making a claim of eleven planets in our solar system. The sceptics seem to have lost there ability to reason.
It is also worth noting that the word used represents stars (it is translated as stars rather than planets in the Hilali/Khan translation). Either way; the Quran is not claiming there are eleven planets or stars in our solar system. It simply tells you of what Joseph told his father. Nobody, intellectually honest, would believe the sceptics once they read the verse for themselves.
To be fair to the sceptics, they too do not claim this, they just ask the question. Well they got the answer here, the answer is no. Now they can remove this point from their list too.
10. "The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2
The Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception.
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up!
Now the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate. [1]
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
11. "He ... spread out the earth."
Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
12 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth and the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
13 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits."
Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68
The sceptics must take us for fools if they want us to believe Arabs at the time of the Prophet (and even after) thought bees ate all fruit such as apples, bananas, oranges etc.
Regarding the “eat of all fruits”, Zawadi says “The better translation is "eat from the fruits" and not "eat of all the fruits". Surprisingly, only Palmer and Khalifa (the deviant) got it correct. In Arabic the word min means from” [1]. Thus we realise if the Quran is translated this way (two translated did translate it this way) it makes more sense to the English speaking audience. The sceptics did not view all the translations they ran with what suited their agenda.
However, even if we use the sceptic’s translation it still does not disprove the Quran:
It must be said that we humans even use figures of speech such as the one used in this verse (eat of all fruit). If I tell a child to “eat from everything in this restaurant” and place him in a restaurant he will eat from the variety of food at his disposal, he will not eat the furniture, people or decorations (i.e. he will only eat from what is edible by human beings and will decide what to eat for him/herself). Likewise the bee will only choose from what is edible for a bee from “all fruit” (i.e. it will only eat from fruit/produce which contains nectar and/or pollen.
It is also useful to note that the Arabic word used (thamarat) does not refer to fruits such as apples, pears bananas etc. This type of fruit has a separate word (fakiha).The context also confirms this.
The sceptics did not realise this. Thus in this context the word (thamarat) refers to the fruit/produce from flowers rather than regular fruit (fakiha) that humans eat. Most flowers have nectar (grasses do not). So through the context we realise that “eat of all fruits” refers to eat from all plants containing nectar and/or pollen (i.e. any plant that contains bee food the bee can eat from it).
Nectar and pollen are “fruits”/produces from flowers/plants, thus the Quran is 100% accurate and the sceptics are being unreasonable again.
The verse (16:69) is not ordering the bees to eat all fruit, the understanding gained from the verse is quite simple; God simply inspires the bees to eat from a variety of flowers which contain fruit (nectar) which the bee can derive nutrition from (eat of all fruits, thamarat).
This is actually scientifically accurate because bees do travel to a variety of flowers for food, in doing so the bees partake in cross pollination. Through this cross pollination, by the bees, we get crops, nuts, fruit and vegetables which are for human consumption.
Therefore due to God inspiring bees to eat from a variety of flowers/plants we (humans) get a benefit. Perhaps, before God’s inspiration, bees only ate from one or two plants and now due to the inspiration from God humans are benefiting. This is a sign for those who think deeply.
[1] http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/surah_16_error_regarding_the_bees_
14The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90
No, the Quran does not claim the sun sets in a muddy spring. The sceptics clearly have not read the verse in question. To a man mentioned in the Quran (Dhul-Qarneyn) the sun appears to be setting in a pool of water as “he found it set in a spring of murky water”.
Even the early commentator, Ibn Kathir, confirms this. Thus the early Arabs did not even think this meant the sun enters a pool of water. If the sceptics had read the verse they would have noticed “he found” it, thus this is a clear reference to whether was seeing and when you are looking into a pool of water it appears as though the sun is setting in the water. Ibn Kathir confirms this too.
The Quran is not wrong but the sceptics are wrong for misreading the verse.
15Most scholars consider Dhu'l-Qarneyn ("The Two-Horned Lord") to be Alexander the Great, who is here presented as a devout Muslim. 18:83-98
“Most scholars”, which scholars? The first person (to my knowledge) to suggest Dhul-Qarneyn was Alexander the Great was Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This was his opinion.
In fact there is a stronger opinion that Dhul-Qarneyn is Cyrus the Great. Sceptics should note the opinion of a translator is hardly an accurate representation of the Quran.
The Quran does not even state the identity of Dhul Qarnayn. So how can the Quran be wrong here? It can’t!
If Yusuf Ali thinks it is Alexander the Great it does not mean the Quran is saying this. DhulQarnayn simply means “one with two horns”; The Quran does not confirm who this man is. The sceptics lost their sense of logic once again.
16 he Pharaoh threatens to crucify Hebrews on palm tress. (But crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment that was unknown at the time.) 20:71
Again, this is a fanciful claim by the sceptics backed with no proof whatsoever (it has already been discussed in point 5).
We already know that crucifixion did occur in Egypt. Somebody needs to tell the sceptics; they are looking even sillier now.
17 he sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up! It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in there when they claim it orbits “around the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
The verse simply tells us that the sun and moon have an orbit. It does not say it orbits the earth. Read the verse!
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun have an orbit?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1].
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
18 The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30
The sceptics add their own addition here, the Quran does not teach this to have occurred 6000 years ago. The sceptics are confusing the Quran for the Bible. The Bible teaches the 6000 year claim whilst the Quran does not mention any time period. I would ask the sceptics to be more scholarly and accurate here.
As for the heavens and the earth being one piece, yes, the Quran is correct on this. It agrees with the Big Bang theory where the cosmos began from a single point, thus the earth and the heavens must have been a mono-block (joined together as taught in the Quran) during the early stage of the big bang. Thus the Quran is in agreement with science, in fact this appears to be a scientific miracle in the Quran!
I also ask the sceptics to brush up on their science as well, it would save us all some time!
Also, it is interesting to note that they do not mention the rest of the verse because the rest of the verse contains another scientific accuracy(miracle) because Allah teaches that all living things were made from water and we know all living things are comprised of water!
Hail comes from mountains. 24:43
The sceptics have got it wrong again! The Quran is not claiming hail comes from mountains. Once again the sceptics are taking us for fools if they believe people in 7th century Arabia thought hail came from mountains, surely Arabians who did not live next to mountains could tell this by simple observation. Well, according to the sceptics, they could not. The sceptics are being foolish and amateur.
Actually the verse confirms that hail comes from the sky as it states “ He sends down FROM THE SKY hail” [Hilali/Kahn]. This scuppers and disproves the sceptics claim. Were they unable to comprehend a simple English translation of the Quran.
As for the “mountains” reference, it is explained through the commentary that this refers to the initial clouds holding the hail. Hail is a result of suspended ice in the air and hail forms in cumulonimbus clouds (which are like mountains). So the Quran is super accurate and seems to bring forward something people could view as a scientific miracle!
21 The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61
The sceptics misrepresent the verse. The verse does not teach us that the Earth is fixed on a whole, in fact the verse mentions “fixed abode”, this is referring to the Earth being a fixed place to live in.
Some planets are gaseous so they are not fixed (or firm) abodes to live in, whilst the Earth is not gaseous (the Earth is solid and firm), therefore is a fixed/firm abode to live in. Remember the key word here is “abode”, the sceptics missed this. The Hilali/Kahn translation clearly mentions this word. It is also worth noting that the word for “fixed” represents “firm” too. Is the Earth firm? Yes because it is solid not gaseous.
If they read various translations of the Quran they would have realised that the Quran is not talking about the Earth’s rotation.
Yusuf Ali’s translation reads “ made the Earth firm”. Therefore it is clear that this is not referring to the rotation of the Earth but the Earth geographically. Is the Earth firm and a fixed abode? Yes! It is not gaseous (like some other planets) therefore is firm. Thus the Quran is correct and the sceptics were wrong again.
Shakir’s translation reads “made the Earth a resting place”, yes the Earth is a resting place for humans and other creatures. The reason why I bring this translation up is to further show that the verse is not denying the rotation of the Earth; it is clearly not even referring to the rotation of the Earth, thus the sceptics are wrong again.
22 "He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view) It simply tells us that the sun and the moon “each runs its course for a term appointed” (i.e. both have an orbit)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1]. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
23 "The sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him." 36:38
Actually the Hilali/Khan translation states “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed)”. This translation does not mention a “resting place”
So the sun has a fixed course? Yes it does, it has an orbit; it orbits around the centre of the Galaxy.
So we realise that the sun moves and is on a fixed course. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
As for “for a term (appointed)” well, we all believe that the sun will die one day. Even the sceptics believe this, so this is the appointed term. In simple words, Allah allows the sun to move on its course for a term ( a set time period) and Allah will make it end one day.
I’m not sure why the sceptics brought this up, did they not know that the sun does move on a course [1]?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
24 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."
The sun and the moon orbit the earth. (Well at least Allah and Mo are half right here!) 36:40
No, the Quran is not claiming the Sun and moon orbit the Earth. The sceptics make this claim. Did they read the verse? The verse does not claim anything such. This has been discussed many times now and the sceptics are looking more and more embarrassed each time.
Nowhere does it say the sun and moon orbit the Earth. It does state “…They all float in an orbit” (“they” refers both the moon and the sun). the sceptics are adding their own bits to the translation, how dishonest!
So you can see that the Quran does not claim the sun and the moon are orbiting the Earth. The sceptics wrongly added this in there!
However one may ask, do the moon and sun float in an orbit?
Yes they do. They both have orbits. We all know that the moon orbits around the Earth but many people do not know that the sun has an orbit too. The sun orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy [1].
So the Quran is correct in mentioning the fact that they both have an orbit. The question is; how did the Author of the Quran know that the sun had an orbit?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
25 Jonah was swallowed by a fish. 37:142
The “fish” refers to the whale. A whale is certainly big enough and able to swallow a human. It is a story which is also mentioned in the Bible. Again, we are not sure why the sceptics include this in their list.
26 "We decked the nether heaven with lamps."
Allah put "lamps" in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12
I’m not sure what the problem is here. The sceptics are being myopic. Stars emit their own light so describing them as “lamps” is fair as lamps emit their own light too. The Quran is perfectly accurate again. How did the Author of the Quran know that stars emit their own light?
27 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
28 "And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being spread/laid out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
29 All things We have created by pairs." This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49
Actually this verse is completely correct if you studied science and the verse you would not make the same mistake as the sceptics.
The verse mentions “of everything” so it is not simply referring to living beings therefore the verse is not concerning male-female pairs as “everything” includes stone, oxygen, water, metal etc., obviously the aforementioned (oxygen, water etc) do not come in male-female pairs. Thus the Quran is not speaking of biological pairs (male-female).
So the question is asked, does everything created (i.e. all matter) come in pairs? Yes it does, matter and anti-matter.
So the Quran is completely correct to state this. The sceptics need to be more careful when reading verses as they completely misunderstood the verse, hence their mistake
More info:
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/male_and_female_(P1233).html
30 "The moon was rent in twain."
Muhammad split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2
Yes the Quran confirms this. In fact ahadith sources do state Muhammed (pbuh) split the moon into two and this event was witnessed by a number of people [1]. Ridiculing it is easy, proving it wrong is another thing, which the sceptics cannot do. The ahadith sources saying this are strong and reliable and eye witnesses saw this event occur!
[1] Sahih al Bukhari 6/4867
31 "Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof."
The "seven heavens" refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the "seven "heavens" revolved around it. 65:12
This is utter speculation from the sceptics. They have no proof for this claim whatsoever.
If you consult the Arabic, the word for heavens is the plural for skies/heavens (samawat),it is not a word used for planets, stars or moons. This word for heavens points to something above like the sky/atmosphere not planets or moons. So the sceptics claim is scuppered by the Arabic. The Arabic shows their claim to be false, it is not referring to planets, moons or suns but is referring to seven heavens. That is all.
In fact if the sceptics had bothered to cross reference this with another verse in the Quran (71:15-16) which elaborates on the seven heavens they would not be looking so silly. This verse tells us that the seven heavens are in layers “one above another”, so clearly the seven heavens do not refer to planets etc. Thus the sceptics are completely wrong.
32 "Who hath created seven heavens ... Canst thou see any rifts?"
Allah asks Muhammed to examine the sky to see if it has any cracks. 67:3
This is pure ridicule on the part of the sceptics. It is superficial nonsense from the sceptics.
Allah is putting forward a verse which people of deep thought (not of ridicule) can contemplate upon. Nobody is expecting to find any rifts when they look into the heavens but when they do look up they realise the beauty and precision of what Allah created, the one who thinks deeper will ponder upon how beautiful the Creator of such splendour and beauty must be.
So the SkepticsAnnotatedBible group have produced a piece on the Quran (SkepticsAnnotatedQuran).
They put forward 45 scientific/historical issues they have with the Quran. They are very brief so this article will answer their issues as briefly as possible.
Generally much of their material is repetitive and the themes of their material are ignorance and ridicule. These answers show the sceptics were being unreasonable and even ignorant in bringing these forty five points up.
1. And He taught Adam all the names."
Allah taught Adam all the names of the plants and animals, which must have taken a while since there are 1.7 million species that are known today, with probably another 10 million or so that are yet to be discovered. And this only includes those that are alive today. If extinct species are included (~99%), then Allah must have taught Adam a billion or so names. 2:31
The sceptics are being flippant and using manipulative exaggeration.
They say it must have taken a long time; not so, if they read Tafsir Al-Jalalayn they would note that the belief is that Allah taught Adam the names by “placing knowledge of them into his heart”.
So if the sceptics thought a little laterally (or just read the Tafsir) they would not have made the claim of taking a lot of time.
2. Humans created from a single man. 4: 1
Well, if this sceptical team had read the verse in full they will note the Quran elaborates on this point in the same verse.
It teaches that Adam was created first and from him Eve was created and then the rest of humanity come through the procreation of Adam and Eve. Thus it is reasonable to say that humans were created from a single man as Adam was the first and then Eve was created from Adam and then through procreation the rest of humanity came. So Adam was a starting point and the Quran is completely correct.
If they had read the verse in its entirety they would have understood the point about the “single person”. Sure, the sceptics may not agree with creationism but this does not make it incorrect. The question is why did they not bother to read the whole verse for a fuller explanation?
3. The Quran repeats the silly story about Cain and Abel (though they are unnamed in the Quran). 5:27-31
The sceptics attack the story via ridicule but they do not even attempt to disprove it. I’m not sure why they included this reference in their list as they don’t even try to disprove it.
As for story of the first murder; of course during the history of humanization there will be a human who was the first to commit the crime of murder and you would not be surprised if God told people through His Book about this story. If you read the passage all the way to verse 32 you realise that the story is told and man is taught that murder is a huge crime.
The sceptics show their anti-religion bigotry here. They ridicule this story as “silly” yet they cannot disprove it. The only reason they ridicule it is because they are naturalists. Naturalists are people who do not believe in the supernatural. Again, despite their ridicule, they cannot disprove this story. For clarification and thoroughness their reference to the story being repeated is due to the fact it is also in the Bible. It is still wise to point out the childish nature in which they dismiss a story they cannot disprove.
4. Homosexual acts are condemned as unnatural. (Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you?) But, in fact, such acts are common in many other species. 7:80-81
The sceptics clearly misrepresent the verses. The verses dos not teach homosexuality to be “unnatural”. Please go back and read the verses again rather than misrepresenting them.
From these verses we learn that the people of Lot are the first ones from humanity to commit such deeds, we learn it is seen as a sin. This is confirmed by the Quranic experts as “the commentators say that first they started this evil act” [1]
The sceptics should be a little more scholarly rather than jumping in and making incorrect attributions to the Quran.
In any case, even if a book did claim homosexuality to be unnatural, there is no firm proof to disprove this “unnatural” claim; if the sceptics were intellectually honest they would have noted this. However, it is wise to reiterate the fact that these Quranic verses (7:80-81) do not claim homosexuality to be unnatural but do we do learn from these verses that it is a sin. The Quran is completely correct, it is the sceptics who are mistaken.
[1] Islam on Homosexuality, Mufti Muhammad Zafeeruddin, Darul Ishaat, 1996
5. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment, unknown in Egypt at the time this story supposedly occurred. 7:124
Crucifixion was a simple method and hardly required rocket science for a society to come up with crucifixion. Have the sceptics got any evidence to show that it was impossible for Egyptians to crucify individuals? No, of course they have not. They simply made this claim up with no supporting evidence. Hardly scholarly!
To correct the sceptics; crucifixion is thought to have originated from Persia and it was also used in Egyptian, Carthaginian, Seleucid, Assyrian and other civilisations.
Smith’s Bible Dictionary confirms that the Egyptians did use crucifixion [1]. Thus the Quran is completely correct but the sceptics clearly did not research the history of crucifixion, they simply made a caim up without any supporting knowledge.
See:
[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html
6. When Allah revealed himself to Moses, the mountain (Mt. Sinai?) came crashing down. 7:143
Actually the sceptics lack comprehension skills here, Allah revealed Him to a mountain which Moses was looking upon, this mountain collapsed to dust. There is no information given concerning the name of the mountain. I’m not too sure why they included this point in their list, it certainly does not disprove anything concerning the Quran.
Perhaps they included it because it seems implausible to the sceptics due to the fact that they disbelieve in supernatural occurrences. Again, why include this in your list when you do not even attempt to disprove it? Is it because you want your list to look lengthy?
7. Humans created from a single man. 7:189
Previously discussed in point 2 concerning 4:1. (Please view)
8. "They fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him."
Allah thinks (in his heart) that humans have their brains in their breasts. 11:5
It is obviously a figure of speech which we still use today. Have you not heard somebody ask “tell me what is in your heart”. It is not taken literally, it simply represents the innermost feelings/thoughts/secrets.
The commentary on this verse also shows the reference to “the breasts” is concerning the “innermost secrets”. The Quran is not saying people have brains in their hearts. The sceptics must take us for fools if they think people cannot see it is a figure of speech. The Quran is not in error but the sceptics are being unreasonable.
9. Joseph saw in a dream eleven planets. Does this mean that according to the Quran there are eleven planets in our solar system? 12:4
No, seeing eleven planets in a dream does not mean there are eleven planets in our solar system. If an individual sees five suns in his dream does this mean he is claiming there to be five suns in our solar system? Of course not. The sceptics lose all sense of logic here.
The Quran simply relays Joseph telling his father about his dream. The Quran is not making a claim of eleven planets in our solar system. The sceptics seem to have lost there ability to reason.
It is also worth noting that the word used represents stars (it is translated as stars rather than planets in the Hilali/Khan translation). Either way; the Quran is not claiming there are eleven planets or stars in our solar system. It simply tells you of what Joseph told his father. Nobody, intellectually honest, would believe the sceptics once they read the verse for themselves.
To be fair to the sceptics, they too do not claim this, they just ask the question. Well they got the answer here, the answer is no. Now they can remove this point from their list too.
10. "The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2
The Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception.
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up!
Now the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate. [1]
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
11. "He ... spread out the earth."
Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
12 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth and the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
13 And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying ... eat of all fruits."
Allah told bees to eat from all fruits, but decided to eat nectar and pollen instead. 16:68-68
The sceptics must take us for fools if they want us to believe Arabs at the time of the Prophet (and even after) thought bees ate all fruit such as apples, bananas, oranges etc.
Regarding the “eat of all fruits”, Zawadi says “The better translation is "eat from the fruits" and not "eat of all the fruits". Surprisingly, only Palmer and Khalifa (the deviant) got it correct. In Arabic the word min means from” [1]. Thus we realise if the Quran is translated this way (two translated did translate it this way) it makes more sense to the English speaking audience. The sceptics did not view all the translations they ran with what suited their agenda.
However, even if we use the sceptic’s translation it still does not disprove the Quran:
It must be said that we humans even use figures of speech such as the one used in this verse (eat of all fruit). If I tell a child to “eat from everything in this restaurant” and place him in a restaurant he will eat from the variety of food at his disposal, he will not eat the furniture, people or decorations (i.e. he will only eat from what is edible by human beings and will decide what to eat for him/herself). Likewise the bee will only choose from what is edible for a bee from “all fruit” (i.e. it will only eat from fruit/produce which contains nectar and/or pollen.
It is also useful to note that the Arabic word used (thamarat) does not refer to fruits such as apples, pears bananas etc. This type of fruit has a separate word (fakiha).The context also confirms this.
The sceptics did not realise this. Thus in this context the word (thamarat) refers to the fruit/produce from flowers rather than regular fruit (fakiha) that humans eat. Most flowers have nectar (grasses do not). So through the context we realise that “eat of all fruits” refers to eat from all plants containing nectar and/or pollen (i.e. any plant that contains bee food the bee can eat from it).
Nectar and pollen are “fruits”/produces from flowers/plants, thus the Quran is 100% accurate and the sceptics are being unreasonable again.
The verse (16:69) is not ordering the bees to eat all fruit, the understanding gained from the verse is quite simple; God simply inspires the bees to eat from a variety of flowers which contain fruit (nectar) which the bee can derive nutrition from (eat of all fruits, thamarat).
This is actually scientifically accurate because bees do travel to a variety of flowers for food, in doing so the bees partake in cross pollination. Through this cross pollination, by the bees, we get crops, nuts, fruit and vegetables which are for human consumption.
Therefore due to God inspiring bees to eat from a variety of flowers/plants we (humans) get a benefit. Perhaps, before God’s inspiration, bees only ate from one or two plants and now due to the inspiration from God humans are benefiting. This is a sign for those who think deeply.
[1] http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/surah_16_error_regarding_the_bees_
14The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90
No, the Quran does not claim the sun sets in a muddy spring. The sceptics clearly have not read the verse in question. To a man mentioned in the Quran (Dhul-Qarneyn) the sun appears to be setting in a pool of water as “he found it set in a spring of murky water”.
Even the early commentator, Ibn Kathir, confirms this. Thus the early Arabs did not even think this meant the sun enters a pool of water. If the sceptics had read the verse they would have noticed “he found” it, thus this is a clear reference to whether was seeing and when you are looking into a pool of water it appears as though the sun is setting in the water. Ibn Kathir confirms this too.
The Quran is not wrong but the sceptics are wrong for misreading the verse.
15Most scholars consider Dhu'l-Qarneyn ("The Two-Horned Lord") to be Alexander the Great, who is here presented as a devout Muslim. 18:83-98
“Most scholars”, which scholars? The first person (to my knowledge) to suggest Dhul-Qarneyn was Alexander the Great was Abdullah Yusuf Ali. This was his opinion.
In fact there is a stronger opinion that Dhul-Qarneyn is Cyrus the Great. Sceptics should note the opinion of a translator is hardly an accurate representation of the Quran.
The Quran does not even state the identity of Dhul Qarnayn. So how can the Quran be wrong here? It can’t!
If Yusuf Ali thinks it is Alexander the Great it does not mean the Quran is saying this. DhulQarnayn simply means “one with two horns”; The Quran does not confirm who this man is. The sceptics lost their sense of logic once again.
16 he Pharaoh threatens to crucify Hebrews on palm tress. (But crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment that was unknown at the time.) 20:71
Again, this is a fanciful claim by the sceptics backed with no proof whatsoever (it has already been discussed in point 5).
We already know that crucifixion did occur in Egypt. Somebody needs to tell the sceptics; they are looking even sillier now.
17 he sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view)
Nowhere does it say the sun runs its course around the earth. The sceptics dishonestly made this up! It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in there when they claim it orbits “around the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
The verse simply tells us that the sun and moon have an orbit. It does not say it orbits the earth. Read the verse!
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun have an orbit?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1].
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
18 The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30
The sceptics add their own addition here, the Quran does not teach this to have occurred 6000 years ago. The sceptics are confusing the Quran for the Bible. The Bible teaches the 6000 year claim whilst the Quran does not mention any time period. I would ask the sceptics to be more scholarly and accurate here.
As for the heavens and the earth being one piece, yes, the Quran is correct on this. It agrees with the Big Bang theory where the cosmos began from a single point, thus the earth and the heavens must have been a mono-block (joined together as taught in the Quran) during the early stage of the big bang. Thus the Quran is in agreement with science, in fact this appears to be a scientific miracle in the Quran!
I also ask the sceptics to brush up on their science as well, it would save us all some time!
Also, it is interesting to note that they do not mention the rest of the verse because the rest of the verse contains another scientific accuracy(miracle) because Allah teaches that all living things were made from water and we know all living things are comprised of water!
19 Allah created all animals. Some with no legs, some with two, and some with four. (Most animals have six legs. Did Allah forget about the insects?) 24:45
Again, the sceptics must be taking us for fools if they expect us to believe that the early Arabs did not know how many legs insects had. The sceptics are being condescending here. In any case let us look at their claim.
The Quran (24:45) is simply telling us that Allah “created every moving creature from water” and “of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four”. [Hilali/khan]
Note the Quran does not put a limit on this, it uses the word “some”. It simply tells you some animals have no legs, whilst some have two or four. It does not claim that all living beings fit into these three categories (no legs, two or four), the word “some” is used, thus it does not close the door on beings with six legs or any different number of legs. The Quran is not denying insects or any creatures with a different number of legs, only the most unreasonable individual would make the claim of the sceptics based on that verse (24:45)
An analogy; if I say “some people in London are from France, whilst some are from England and some are from America”, does this mean I am claiming that there are no Chinese, Polish etc in London? Of course not, I simply mentioned three different nationalities living in London, I did not close the lid on other nationalities. The same logic applies to the Quran, the sceptics should be more logical even when dealing with a thing which they hate (religion).
The sceptic’s lack of insight or bias is also highlighted by them skipping over the amazingly accurate scientific point in the same verse! The verse teaches us that Allah created every moving creature from water. This is absolutely correct, why did the sceptics fail to bring this to our attention?
Hail comes from mountains. 24:43
The sceptics have got it wrong again! The Quran is not claiming hail comes from mountains. Once again the sceptics are taking us for fools if they believe people in 7th century Arabia thought hail came from mountains, surely Arabians who did not live next to mountains could tell this by simple observation. Well, according to the sceptics, they could not. The sceptics are being foolish and amateur.
Actually the verse confirms that hail comes from the sky as it states “ He sends down FROM THE SKY hail” [Hilali/Kahn]. This scuppers and disproves the sceptics claim. Were they unable to comprehend a simple English translation of the Quran.
As for the “mountains” reference, it is explained through the commentary that this refers to the initial clouds holding the hail. Hail is a result of suspended ice in the air and hail forms in cumulonimbus clouds (which are like mountains). So the Quran is super accurate and seems to bring forward something people could view as a scientific miracle!
21 The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61
The sceptics misrepresent the verse. The verse does not teach us that the Earth is fixed on a whole, in fact the verse mentions “fixed abode”, this is referring to the Earth being a fixed place to live in.
Some planets are gaseous so they are not fixed (or firm) abodes to live in, whilst the Earth is not gaseous (the Earth is solid and firm), therefore is a fixed/firm abode to live in. Remember the key word here is “abode”, the sceptics missed this. The Hilali/Kahn translation clearly mentions this word. It is also worth noting that the word for “fixed” represents “firm” too. Is the Earth firm? Yes because it is solid not gaseous.
If they read various translations of the Quran they would have realised that the Quran is not talking about the Earth’s rotation.
Yusuf Ali’s translation reads “ made the Earth firm”. Therefore it is clear that this is not referring to the rotation of the Earth but the Earth geographically. Is the Earth firm and a fixed abode? Yes! It is not gaseous (like some other planets) therefore is firm. Thus the Quran is correct and the sceptics were wrong again.
Shakir’s translation reads “made the Earth a resting place”, yes the Earth is a resting place for humans and other creatures. The reason why I bring this translation up is to further show that the verse is not denying the rotation of the Earth; it is clearly not even referring to the rotation of the Earth, thus the sceptics are wrong again.
22 "He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13
No, the Quran does not claim the sun orbits the earth. This has already been discussed in detail for point 23 (please view) It simply tells us that the sun and the moon “each runs its course for a term appointed” (i.e. both have an orbit)
It simply tells us that the sun and the moon run courses (i.e. have orbits) BUT the Quranic verse does not say what the sun orbits. The sceptics add this bit in their when they claim “it orbits the earth”. This is a lie on their part. Read the verse for yourselves and see their deception
We know the moon has an orbit but the question is does the sun run a course (i.e. does it have an orbit)?
Yes the sun has an orbit. It orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy. So the Quran is correct in teaching us that the sun runs a course (i.e. has an orbit). This is scientifically accurate [1]. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
The problem is; the sceptics added their own bit into the verse by claiming it orbits around the earth. They should be more factual and honest in the future. Did they think we would not even bother to read the verse?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
23 "The sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him." 36:38
Actually the Hilali/Khan translation states “And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed)”. This translation does not mention a “resting place”
So the sun has a fixed course? Yes it does, it has an orbit; it orbits around the centre of the Galaxy.
So we realise that the sun moves and is on a fixed course. How did the Author of the Quran know this?
As for “for a term (appointed)” well, we all believe that the sun will die one day. Even the sceptics believe this, so this is the appointed term. In simple words, Allah allows the sun to move on its course for a term ( a set time period) and Allah will make it end one day.
I’m not sure why the sceptics brought this up, did they not know that the sun does move on a course [1]?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
24 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit."
The sun and the moon orbit the earth. (Well at least Allah and Mo are half right here!) 36:40
No, the Quran is not claiming the Sun and moon orbit the Earth. The sceptics make this claim. Did they read the verse? The verse does not claim anything such. This has been discussed many times now and the sceptics are looking more and more embarrassed each time.
Nowhere does it say the sun and moon orbit the Earth. It does state “…They all float in an orbit” (“they” refers both the moon and the sun). the sceptics are adding their own bits to the translation, how dishonest!
So you can see that the Quran does not claim the sun and the moon are orbiting the Earth. The sceptics wrongly added this in there!
However one may ask, do the moon and sun float in an orbit?
Yes they do. They both have orbits. We all know that the moon orbits around the Earth but many people do not know that the sun has an orbit too. The sun orbits around the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy [1].
So the Quran is correct in mentioning the fact that they both have an orbit. The question is; how did the Author of the Quran know that the sun had an orbit?
[1] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question18.html
25 Jonah was swallowed by a fish. 37:142
The “fish” refers to the whale. A whale is certainly big enough and able to swallow a human. It is a story which is also mentioned in the Bible. Again, we are not sure why the sceptics include this in their list.
26 "We decked the nether heaven with lamps."
Allah put "lamps" in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12
I’m not sure what the problem is here. The sceptics are being myopic. Stars emit their own light so describing them as “lamps” is fair as lamps emit their own light too. The Quran is perfectly accurate again. How did the Author of the Quran know that stars emit their own light?
27 "And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again, the earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
28 "And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being spread/laid out over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth ,in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
29 All things We have created by pairs." This is not true. Many bacteria, protists, fungi, and plants reproduce asexually. 51:49
Actually this verse is completely correct if you studied science and the verse you would not make the same mistake as the sceptics.
The verse mentions “of everything” so it is not simply referring to living beings therefore the verse is not concerning male-female pairs as “everything” includes stone, oxygen, water, metal etc., obviously the aforementioned (oxygen, water etc) do not come in male-female pairs. Thus the Quran is not speaking of biological pairs (male-female).
So the question is asked, does everything created (i.e. all matter) come in pairs? Yes it does, matter and anti-matter.
So the Quran is completely correct to state this. The sceptics need to be more careful when reading verses as they completely misunderstood the verse, hence their mistake
More info:
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/male_and_female_(P1233).html
30 "The moon was rent in twain."
Muhammad split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2
Yes the Quran confirms this. In fact ahadith sources do state Muhammed (pbuh) split the moon into two and this event was witnessed by a number of people [1]. Ridiculing it is easy, proving it wrong is another thing, which the sceptics cannot do. The ahadith sources saying this are strong and reliable and eye witnesses saw this event occur!
[1] Sahih al Bukhari 6/4867
31 "Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof."
The "seven heavens" refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the "seven "heavens" revolved around it. 65:12
This is utter speculation from the sceptics. They have no proof for this claim whatsoever.
If you consult the Arabic, the word for heavens is the plural for skies/heavens (samawat),it is not a word used for planets, stars or moons. This word for heavens points to something above like the sky/atmosphere not planets or moons. So the sceptics claim is scuppered by the Arabic. The Arabic shows their claim to be false, it is not referring to planets, moons or suns but is referring to seven heavens. That is all.
In fact if the sceptics had bothered to cross reference this with another verse in the Quran (71:15-16) which elaborates on the seven heavens they would not be looking so silly. This verse tells us that the seven heavens are in layers “one above another”, so clearly the seven heavens do not refer to planets etc. Thus the sceptics are completely wrong.
32 "Who hath created seven heavens ... Canst thou see any rifts?"
Allah asks Muhammed to examine the sky to see if it has any cracks. 67:3
This is pure ridicule on the part of the sceptics. It is superficial nonsense from the sceptics.
Allah is putting forward a verse which people of deep thought (not of ridicule) can contemplate upon. Nobody is expecting to find any rifts when they look into the heavens but when they do look up they realise the beauty and precision of what Allah created, the one who thinks deeper will ponder upon how beautiful the Creator of such splendour and beauty must be.
33 Allah made the stars as missiles to throw at devils. 67:5
Again, can the sceptics disprove this? No they cannot, they have not even Shayateen (devils) so how can they claim stars are not used to drive away devils?
Scientifically this actually makes sense as stars do MOVE and some even move as fast as 500 kilometres per second [1].
Now that is certainly quick enough to drive away devils.
The sceptics need to think deeper and brush up on their science, stars are not fixed structures, they do actually move and they move very rapidly therefore they can function as objects/missiles to drive away devils to protect God’s creatures!
[1] http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q181.html
34 At the end of the world the earth with the mountains will be lifted up and crushed with one crash. 69:14
I’m not sure why the sceptics include this verse either. It seems like they have a desire to make fun and ridicule without thinking things through rationally.
Even according to science our earth will have an end, thus the mountains and the earth will be destroyed one day. So how can a sceptic disagree with the Quran?
Can the sceptics disprove the verse? No, of course not, the sceptic simply wants to make fun because he/she does not believe in religion and is anti-religion. This position of theirs takes them to the path of the unreasonable. Whilst the Quran remains completely accurate.
35 "And hath made the moon a light"
This verse implies that the moon produces its own light, rather than reflecting light from the sun. 71:16
The sceptics are wrong again, spectacularly wrong!
Actually, the Arabic word used does show that the moon has reflected light rather than its own source of light. The sceptics expose their ignorance here, the Quran is completely correct and the question must be asked; how did the Author of the Quran know that the moon was reflected light?
This is confirmed by Dr Zakir Naik here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/light_of_moon.htm
36 "Have We not made the earth an expanse, And the high hills bulwarks?"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 78:6-7
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
No, the Quran is not claiming the Earth to be flat. “An expanse” does not mean flat. Do the sceptics not know this?
Expanse means “A wide and open extent, as of surface, land, or sky.”
The Earth is wide and open. Even fields or open land masses are described as expanses, Thus it is reasonable to describe the earth as an expanse and it does not mean flat!
The sceptics need to brush up on their English.
However, Hilali/Khan translate the Arabic word(mihada) as “a bed”. This further shows the Arabic word used does not mean flat, therefore we can safely say Allah was not claiming the earth to be flat.
Note: the word used does not represent a conventional bed which we sleep on today, that is a different word (sareer). So do not think Allah is describing the Earth to be similar to what you sleep on in your bedrooms. It is a reference to the ground in all likelihood and the comfort of the earth.
To summarize, the Arabic word used does not mean flat. “Expanse” does not mean flat either. It is obvious that it does not refer to a flat earth. The Arabic word for flat was not used, so why did the sceptics even make such a claim?
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
37 "He spread the earth."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 79:30
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [2]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
In fact, the early scholar (Ibn Taymiyah) believed the earth to be spherical and not flat thus confirming this expert in the Quran never believed the Quran claimed a flat earth in ANY verse. Ibn Taymiyah’s authority and knowledge concerning the Quran is sufficient to show the sceptics to be incorrect.
The Quran (55:17) seems to indicate the earth is round by referring to two easts and two wests. The critics fail to mention this, I guess the truth and scholarly etiquette is of little concern [1]
[1] http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
[2] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
38 Someday the stars will fall. 81:2
The sceptics seem to be scientifically illiterate here; astro-physics teaches us that ALL stars “die” eventually. None live for ever.
In any case, the Quran in this passage is talking about the Day of Judgement. Creation will be destroyed prior to this Day, so stars will also be affected; this is according to the Muslim and Christian belief.
The sceptics disagree because they are against supernatural occurrences, my question to them is do you think all this (the Earth, the Solar System etc) will last forever? There was a point when it did not exist, what has a beginning must have an end…think about it.
39 "He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs."
Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere "between the loins and ribs." 86:5-7
Between the loins and ribs roughly includes the testes too. So the sceptics are wrong from the word go.
However, the male ejaculate does not gush forth from the testes, in fact the testes only produces sperm, the rest of the ejaculate is semen which is produced via the seminal vesicles (amongst other organs), the sperm is carried to the seminal vesicles and it is ejaculated from this point in the body. This point fits between the loins and the ribs. So the Quran is correct again whilst the sceptics are shown to be ignorant of human biology.
A more detailed article is here:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/quran-got-it-right-about-semen-production/
40 "He is created from a gushing fluid."
Humans are not created from semen, but from fertilized eggs. 86:6
This is a flippant point which is reckless in nature. The sceptics seem to have lost all comprehension of science here. “Fertilized eggs”, what does the egg require for it to get to a fertilized stage. Yes, you guessed it semen (sperm to be more precise). This semen is a gushing fluid and is required for the creation of a new baby, thus we realise the Quran is correct…humans are created from a gushing fluid (male ejaculate). This gushing fluid is one of the components required for procreation – the Quran is correct
41 "And the earth, how it is spread?"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 88:20
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being outspread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth, in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
42 The sun ... and the moon when she followeth him."
The moon orbits the earth; it doesn't "follow the sun." 91:1-2
The sceptics are being absolutely ridiculous here. This is a clear reference to day and night.
The moon does follow the sun! During the day the sun is out and when the day passes the night follows, what comes out at night? Yes, the moon. So the moon does follow the sun!
It is so obvious that it refers to day and night. Even the NEXT two verses continue the theme on day/night! Thus proving it is referring to day and night!
43 "The earth and Him Who spread it."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 91:6
The word for Earth (Ard) also refers to ground, floor or terrain. So the Quran is correct to refer to the ground, floor or terrain being spread out; it is spread out as the crust over the lava!
The earth (ground) being spread over the lava so we can travel over it without being harmed shows that this Quranic verse is true. It does not mean it is flat. It is also correct to say Allah spread out the earth in the sense of vastnesses.
Again spreading out does not mean flat. Even the Encyclopaedia at FreeDictionary uses the term “spread over” concerning the lava covering a wide distance [1]. Thus we realise it is a term that refers to vastness and not a term which refers to flatness. Would the sceptics claim that the Encyclopaedia people were claiming a flat earth? Of course not, therefore it would be equally unfair to claim that the Quran is teaching a flat earth!
The sceptics lose their sense of comprehension when they speak about the Quran, if they were reasonable they would realise they are twisting things in order to support their anti-religion agenda. This is not honest on their part!
It does not refer to a flat earth as the early expert in the Quran (Ibn Tamymiyah) did not believe in a flat earth, in fact he believed in a spherical earth, thus he confirms NO Quranic verse teaches us the earth is flat.
[1] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/lava
More info:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/does-the-quran-teach-a-flat-earth-no/
44 Thy Lord ... createth man from a clot."
Humans were created from a clot? 96:1-2
Yes humans are created from a leach like clot (alaq). This leach like clot (alaq) is an early stage of the embryo. What does the embryo turn into eventually? Yes a human. Therefore it is accurate to say that humans were once an alaq (leach like clot) so the Quran is correct in teaching humans were created from an alaq (leach like clot).
This is all confirmed in detail by Dr. Sharif Kaf Al-Ghazal. It looks like the skeptics need to brush up on embryology before they start making claims against the Quran of this nature!
More info:
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/embryoengtext.htm
45 Allah dealt with the owners of the elephant by sending swarms of "flying creatures". 105:1-3
The flying creatures are small birds. It is clear from the Arabic. Again, they cannot disprove this event; the only reason why they disagree with it so vehemently is because it is against their naturalistic beliefs. It is not a historic or a scientific error yet the sceptics include it in their list, I’d imagine it is included for ridicule purposes.
As you can see the Skeptics have no reasonable case for their allegation of "scientific and historical errors"
Overall, the sceptics seem to rely on ridicule rather than logic and fair reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
