I just wanna notify the reader of my continuous dialogue with my friend Etheshaam, a Muslim apologist, in which our writing relates to the Qur'an, the Bible and Science:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7465988133223323978&postID=2149791832182765926
Our dialogue belongs and should have occurred on this blog in which the focus is on the Qur'an and science, but anyway if you find this interesting you can click the link.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Saturday, 23 January 2010
The Qur'an and the Seven Heavens: Introduction to an upcoming Article
This is going to be a less detailed post with less references; the purpose being to introduce a very lengthy upcoming work.
I am currently preparing a lengthy article on the seven heavens in the Qur’an and the concept of the Greeks and Talmudic Jews on the seven heavens.
Originally, if you consider the Greeks and also the elaboration of some of the early church fathers and the common concepts of their time, the seven heavens were considered as seven tracts, the the running structure of seven planets and their orbits.
These seven planets consisted of the moon as the object nearest the earth, second the sun and further away the orbits of five other planets, which are today recognised as existing in our solar system.
I will post all the early quotes and reference of these when I have brought all the material together into one article.
But notice how the Qur’an is consisted with the early views; we read in Sura 71: 15:
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]
This passage does not refer to a miraculous prediction of anything, since the author of the Qur’an states that we see or observe that Allah has created seven heavens one above the other.
Hence this is not a divine miraculous prediction of modern science but an human observation; here the author of the Qur’an even reveals the ability of the early human community to engage in science and to correctly perceive and understand how nature and the universe is structured (even though in this case the scientific information which the early humans saw and which Allah confirms is wrong; but I will get back to that in another article).
Now ask yourself, how did the early human societies observe this structure of seven heavens?
The answer is: they had correctly discovered five of the solar-system planets in their orbits.
The fallacy of their theory was to view the sun and the moon as similar objects, all orbiting in parallel lines around the earth; yet this nevertheless postulated that seven interstellar objects were orbiting in seven tracts, which is consistent with the view of the Qur’anic author.
These orbits were by numerous early writers referred to as seven tracts and seven heavens (I shall give the references from the Qur’an and the pre-Islamic writers in an upcoming post).
This why the Qur’an says that the people of Muhammad’s time had even seen that Allah created seven heavens, each above the other; these seven heavens marked the orbit of the seven planets:
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another," (Sura 71: 15)
This is already a significant error as our solar-system consists of eight planets and five dwarf planets, which already provides evidence that the Qur’an is not based upon divine knowledge but human knowledge; the knowledge that already flourished in Muhammad’s time.
Furthermore, we need to presume that since the Qur’an refers to seven planets it also follows the discoveries and ideas of its time, which viewed the sun and moon as included objects and excluded the earth. This is obvious from the Qur’an, which views the earth to have separated from the heavens and the interstellar matter and objects to derive on a later stage of the cosmological development (Sura 21: 10 and Sura 41: 9-12).
In fact this is also consistent with the views flourishing in Muhammad’s time (but I shall get back to his in a future post).
That Sura 71: 15 is also elaborating on the centrality of the sun and moon as being in the midst of the seven orbits, which is also confirming that the Qur’an utilizes the science of antiquity.
This was also the view of authors who predated Islam, and consists with the idea that the sun and the moon orbited closest to the earth in a orbit circle around the earth, which most ancient thinkers postulated; hence they were central and in the middle of this orbit and lighted up its entire structure.
The passage might even suggest that the sun and the moon light up all seven tracts and the other planets; this is what the ancient thinkers believed.
Except for the moon being an object attached to the earth, the early philosophers got this quite right.
However, the Qur’an might also be in agreement with e.g. Plato that the sun lighted up not only the earth and planets but also the entire universe; take a look at sura 25: 61:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light."
Now, is this supposed to be modern science or prediction of modern science?Brianman is certainly correct that the Qur’an ‘confirms’; but to say that it confirms the truth or modern science is an overstatement!
The Qur’an does certainly not confirm anything, it may certainly quote the early philosophers and their postulates, of which some ideas were fairly correct and others plainly wrong; just a pity that the Qur’an fails to differentiate between these.
The whole Qur’anic reference to seven heavens and that these were observed by the people of the time is nevertheless a fallacy far too serious to overlook and we will in future assess this matter in details.
I am currently preparing a lengthy article on the seven heavens in the Qur’an and the concept of the Greeks and Talmudic Jews on the seven heavens.
Originally, if you consider the Greeks and also the elaboration of some of the early church fathers and the common concepts of their time, the seven heavens were considered as seven tracts, the the running structure of seven planets and their orbits.
These seven planets consisted of the moon as the object nearest the earth, second the sun and further away the orbits of five other planets, which are today recognised as existing in our solar system.
I will post all the early quotes and reference of these when I have brought all the material together into one article.
But notice how the Qur’an is consisted with the early views; we read in Sura 71: 15:
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]
This passage does not refer to a miraculous prediction of anything, since the author of the Qur’an states that we see or observe that Allah has created seven heavens one above the other.
Hence this is not a divine miraculous prediction of modern science but an human observation; here the author of the Qur’an even reveals the ability of the early human community to engage in science and to correctly perceive and understand how nature and the universe is structured (even though in this case the scientific information which the early humans saw and which Allah confirms is wrong; but I will get back to that in another article).
Now ask yourself, how did the early human societies observe this structure of seven heavens?
The answer is: they had correctly discovered five of the solar-system planets in their orbits.
The fallacy of their theory was to view the sun and the moon as similar objects, all orbiting in parallel lines around the earth; yet this nevertheless postulated that seven interstellar objects were orbiting in seven tracts, which is consistent with the view of the Qur’anic author.
These orbits were by numerous early writers referred to as seven tracts and seven heavens (I shall give the references from the Qur’an and the pre-Islamic writers in an upcoming post).
This why the Qur’an says that the people of Muhammad’s time had even seen that Allah created seven heavens, each above the other; these seven heavens marked the orbit of the seven planets:
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another," (Sura 71: 15)
This is already a significant error as our solar-system consists of eight planets and five dwarf planets, which already provides evidence that the Qur’an is not based upon divine knowledge but human knowledge; the knowledge that already flourished in Muhammad’s time.
Furthermore, we need to presume that since the Qur’an refers to seven planets it also follows the discoveries and ideas of its time, which viewed the sun and moon as included objects and excluded the earth. This is obvious from the Qur’an, which views the earth to have separated from the heavens and the interstellar matter and objects to derive on a later stage of the cosmological development (Sura 21: 10 and Sura 41: 9-12).
In fact this is also consistent with the views flourishing in Muhammad’s time (but I shall get back to his in a future post).
That Sura 71: 15 is also elaborating on the centrality of the sun and moon as being in the midst of the seven orbits, which is also confirming that the Qur’an utilizes the science of antiquity.
This was also the view of authors who predated Islam, and consists with the idea that the sun and the moon orbited closest to the earth in a orbit circle around the earth, which most ancient thinkers postulated; hence they were central and in the middle of this orbit and lighted up its entire structure.
The passage might even suggest that the sun and the moon light up all seven tracts and the other planets; this is what the ancient thinkers believed.
Except for the moon being an object attached to the earth, the early philosophers got this quite right.
However, the Qur’an might also be in agreement with e.g. Plato that the sun lighted up not only the earth and planets but also the entire universe; take a look at sura 25: 61:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light."
Now, is this supposed to be modern science or prediction of modern science?Brianman is certainly correct that the Qur’an ‘confirms’; but to say that it confirms the truth or modern science is an overstatement!
The Qur’an does certainly not confirm anything, it may certainly quote the early philosophers and their postulates, of which some ideas were fairly correct and others plainly wrong; just a pity that the Qur’an fails to differentiate between these.
The whole Qur’anic reference to seven heavens and that these were observed by the people of the time is nevertheless a fallacy far too serious to overlook and we will in future assess this matter in details.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Debunking Qur'anic Science: Does the Qur'an Predict that the Moon Reflects Sun Light? Is this a Miracolous Prediction?
A whole range of Muslim apologists have claimed that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the moon reflecting sunlight; about this matter Zakir Naik writes:
THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur?aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:
"Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light." [Al-Qur?aan 25:61]
Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon: "It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty)." [Al-Qur?aan 10:5]
"See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, "And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?" [Al-Qur?aan 71:15-16]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik
See also a youtube video debunking Zakir Naik’s speculation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIw_obd7a-k
Osama Abdallah has also made similar claims:
So why would Ibn Kathir come up with this statement, many centuries before man discovered that the earth was spherical and that the moon does indeed reflect the sun's light?
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_eldin/light_of_moon.htm
Notice that Osama Abdallah believes that Ibn Kathir came up with statements about this scientific accuracy only because the Qur’an makes such statements.
Firstly, I am not so sure whether Kathir got this idea from the Qur’an, I don’t think the passage from Kathir clarifies that.
See also two articles from Answering-Islam that refute the claim that the Qur’an even utters such claims:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/moonlight_wc.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/science10.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatari_moonlight.htm
However, let’s assume that the Qur’an does describe the moon reflecting sun-light; are Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah then correct in their claims that these are miraculous statements, that these ideas were unknown prior to the revelation of the Qur’an?
The answer is no! This is yet again and example of the typical lies spread by modern Islamic apologists.
In fact the concept that the moon reflected sun-light was a very common concept even a thousand years prior to Islam.
Then why do individuals such as Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah spread such lies to the masses?
There are three possibilities:
1) Either they knowingly spread such misconception and hence willingly deceive their readers and listeners.
2) Or they have simply not done their homework.
3) Or they are simply taken over by their emotionalism for Islam and are blinded from considering the related facts.
For example:
Anaxagoras (4-5 Century BC) indicated that within the ancient scientific of his time it was argued whether the moon shines by reflected light or emits its own light. Even in this era, even without divine revelation human thinkers got a number of ideas scientifically correct, such as Aristarchus (310-230 BC) whose ideas predicted the modern scientific discovery that the earth with the other planets orbits the sun and that the earth was in a constant rotation, and completed a full rotation once in every twenty-four hours (Russel, History of Western Philosophy, p.222-223).
Hence I wonder why Zakir Naik and Osama Abdallah not give up their faith in Islam and build a religion around Aristarchus, or include him as one of the greatest prophets ever; at least his ideas predict modern science and must therefore indicate divine revelation.
However, let’s look at how common this concept was prior to Muhammad and the rise of Islam:
Thales (585 BC):
The moon is lighted from the sun. 29; 360. Thales et al. agree with the mathematicians that the monthly phases of the moon show that it travels along with the sun and is lighted by it, and eclipses show that it comes into the shadow of the earth, the earth coming between the two heavenly bodies and blocking the light of the moon (Doxographi on Thales, Aet. ii. 1 ; Dox. 327) (6).
Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) considered the moon be to a false-shining star (255).
The Doxographist elaborate further on this:
The moon is below the sun and nearer us. The sun is larger than the Peloponnesos. The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun (The Doxographists on Anaxagoras, Hipp. Phil. 8 ; Dox. 561) (260-1).
Empedocles (490-430):
As sunlight striking the broad circle of the moon. 154. A borrowed light, circular in form, it revolves about the earth, as if following the track of a chariot (Empedocles, translations of the fragments I) (177).
Ptolemy (90-168):
The Moon principally generates moisture; her proximity to the earth renders her highly capable of exciting damp vapours, and of thus operating sensibly upon animal bodies by relaxation and putrefaction. She has, however, also a moderate share in the production of heat, in consequence of the illumination she receives from the Sun (Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos: Book the First: Chapter IV, The Influence of the Planetary Orbs) (13).
Lucretius (100-50 BC):
How then, if the sun is so small, can it give of such a flood of light (p.189)?
The moon, too, whether it sheds a borrowed light upon the landscape in its progress or emits a native radiance from its own body. What then of the moon? It may be that it shines only when the sun’s rays fall upon it. Then day by day, as it moves away from the sun’s orb, it turns more its illuminated surface towards our view till in its rising it gazes down face to face up the setting of the sun and beams with lustre at the full. Thereafter, it is bound to hide its light bit by bit behind it as it glides around heaven towards the solar fire from the opposite point of the zodiac (192-193) (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe).
The Jewish Talmud gets this right:
Abraham once worshipped the moon and said: The light of the moon must be derived from the light of the sun (A Cohen, Everyman?s Talmud, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd/NewYork: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc, 1949: 2).
Hence once again we have refuted Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah and a number of modern Muslim apologists who claim that the moon reflecting sun-light was a concept unknown prior to the era of Muhammad and the Qur’an, that is of course only if the Qur’an truly makes this prediction in the first place; but that is stuff for another article.
I urge therefore Zakir Naik, Osama Abdallah, Harun Yahay and others to correct this error.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Reply to Osama Abdallah's refutation of my post: The Qur'an, cosmological pairs and gender in plants: Conclusion: Abdallah totally failed
I am starting a new thread here since Osama Abdallah responded to my post on: The Qur'an, cosmological pairs and gender in plants:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/debunking-quranic-science-was.html
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/debunking-quranic-science-was.html
Osama replies by saying that he has written an entire article to refute me. However, reading his articles he does not deal with the issues I have raised in my post.
Either Osama has not read my post, or he is playing games.
Below is the response of Abdallah and beneath it my reply to his response:
Osama Abdallah wrote:
Hogan Elijah,
Since you made the challenge directly to me, then I have the right to respond to it on this board, and silence your blasphemy, if the owner of this board is not a liar.
Your nonsense is debunked in great details in my new article that I wrote especially for you at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/of_everything_pairs_are_created.htm.
Islam remains the Divine Truth from GOD Almighty, and your false religion of "CONJECTURE" (http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm) as Allah Almighty declared it to be in Noble Verses 4:156-159 remains a man-made false religion.
I (Hogan respond to Abdallah):
Whatever Osama Abdallah brings up in response to my reply, I will post it on this thread, unless he is willing to post his responses on both blogs.
Note however, that Abdallah has not touched the issue I raised in the blog.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/debunking-quranic-science-was.html
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/debunking-quranic-science-was.html
Osama replies by saying that he has written an entire article to refute me. However, reading his articles he does not deal with the issues I have raised in my post.
Either Osama has not read my post, or he is playing games.
Below is the response of Abdallah and beneath it my reply to his response:
Osama Abdallah wrote:
Hogan Elijah,
Since you made the challenge directly to me, then I have the right to respond to it on this board, and silence your blasphemy, if the owner of this board is not a liar.
Your nonsense is debunked in great details in my new article that I wrote especially for you at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/of_everything_pairs_are_created.htm.
Islam remains the Divine Truth from GOD Almighty, and your false religion of "CONJECTURE" (http://www.answering-christianity.com/warning.htm) as Allah Almighty declared it to be in Noble Verses 4:156-159 remains a man-made false religion.
I (Hogan respond to Abdallah):
Osama,
This is becoming more and more funny. This is the second time I respond to the same response on this particular post.
So here we go, once again:
Your rebuttal is not even dealing with the point I raised in my post.
I raised the point that you have claimed that these scientific assumptions were unknown to the people prior to Islam.
This is a complete lie!
As I have pointed out: that everything created in pairs and gender in plants were concepts flourishing among the Jews and Greek prior to Islam. I even posted the references.
This is was the point of my post.
I did not argue whether every detail in the universe functiones in pairs or whether plants have gender; if you read my post again you will notice that I emphasised:
if these are facts of science, is the Qur'an then presenting us with a miracolous statement?
The answer is no, since these concepts existed prior to Islam.
Whatever Osama Abdallah brings up in response to my reply, I will post it on this thread, unless he is willing to post his responses on both blogs.
Note however, that Abdallah has not touched the issue I raised in the blog.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Islamic science...well
Interesting article; did Islamic science derive particularly from Muslims or from others, e.g. from the nations they invaded:
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Setting_the_Record_Straight:_The_Non-Miracle_of_Islamic_Science
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Setting_the_Record_Straight:_The_Non-Miracle_of_Islamic_Science
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Debunking Qur'anic Science: Was everything created in pairs and do plants have gender? If so is this another miracolous Prediction in the Qur'an?
Harun Yahya has made the claim that the Qur’an predicts the modern concept of the universe that every details within it are made in pairs; I am referring this website below:
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_05.php
Here Harun Yahya writes:
‘DUALITY IN CREATION
Glory be to Him Who created all the pairs: from what the earth produces and from themselves and from things unknown to them (Qur’an 36: 36)
While "male and female" is equivalent to the concept of "pair," "things unknown to them," as expressed in the Qur'an, bears a broader meaning. Indeed, we encounter one of the meanings pointed to in the verse in the present day. The British physicist Paul Dirac, who discovered that matter was created in pairs, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1933. This finding, known as "parity," revealed the duality known as matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter bears the opposite characteristics to matter. For instance, contrary to matter, anti-matter electrons are positive and protons negative. This fact is expressed in a scientific source as follows:
... every particle has its antiparticle of opposite charge… [T]he uncertainty relation tells us that pair creation and pair annihilation happen in the vacuum at all times, in all places.47
Indeed the Scientific claim of modern science might in a number of cases be correct. On the other hand the claim that everything is in pairs is not entirely correct; check out this article of Jochen Katz that refutes such a misconception:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/qe015.html
It's a fact also as Jochen Katz points out that Harun’s interpretation might be reading fairly too much information into the passage than originally belongs there. Indeed Sura 36: 36 states that everything the earth produces derives in pairs, however the matters unknown to them does not necessarily refer to anything outside our earthly globe such as matter and anti-matter, unless the Qur’an specifically makes such a statement.
But lets assume that Harun’s claim is correct, that every detail in the universe is based upon pairs and that the Qur’an refers to this cosmological system; are we then to perceive the Qur’an as miracolous in its prediction?
Interestingly sources that predate Islam, include this assumed prediction of modern scientists about the universe and its pairs, not only from what grows and lives on earth but as a system that encompasses the entire cosmological dimension; interestingly these sources are more explicit than the Qur’an.
The Jewish Talmud states:
One the verse ‘Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one,’ the comment is made: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, ‘My children, everything that I created in the Universe is in pairs—e.g. heaven and earth, the sun and moon, Adam and Eve, this world and the World to Come; but I am one and alone in the Universe (Deut. R. II. 31)’ Dr. A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd: 1949: 4
Hence if the Qur’an is accurate in this matter, Harun fails to tell his readers that this was a common concept that existed among the Jews and other groups prior to Islam; hence the Qur’anic statement is not miracolous but merely a reference to the knowledge that existed in Muhammad’s time and prior to Islam.
But it does not end here, Harun Yahya continues by claiming that the Qur’an is miraculous in its statement about the pairs or sex of plants; he states:
Another example of duality in creation is plants. Botanists only discovered that there is a gender distinction in plants some 100 years ago.48 Yet, the fact that plants are created in pairs was revealed in the following verses of the Qur'an 1,400 years ago:
It is Allah Who created the heavens with no support-you can see them-and cast firmly embedded mountains on the earth so that it would not move under you, and scattered about in it creatures of every kind. And We send down water from the sky and make every generous plant grow in it, in pairs. (Qur'an, 31:10)
It is He Who made the earth a cradle for you and threaded pathways for you through it and sent down water from the sky by which We have brought forth diverse pairs of plants. (Qur'an, 20:53)
Osama Abdallah elaborates enormously on this claim; he writes:
‘Previously, humans did not know that plants too have male and female gender distinctions. Botany states that every plant has a male and female gender’.
(I refrain from posting a link to this article of Osama as the McFee system on my computer recently warned me from accessing his website)
Again this claim is greatly exaggerated; I suggest that the reader reads another excellent article of Jochen Katz that refutes this claim:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/sexy_fruits.html
But let’s just assess this claim in the light of pre-Islamic concepts; firstly if the Muslim claim would be solely accurate would this render the Qur’anic statement miraculous? Secondly, is Osama correct in his claim that humans prior to the modern scientific discovery did not know about the male and female gender distinctions in plants?
In fact both statements are wrong:
I welcome you to the worlds of Anaxagoras and Empedocles:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/emp.htm
De Plant. i.;
And we continue:
‘Trees first of living beings sprang from the earth, before the sun was unfolded in the heavens and before day and night were separated; and by reason of the symmetry of their mixture they contain the principle of male and female; and they grow, being raised by the warmth that is in the earth (v. 26; 440) (p. 230)’.
Hence let it be declared, here and now that we have completely debunked these claims of Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah.
The Qur’anic reference to pairs in the universe and plants were concepts that existed prior to Islam and hence the Qur’an does not reveal itself miraculous by conveying to its readers either of these concepts.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Response to Brianman on the Qur'an and atoms: a case study of Muslim responses to polemics
A Muslim who calls himself Brianman responded to my thread on the Qur'an and Science, I respond to his arguments here. Notice that the response of Brianman is fairly insignificant and to be honest I only post and respond to his argumentation here to reveal where Muslim response to apologetics often is at:
I find it appropriate to post here Brianman’s reply to my post on the Qur’an and atoms: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/debunking-claim-that-quran-predicts.html and assess it for a number of reasons.
I find it amazing that Muslims can simply read such argumentation and brush it a side as Brianman does. I respond to his reply here on a separate thread since the approach he takes and the arguments he raises are simply too typical of Muslim apologists; hence this becomes a case study.
Brianman wrote:
Who do I go to?Someone like Nabeel who has just completed medical school?Someone LIKE Hogan who refers to textbooks at best?
Hogan replies:
Your reply Brianman, completely fails to consider the content, context, details and purpose and simply jumps into the issue by throwing in to it a number of modern Muslim apologist jargon without considering its relevance to the actual topic I raised on this thread.
I don’t know all about Nabeel; he has indeed completed medical school, which indeed gives him a certain insight into a number of these matters such as embryology in the Qur’an; hence Brianman this comment of yours is slightly of the track.
Furthermore, this thread was about the atoms hence there is not point to bring Nabeel’s education into this.
As for me using textbooks, I wish you could elaborate on that.
The fact is: every scientist conveys his information either through text books or teaching, in any case, to become informed one has to resort to the text or teaching of the experts. However, to elaborate more on the text I utilized, then notice Brian, that I was not conferring with modern scientists about this matter at all (this was not the issue raised in the thread), you could have detected this if you read the original post on the thread properly.
I was looking backward into the science of the Greeks and the Romans prior to the Islamic era and elaborated on the views of these early scientists in comparison with the points raised by the human Qur’anic author. I was not considering modern science, hence you reference to consult with modern experts is also irrelevant.
Hence Your reference to me or Nabeel in terms of medical school or texts as a critical pointers are not matters of relevant to this thread.
But to your information, I did consult with the experts, such as Greek philosophers and in particular the Roman thinker Lucretius and even referred to the book of Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, written 50 BC, how much more professional can this be done? These were the experts of the time!
Brianman wrote:
Anyone who claims that Muhammad pbuh plagiarised scientific works from the Greeks etc. when they have no evidence that Muhammad pbuh received it and viewed these works. Empty arguments from empty hearts.
Hogan replies:
This can easily be proven, I did write a article on that (do check it out):
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html
Muhammad borrowed heavily from the Greeks and the Jews. North Arabia was in close proximity with Syria and South Arabia, both highly advanced cultures in those days, so were the Jews. All three cultures had great impact upon North Arabia. In fact several of Muhammad’s followers were from these cultures.
But do read my article.
Brianman wrote:
Or do I believe scientists on the very highest level of their specialisation who are the ones who
are learned enough to even write books that some random Christian would try to refute?
Hogan replies:
Since the context of the thread focused on pre-Islamic science I did consult the ‘scientists of the very highest level of their specialisation’ of that time.
This is exactly what I did!
You stated above that I was in error when I referred to text books, now you refer to scientists who write books and you glorify these writings. Am I misunderstanding your previous points or do you contradict yourself?
Brianman wrote:
The scientists who have carried out independent investigations and in many cases, personal experiments? Scientists who work with many other scientists and get their work checked by other top scientists, whether they are Christian or not, before they say "This from the Qur'an, is a miracle"? They even convert to Islam.
Hogan replies:
The Qur’an reveals nothing new about modern science! What you recon as science in the Qur’an, such as embryology, atoms and sub-atomic particles, the supposed Big Bang in the Qur’an, just to mention a few examples were all discoveries made prior to Islam.
A few scientists may have converted to Islam, but so what? Scientists have also converted to Christianity, and theistic scientists have turned into atheism. Your argument here proves nothing!
Brianman wrote:
Scientific accounts before Qur'an have some falsehood's inside it, i.e. Galen's work does contain falsehood. How comes the Qur'an sieves the falsehoods from the truths that modern TOP non-political scientists agree on?
Hogan replies:
Qur’anic embryology is not without error, it resembles Galen. In fact there were a number of embryologist schools in Muhammad’s time; unfortunately we do not even have access to all the ideas a theories the author of the Qur’an had access to at that time. Funny also that the Syriac Christians were particularly into Galen and embryology and these were the Christians who had a major impact upon North Arabia, its society and Muhammad.
I guess you are referring to Keith Moore when you refer to top scientists. Keith Moore as far as I am told has taken his few references on the Qur’an back.
Some say he was paid to make such references, I can’t say that is true, yet we know that Western scientists have been bribed to comment on passages in the Qur’an and some have even refused such cheap misuse of science and exposed the attempt of these Islamic scientist fraud movements.
Indeed I know that Keith Moore utterly regrets his previous connection with the Qur’an in this day and age.
Maurice Bucaille who originally began this movement, is not even a Muslim! Why? Because he knows the entire enterprise originally was inaugurated for the sake of hugs sums of money. He tricked the Muslim world with a book that is nothing but fiction.
The Muslim world ate these ideas raw and continued in his steps. Only two things have come out of it 1) all the Muslims who remain Muslims by their conviction that these ideas and interpretations of the Qur’an are factual; 2) the laughter of the non-Muslim community.
Brianman wrote:
There is nothing for me to say, no need for me to respond to this thread.
Hogan replies:
There is indeed much more to say: you have not considered the focus or context of the article; you have resorted to irrelevant arguments; and you glorify the deceitful tactics of modern Muslim organisations who bribe scientists and read modern science into a book that originally was depended upon the science of its time.
I find it appropriate to post here Brianman’s reply to my post on the Qur’an and atoms: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/debunking-claim-that-quran-predicts.html and assess it for a number of reasons.
I find it amazing that Muslims can simply read such argumentation and brush it a side as Brianman does. I respond to his reply here on a separate thread since the approach he takes and the arguments he raises are simply too typical of Muslim apologists; hence this becomes a case study.
Brianman wrote:
Who do I go to?Someone like Nabeel who has just completed medical school?Someone LIKE Hogan who refers to textbooks at best?
Hogan replies:
Your reply Brianman, completely fails to consider the content, context, details and purpose and simply jumps into the issue by throwing in to it a number of modern Muslim apologist jargon without considering its relevance to the actual topic I raised on this thread.
I don’t know all about Nabeel; he has indeed completed medical school, which indeed gives him a certain insight into a number of these matters such as embryology in the Qur’an; hence Brianman this comment of yours is slightly of the track.
Furthermore, this thread was about the atoms hence there is not point to bring Nabeel’s education into this.
As for me using textbooks, I wish you could elaborate on that.
The fact is: every scientist conveys his information either through text books or teaching, in any case, to become informed one has to resort to the text or teaching of the experts. However, to elaborate more on the text I utilized, then notice Brian, that I was not conferring with modern scientists about this matter at all (this was not the issue raised in the thread), you could have detected this if you read the original post on the thread properly.
I was looking backward into the science of the Greeks and the Romans prior to the Islamic era and elaborated on the views of these early scientists in comparison with the points raised by the human Qur’anic author. I was not considering modern science, hence you reference to consult with modern experts is also irrelevant.
Hence Your reference to me or Nabeel in terms of medical school or texts as a critical pointers are not matters of relevant to this thread.
But to your information, I did consult with the experts, such as Greek philosophers and in particular the Roman thinker Lucretius and even referred to the book of Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, written 50 BC, how much more professional can this be done? These were the experts of the time!
Brianman wrote:
Anyone who claims that Muhammad pbuh plagiarised scientific works from the Greeks etc. when they have no evidence that Muhammad pbuh received it and viewed these works. Empty arguments from empty hearts.
Hogan replies:
This can easily be proven, I did write a article on that (do check it out):
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html
Muhammad borrowed heavily from the Greeks and the Jews. North Arabia was in close proximity with Syria and South Arabia, both highly advanced cultures in those days, so were the Jews. All three cultures had great impact upon North Arabia. In fact several of Muhammad’s followers were from these cultures.
But do read my article.
Brianman wrote:
Or do I believe scientists on the very highest level of their specialisation who are the ones who
are learned enough to even write books that some random Christian would try to refute?
Hogan replies:
Since the context of the thread focused on pre-Islamic science I did consult the ‘scientists of the very highest level of their specialisation’ of that time.
This is exactly what I did!
You stated above that I was in error when I referred to text books, now you refer to scientists who write books and you glorify these writings. Am I misunderstanding your previous points or do you contradict yourself?
Brianman wrote:
The scientists who have carried out independent investigations and in many cases, personal experiments? Scientists who work with many other scientists and get their work checked by other top scientists, whether they are Christian or not, before they say "This from the Qur'an, is a miracle"? They even convert to Islam.
Hogan replies:
The Qur’an reveals nothing new about modern science! What you recon as science in the Qur’an, such as embryology, atoms and sub-atomic particles, the supposed Big Bang in the Qur’an, just to mention a few examples were all discoveries made prior to Islam.
A few scientists may have converted to Islam, but so what? Scientists have also converted to Christianity, and theistic scientists have turned into atheism. Your argument here proves nothing!
Brianman wrote:
Scientific accounts before Qur'an have some falsehood's inside it, i.e. Galen's work does contain falsehood. How comes the Qur'an sieves the falsehoods from the truths that modern TOP non-political scientists agree on?
Hogan replies:
Qur’anic embryology is not without error, it resembles Galen. In fact there were a number of embryologist schools in Muhammad’s time; unfortunately we do not even have access to all the ideas a theories the author of the Qur’an had access to at that time. Funny also that the Syriac Christians were particularly into Galen and embryology and these were the Christians who had a major impact upon North Arabia, its society and Muhammad.
I guess you are referring to Keith Moore when you refer to top scientists. Keith Moore as far as I am told has taken his few references on the Qur’an back.
Some say he was paid to make such references, I can’t say that is true, yet we know that Western scientists have been bribed to comment on passages in the Qur’an and some have even refused such cheap misuse of science and exposed the attempt of these Islamic scientist fraud movements.
Indeed I know that Keith Moore utterly regrets his previous connection with the Qur’an in this day and age.
Maurice Bucaille who originally began this movement, is not even a Muslim! Why? Because he knows the entire enterprise originally was inaugurated for the sake of hugs sums of money. He tricked the Muslim world with a book that is nothing but fiction.
The Muslim world ate these ideas raw and continued in his steps. Only two things have come out of it 1) all the Muslims who remain Muslims by their conviction that these ideas and interpretations of the Qur’an are factual; 2) the laughter of the non-Muslim community.
Brianman wrote:
There is nothing for me to say, no need for me to respond to this thread.
Hogan replies:
There is indeed much more to say: you have not considered the focus or context of the article; you have resorted to irrelevant arguments; and you glorify the deceitful tactics of modern Muslim organisations who bribe scientists and read modern science into a book that originally was depended upon the science of its time.
Debunking Qur'anic Science: The Qur'an, Atoms and Sub-atomic particles
Does the Qur'an Predict the Sub-atomic world and particles? This is the claim of certain Islamic apologists, such as Mustafa Mlivo, Muhammad Assaid and Zakir Naik among others:
Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur’an prior to Science and Civilisation; see:
http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htmAnd
Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048
Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik
These among others claim that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles).
Let's assess the claim:
The particular Qur’anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads:
‘...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ’
See also Sura 10: 61:
‘He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...’
Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur’an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust.
But let us for a moment assume that the Qur’an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur’an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad?
The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties.
All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite.
Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus’ ‘moving at random’, which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185).
Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88).
This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus’ understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it.
Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin.
However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition.
Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries.
The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC:
‘It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)?
What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again?This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam.
And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms.
The Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255).
If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur’an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum?
Why is the Qur’an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes:
‘At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184).
This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur’anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur’anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science.
The Qur’an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed.
Lucretius’ description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur’anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter.
Lucretius continues:
‘...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5).
While Lucretius’ postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science.
If the Qur’an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired.
What is much more logical however is that the Qur’an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur’an.
Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur’an prior to Science and Civilisation; see:
http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htmAnd
Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048
Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik
These among others claim that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles).
Let's assess the claim:
The particular Qur’anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads:
‘...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ’
See also Sura 10: 61:
‘He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...’
Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur’an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust.
But let us for a moment assume that the Qur’an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur’an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad?
The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties.
All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite.
Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus’ ‘moving at random’, which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185).
Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88).
This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus’ understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it.
Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin.
However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition.
Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries.
The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC:
‘It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)?
What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again?This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam.
And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms.
The Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255).
If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur’an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum?
Why is the Qur’an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes:
‘At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184).
This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur’anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur’anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science.
The Qur’an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed.
Lucretius’ description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur’anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter.
Lucretius continues:
‘...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5).
While Lucretius’ postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science.
If the Qur’an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired.
What is much more logical however is that the Qur’an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur’an.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Did the Qur'anic authors borrow information of science from external sources?
A common claim propagated by Muslims in the recent era is the claim of modern scientific discoveries being predicted in the Qur'an, which then obviously begs the question: how could a nomad such as Muhammad, who cut of from the world and aquainted only with the dessert and the camels possess such knowledge?
Let me first say, that I have done extensive study on must of these so-called scientific predictions in the Qur'an and my conclusion remains that the Qur'an reveals the knowledge of Muhammad's era only; hence the claim that the Qur'an is miracolously predicting in the seventh century what science recently has discovered is not a sustainable claim.
In this short thread I intend merely to assess the claim that Muhammad was so cut off and remote from the outside world, its knowledge and science as Muslims want us to believe. Or is it plausible that such knowledge was available and obvious to the prophet of Islam via those individuals to whom he was aquainted?
Muhammad and the two claims
Pre-Islamic Arabs are usually portrayed as simple nomads, strongly acquainted with dessert-life and particularly poetry; yet lacking every existing insight into the thought and science of its present era.[1] According to Iabal the scientific advancements that emerged with Islam were caused primarily by the appearance and study of the Qur’an; which later laid the foundation for Islam’s interaction with the world-powers and their knowledge.[2]
Based on this, two assertions run frequently: primarily that Muhammad would have no access to nor possess any knowledge of the science promoted by his contemporaries; secondly, that the cause behind the science promoted by the Qur’an must therefore be of divine revelatory origin.
This proposition has in recent years been particularly promoted by Maurice Bucaille, who writes:
‘How could a man living fourteen hundred years ago have made corrections to the existing description to such an extent that he eliminated scientifically inaccurate material and, on his own initiative, made statements that science has been able to verify only in the present day? This hypothesis is completely untenable’.[3]
Hence to assess this claim, we need to ask whether Muhammad was divinely inspired and uninformed, or whether he possessed access to the scientific postulates of his day. Furthermore, we need to ask whether the scientific claims of the Qur’an are consistent with the claims of modern discoveries.
Muhammad a man of knowledge
O’Leary points out that there are elements of definite Greek scientific origin, which made its way to the Arabs by a transmission of which route and date are uncertain.[4] This suggests that early Arabs might have possessed a slight insight into the ideas of the Greeks, even prior to the era of Islamic conquests. According to early sources Muhammad possessed knowledge and pursued it, as evident from Tabari’s narration: ‘Muhammad said:
“Man’s glance at knowledge for an hour is better for him than prayer for sixty years”. He therefore commanded all believers to seek knowledge and to go to China in search of knowledge, if required’.[5]
Muhammad certainly possessed insight into the celestial world and their orbits; al-Tabari writes:
‘The Prophet [Mohammed] replied: “Ali, they are five stars: Jupiter (al-birjis), Saturn (zuhal), Mercury (utarid), Mars (Bahram), and Venus (al-zuhrah). These five stars rise and run like the sun and the moon and race with them together. All the other stars are suspended from heaven as lamps are from mosques,… (al-Tabari vol.1 p.235-236).”’[6]
If therefore, Muhammad was acquainted only with the impoverished life of northern Arabia and its cultural exclusiveness and remoteness, from where did such insight derive? Is it plausible that Muhammad’s environment and social circle was not as scientifically impoverished as we are made to believe? Is it possible that Mecca and dessert cities were indeed impacted by external cultures?
Here we first need to consider the situation and history of ancient Arabia.
Prior to Muhammad Arabia was divided into the South, the Sabaens, also referred to as the Yemenites, and the North, referred to as Arabs.
The South was a populated and sedentary community, living in cities, while the North was inhospitable, nomadic and isolated; hence we know that Arabia was not solemnly remote and isolated.
Yet were there any interactions between Arabs in the south and north and other factions that might have enriched or established knowledge among the dessert people? The Sabaenas, ran two trade routes, an ocean based route between India and Africa, and the land-based, particularly toward Syria and Egypt.[7]
There is evidence that literary interaction between the South-Arabs, the Greeks and the Indians took place even centuries before Islam. Since 1300 BC, the South Arabs left inscriptions in the North, what the nomads referred to as musnad. Interestingly, the musnad alphabet was effected by Greek language, which reveals the impact of Hellenism even in the south prior to appearance of Islam.
Furthermore since alters to Arabic deities have been found in Delos we know that the Arabs actually traded in the Greek world.[8]
For these routes to operate intermediate centres were needed; these were the oasis alongside the land-route between Yemen and Syria of which one was Mecca.[9] This confirms that the trades required among the Arabs a certain acquaintance with Greek and other languages, which became the communication of administration.[10] Hence the influence of trade and their international influence and the stations, certainly imply that Greek knowledge was spreading around.
Yet there were also other means of international interaction, such as the intervals of Northern dominance.
At one point the South weakened and the Northern tribes took the advantage to invade extensive parts of the South Syrian territory.[11] Even though no signs are evident of the Greek culture passing to the Arabs here, yet because Arab states were formed a long the eastern border of Syria and left untouched,[12] it is plausible that centuries of proximity prior to Muhammad’s era caused ideas to pass on. Further escalation between the political powers of the Byzantine in the North, the Persians in the East and the rulers of the south caused North Arabia to be caught in between.[13]
In 450 AD the community in the South suddenly declines, its proliferation vanishes, which causes massive migration to the North. These immigrants strengthened the oasis and their communities and establish intellectual centres among the people of the dessert.[14]
A third influence was the dispersion of various Christian sects and Judaism, which also impacted the dessert community.[15] The Christian Nestorians reached deep into the Arabian dessert with their message, as far as to Wadi I-Qura, near Medina. Beside the Nestorians, there were other Christian factions who expanded their influence; such as the Monophysites whose centre in Arabia was Najran.[16]
These sects were connected to Christian factions to which science was greatly valued; who possessed schools which emphasised and propagated the Christian faith, including philosophy and science. Their contribution to translating literature e.g. into Syrian language and their knowledge was not only confined to monasteries but were transmitted to the communities.[17]
The extensive influence impacted even scientific centres such as Jundishpur in Persia, in which global science was accumulated and dispersed into all direction;[18] plausibly into Arabia.
We need to consider that these factions of Christianity were proliferating in Arabia prior and in Muhammad’s era.
We know also that Muhammad visited Syria at least once.[19] Arthur Jeffery suggest that a range of religious vocabulary in the Qur’an, such as Qur’an, Isa and Injil derives from the Syrian Christian faction. If this is true it reveals strong, intellectual interaction and borrowing, which Jeffery seems to suggest.[20]
In the early era of Islam a group of Muhammad’s followers settled in the Christian Abyssinia, which led to interaction between Muhammad, the earliest Muslims and the ruling body of Abyssinia.[21]
Furthermore, O’Leary points out the possibility of runaway Ethiopian slaves who joined the Muslims, who interestingly might be the ones who were suspected to help Muhammad composing the Qur’an.[22] The Bukhari indeed refers to a Christian convert to Islam, who helped narrating Muhammad revelations. Initially he left Islam and informed about his contribution to fabricate the Qur’an with Muhammad; Bukhari informs us that Allah caused him to die.[23]
Greek scientific ideas would also have been passed on to Muhammad by the Jewish community; in fact some of the scientific ideas of the Qur’an, both terminology and chronology, resemble the writings of the Talmud significantly.[24]
A strong notion to this influence upon the author of the Qur’an does not only derive from the presence of the Jewish community, to which Muhammad interacted, but early Jewish converts to Islam. One of these Jewish converts was Abdullah ibn Salim who lived in Medina and was a companion of Muhammad. Qadir, points out that Salim was acquainted with cosmology and even ‘spread his knowledge among the Muslims’.[25]
Based on this information; Muhammad would be acquainted with Christians and Jews who were aware of Greek science; particularly being based in Mecca and then Medina.
Additionally, he might presumably possessed insight into the information passed on through centuries of trading, invasions, political interactions and simply information being passed on by travellers, settlers and immigrants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Hottinger points out that the Greek philosophy and science was virtually absent from Arabia as fruitful contact between the two worldview was still nonexistent; the Arabic hold upon the Greek heritage was to arrive in the Abbasid era (Arnold Hottinger, The Arabs, Their History, Culture and Place in the Modern World, London: Thames and Hudson, 1963: 80); see also Muzaffar Iqbal, Islam and Science, England, Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002:6-9; he states that the rapid invasions of nations brought the Muslims in contact with the existent scientific centres of the world
[2] Iqbal, 2002: 1; Iqbal refers to the two advancements as the intellectual (the Qur’an) and the social revolutions (Islam’s expansion).
[3] Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, Pakistan, Karachi: Idaratul Qur’an, Wa-Uloom – Il Islamia: 1975: 148; here Bucaille emphatically states that Qur’anic science is unique and distinct from any former religion and philosophy
[4] De Lacy O’ Leary: How Greek Science passed to the Arabs, part one, chapter one: Introduction, 1979[5] C.A. Qadir, Philosophy and Science in the Islamic World, London and New York: Routledge 1990: 15-6; Qadircomments on this Hadith: ‘In the eyes of the Prophet, knowledge ranked higher than worship.’
[6] al-Tabari vol.1 p.235-236 (Astronomy and the Qur’an, 2005 http://www.muslimhope.com/AstronomyAndTheQuran.htm)
[7] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996(http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/PRE.HTM)
[8] D.M. Dunlop, Arab Civilization to AD 1500, Longman, Librairie du Liban, Beirut, 1971: 6-7; musnad meansuncertain, perhaps, set up; which implies their inability to read it; the Delos alters existed already in 2nd century BCand reveals virtually centuries of trade and interaction between these civilisations. These alters were built to Wadd anArabic deity, mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 71: 23).
[9] Dunlop, 1971: 10; Dunlop states that Meccah was prosperious by contemporary standards, but less significant thane.g. southern cities such Ma’rib and Ma’in; hence Muhammad was used to city life, not the nomad life.
[10] Qadir, 1990: 34; Greek, Syriac and Persian were the official languages used for administration even beyond theinauguration of Islam. It was only much later that Muslims demanded Arabic to supplement it with Arabic.
[11] The oasis might have been dominated by the south at least until the sudden decline of political power in Mesopotamiaand South Arabia in the first millennium BC, which not only gave the north Arabians control over these centres butalso mobilized the tribes to expand their control beyond their territory. Later as the Ancient Seleucids Syria turnedpolitically and militarily weak, the northern Arabs took their advantage and occupied its territories all way north toPetra and toward the south to Najran; initially they collided with Roman militia (65 BC), who arrived mainly to takeprovincial control over Syria; this caused the Arabs to retreat back south (Richard Hooker, World Civilizations:Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996; see also O’ Leary, Chapter II: Hellenism in Asia: (1) Hellenization of Syria,1979
[12] O’ Leary, Chapter II: Hellenism in Asia: (1) Hellenization of Syria, 1979
[13] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996
[14] Dunlop, 1971: 7-8; Dunlop refers to the centres of Lakhmids (al-Hira) and Ghassanids (Syria)
[15] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996
[16] O’ Leary mentions the city of Hira which had become a centre of great significance; it was the most influential Arabcity located by the Persian border. At the time of Muhammad, the king of Hira, Nu’man embraced the Nestorian typeof Christian faith; see O’Leary, Chapter 3 (3) The Nestorian Schism, 1979) (http://evans-/experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary02.htm) (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary03.htm)
[17] See Qadir, 1990: 31-33 & Iqbal, 2002: 172
[18] Dunlop, 1971: 219 (see also Iqbal, 2002: 39-41): The Persian Jundishapur, is also of importance here as it became acentre in which Christian and Zoroastrian schools of thought as well as Greek, Syrian, Persian, Hindu and Jewish,culture and science was accumulated, and its written works translated into various languages. When the school ofEdesse was closed down in the middle of the fifth century, the students fled to e.g. Nisibis in Persia, these impactedJurundishapur and the community. Initially in 531-79 AD, ‘Jundishapur was the principal intellectual centre of theworld.’ While no direct connection to Muhammad’s environment has been recorded, it is highly likely due to itsinternational impact and its proximity, that the intellectuals of Northern Arabia and Christians communities andmonasteries gained a hold on its insight.
[19] Dunlop, 1971: 11; this particular journey occurred in Muhammad’s early years, while he was still married to Khadija
[20] Arthur Jeffery Y, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, Oriental Institute Baroda, 1938; 71 (Isa); 219 (Qur’an); 233(Injil). Jeffery assess hundreds Qur’anic terms and traces them back to their Syrian and Aramaic origins. The entirebook can be read on http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Vocabulary/index.htm
[21] Martin Lings, Muhammad, His life based on the earliest Sources, London Unwin Paperbacks, 1986: 80-4; theaccounts describes the early Muslim connection with king Negus in Abyssinia (Ethiopia)
[22] O’Leary, Chapter 4: The Monophysites: 4 Organization of the Monophysite Church, 1979 (http://evans-/experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary03.htm): An additional probability of influence upon the environment ofMuhammad was the arrival of run-away Ethiopian slaves. The Ethiopian invasion of Arabia approximately AD 570,led to the Arabian trend to obtain Ethiopian slaves as mercenaries; several of these later escaped to Medina and joinedMuhammad. Some scholars have suggested that these were the secret teachers (Sura 22: 12), who derived there byviolence and fraud (Sura 25: 5), with foreign tongues (Sura 16: 105) from whom it was suspected that Muhammadobtained much of his Qur’anic information
[23] Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814: Narrated Anas, Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Translator: M.Muhsin Khan (http://www.memon.com/HTML/Islam/Bukhari/bukhari.htm)
[24] The Qur’an makes reference to seven heavens and an equal number of earths (65: 12); this number follows in linewith the Talmud; see Aboth D ’Rabbi Nathan, chapter XXXVII, A, Cohen (ed.) The minor Tractates of the Talmud,Massektoth Ketannot, vol.2, London:The Soncino Press, 165, 185. For further information on the influence of Greek philosophy on the Jewish communitysee Stead Christopher, 1998, in (ed) Craig, Edward, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 5, London andNew York, Routledge 1998: 819 & Zeller Eduard, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, USA, Cleveland andNew York, Meridian Books/The World Publishing Company, 1963: 277-84
[25] Qadir, 1990: 27; for more information see The Encyclopedia of Islam, New EDN, Vol.1 A-B, edited by an editorialcommittee consisting of H.A.R. Gibb, J. H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht, assisted by S.M. Stern asSecretary General (pp.1-320). B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J Schacht, assisted by C. Dumont And R. M. Savory aseditorial secretaries (pp.321-1359), London, Luzac & Co, 1960: 52
Let me first say, that I have done extensive study on must of these so-called scientific predictions in the Qur'an and my conclusion remains that the Qur'an reveals the knowledge of Muhammad's era only; hence the claim that the Qur'an is miracolously predicting in the seventh century what science recently has discovered is not a sustainable claim.
In this short thread I intend merely to assess the claim that Muhammad was so cut off and remote from the outside world, its knowledge and science as Muslims want us to believe. Or is it plausible that such knowledge was available and obvious to the prophet of Islam via those individuals to whom he was aquainted?
Muhammad and the two claims
Pre-Islamic Arabs are usually portrayed as simple nomads, strongly acquainted with dessert-life and particularly poetry; yet lacking every existing insight into the thought and science of its present era.[1] According to Iabal the scientific advancements that emerged with Islam were caused primarily by the appearance and study of the Qur’an; which later laid the foundation for Islam’s interaction with the world-powers and their knowledge.[2]
Based on this, two assertions run frequently: primarily that Muhammad would have no access to nor possess any knowledge of the science promoted by his contemporaries; secondly, that the cause behind the science promoted by the Qur’an must therefore be of divine revelatory origin.
This proposition has in recent years been particularly promoted by Maurice Bucaille, who writes:
‘How could a man living fourteen hundred years ago have made corrections to the existing description to such an extent that he eliminated scientifically inaccurate material and, on his own initiative, made statements that science has been able to verify only in the present day? This hypothesis is completely untenable’.[3]
Hence to assess this claim, we need to ask whether Muhammad was divinely inspired and uninformed, or whether he possessed access to the scientific postulates of his day. Furthermore, we need to ask whether the scientific claims of the Qur’an are consistent with the claims of modern discoveries.
Muhammad a man of knowledge
O’Leary points out that there are elements of definite Greek scientific origin, which made its way to the Arabs by a transmission of which route and date are uncertain.[4] This suggests that early Arabs might have possessed a slight insight into the ideas of the Greeks, even prior to the era of Islamic conquests. According to early sources Muhammad possessed knowledge and pursued it, as evident from Tabari’s narration: ‘Muhammad said:
“Man’s glance at knowledge for an hour is better for him than prayer for sixty years”. He therefore commanded all believers to seek knowledge and to go to China in search of knowledge, if required’.[5]
Muhammad certainly possessed insight into the celestial world and their orbits; al-Tabari writes:
‘The Prophet [Mohammed] replied: “Ali, they are five stars: Jupiter (al-birjis), Saturn (zuhal), Mercury (utarid), Mars (Bahram), and Venus (al-zuhrah). These five stars rise and run like the sun and the moon and race with them together. All the other stars are suspended from heaven as lamps are from mosques,… (al-Tabari vol.1 p.235-236).”’[6]
If therefore, Muhammad was acquainted only with the impoverished life of northern Arabia and its cultural exclusiveness and remoteness, from where did such insight derive? Is it plausible that Muhammad’s environment and social circle was not as scientifically impoverished as we are made to believe? Is it possible that Mecca and dessert cities were indeed impacted by external cultures?
Here we first need to consider the situation and history of ancient Arabia.
Prior to Muhammad Arabia was divided into the South, the Sabaens, also referred to as the Yemenites, and the North, referred to as Arabs.
The South was a populated and sedentary community, living in cities, while the North was inhospitable, nomadic and isolated; hence we know that Arabia was not solemnly remote and isolated.
Yet were there any interactions between Arabs in the south and north and other factions that might have enriched or established knowledge among the dessert people? The Sabaenas, ran two trade routes, an ocean based route between India and Africa, and the land-based, particularly toward Syria and Egypt.[7]
There is evidence that literary interaction between the South-Arabs, the Greeks and the Indians took place even centuries before Islam. Since 1300 BC, the South Arabs left inscriptions in the North, what the nomads referred to as musnad. Interestingly, the musnad alphabet was effected by Greek language, which reveals the impact of Hellenism even in the south prior to appearance of Islam.
Furthermore since alters to Arabic deities have been found in Delos we know that the Arabs actually traded in the Greek world.[8]
For these routes to operate intermediate centres were needed; these were the oasis alongside the land-route between Yemen and Syria of which one was Mecca.[9] This confirms that the trades required among the Arabs a certain acquaintance with Greek and other languages, which became the communication of administration.[10] Hence the influence of trade and their international influence and the stations, certainly imply that Greek knowledge was spreading around.
Yet there were also other means of international interaction, such as the intervals of Northern dominance.
At one point the South weakened and the Northern tribes took the advantage to invade extensive parts of the South Syrian territory.[11] Even though no signs are evident of the Greek culture passing to the Arabs here, yet because Arab states were formed a long the eastern border of Syria and left untouched,[12] it is plausible that centuries of proximity prior to Muhammad’s era caused ideas to pass on. Further escalation between the political powers of the Byzantine in the North, the Persians in the East and the rulers of the south caused North Arabia to be caught in between.[13]
In 450 AD the community in the South suddenly declines, its proliferation vanishes, which causes massive migration to the North. These immigrants strengthened the oasis and their communities and establish intellectual centres among the people of the dessert.[14]
A third influence was the dispersion of various Christian sects and Judaism, which also impacted the dessert community.[15] The Christian Nestorians reached deep into the Arabian dessert with their message, as far as to Wadi I-Qura, near Medina. Beside the Nestorians, there were other Christian factions who expanded their influence; such as the Monophysites whose centre in Arabia was Najran.[16]
These sects were connected to Christian factions to which science was greatly valued; who possessed schools which emphasised and propagated the Christian faith, including philosophy and science. Their contribution to translating literature e.g. into Syrian language and their knowledge was not only confined to monasteries but were transmitted to the communities.[17]
The extensive influence impacted even scientific centres such as Jundishpur in Persia, in which global science was accumulated and dispersed into all direction;[18] plausibly into Arabia.
We need to consider that these factions of Christianity were proliferating in Arabia prior and in Muhammad’s era.
We know also that Muhammad visited Syria at least once.[19] Arthur Jeffery suggest that a range of religious vocabulary in the Qur’an, such as Qur’an, Isa and Injil derives from the Syrian Christian faction. If this is true it reveals strong, intellectual interaction and borrowing, which Jeffery seems to suggest.[20]
In the early era of Islam a group of Muhammad’s followers settled in the Christian Abyssinia, which led to interaction between Muhammad, the earliest Muslims and the ruling body of Abyssinia.[21]
Furthermore, O’Leary points out the possibility of runaway Ethiopian slaves who joined the Muslims, who interestingly might be the ones who were suspected to help Muhammad composing the Qur’an.[22] The Bukhari indeed refers to a Christian convert to Islam, who helped narrating Muhammad revelations. Initially he left Islam and informed about his contribution to fabricate the Qur’an with Muhammad; Bukhari informs us that Allah caused him to die.[23]
Greek scientific ideas would also have been passed on to Muhammad by the Jewish community; in fact some of the scientific ideas of the Qur’an, both terminology and chronology, resemble the writings of the Talmud significantly.[24]
A strong notion to this influence upon the author of the Qur’an does not only derive from the presence of the Jewish community, to which Muhammad interacted, but early Jewish converts to Islam. One of these Jewish converts was Abdullah ibn Salim who lived in Medina and was a companion of Muhammad. Qadir, points out that Salim was acquainted with cosmology and even ‘spread his knowledge among the Muslims’.[25]
Based on this information; Muhammad would be acquainted with Christians and Jews who were aware of Greek science; particularly being based in Mecca and then Medina.
Additionally, he might presumably possessed insight into the information passed on through centuries of trading, invasions, political interactions and simply information being passed on by travellers, settlers and immigrants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Hottinger points out that the Greek philosophy and science was virtually absent from Arabia as fruitful contact between the two worldview was still nonexistent; the Arabic hold upon the Greek heritage was to arrive in the Abbasid era (Arnold Hottinger, The Arabs, Their History, Culture and Place in the Modern World, London: Thames and Hudson, 1963: 80); see also Muzaffar Iqbal, Islam and Science, England, Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002:6-9; he states that the rapid invasions of nations brought the Muslims in contact with the existent scientific centres of the world
[2] Iqbal, 2002: 1; Iqbal refers to the two advancements as the intellectual (the Qur’an) and the social revolutions (Islam’s expansion).
[3] Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, Pakistan, Karachi: Idaratul Qur’an, Wa-Uloom – Il Islamia: 1975: 148; here Bucaille emphatically states that Qur’anic science is unique and distinct from any former religion and philosophy
[4] De Lacy O’ Leary: How Greek Science passed to the Arabs, part one, chapter one: Introduction, 1979[5] C.A. Qadir, Philosophy and Science in the Islamic World, London and New York: Routledge 1990: 15-6; Qadircomments on this Hadith: ‘In the eyes of the Prophet, knowledge ranked higher than worship.’
[6] al-Tabari vol.1 p.235-236 (Astronomy and the Qur’an, 2005 http://www.muslimhope.com/AstronomyAndTheQuran.htm)
[7] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996(http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/PRE.HTM)
[8] D.M. Dunlop, Arab Civilization to AD 1500, Longman, Librairie du Liban, Beirut, 1971: 6-7; musnad meansuncertain, perhaps, set up; which implies their inability to read it; the Delos alters existed already in 2nd century BCand reveals virtually centuries of trade and interaction between these civilisations. These alters were built to Wadd anArabic deity, mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 71: 23).
[9] Dunlop, 1971: 10; Dunlop states that Meccah was prosperious by contemporary standards, but less significant thane.g. southern cities such Ma’rib and Ma’in; hence Muhammad was used to city life, not the nomad life.
[10] Qadir, 1990: 34; Greek, Syriac and Persian were the official languages used for administration even beyond theinauguration of Islam. It was only much later that Muslims demanded Arabic to supplement it with Arabic.
[11] The oasis might have been dominated by the south at least until the sudden decline of political power in Mesopotamiaand South Arabia in the first millennium BC, which not only gave the north Arabians control over these centres butalso mobilized the tribes to expand their control beyond their territory. Later as the Ancient Seleucids Syria turnedpolitically and militarily weak, the northern Arabs took their advantage and occupied its territories all way north toPetra and toward the south to Najran; initially they collided with Roman militia (65 BC), who arrived mainly to takeprovincial control over Syria; this caused the Arabs to retreat back south (Richard Hooker, World Civilizations:Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996; see also O’ Leary, Chapter II: Hellenism in Asia: (1) Hellenization of Syria,1979
[12] O’ Leary, Chapter II: Hellenism in Asia: (1) Hellenization of Syria, 1979
[13] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996
[14] Dunlop, 1971: 7-8; Dunlop refers to the centres of Lakhmids (al-Hira) and Ghassanids (Syria)
[15] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996
[16] O’ Leary mentions the city of Hira which had become a centre of great significance; it was the most influential Arabcity located by the Persian border. At the time of Muhammad, the king of Hira, Nu’man embraced the Nestorian typeof Christian faith; see O’Leary, Chapter 3 (3) The Nestorian Schism, 1979) (http://evans-/experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary02.htm) (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary03.htm)
[17] See Qadir, 1990: 31-33 & Iqbal, 2002: 172
[18] Dunlop, 1971: 219 (see also Iqbal, 2002: 39-41): The Persian Jundishapur, is also of importance here as it became acentre in which Christian and Zoroastrian schools of thought as well as Greek, Syrian, Persian, Hindu and Jewish,culture and science was accumulated, and its written works translated into various languages. When the school ofEdesse was closed down in the middle of the fifth century, the students fled to e.g. Nisibis in Persia, these impactedJurundishapur and the community. Initially in 531-79 AD, ‘Jundishapur was the principal intellectual centre of theworld.’ While no direct connection to Muhammad’s environment has been recorded, it is highly likely due to itsinternational impact and its proximity, that the intellectuals of Northern Arabia and Christians communities andmonasteries gained a hold on its insight.
[19] Dunlop, 1971: 11; this particular journey occurred in Muhammad’s early years, while he was still married to Khadija
[20] Arthur Jeffery Y, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, Oriental Institute Baroda, 1938; 71 (Isa); 219 (Qur’an); 233(Injil). Jeffery assess hundreds Qur’anic terms and traces them back to their Syrian and Aramaic origins. The entirebook can be read on http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Vocabulary/index.htm
[21] Martin Lings, Muhammad, His life based on the earliest Sources, London Unwin Paperbacks, 1986: 80-4; theaccounts describes the early Muslim connection with king Negus in Abyssinia (Ethiopia)
[22] O’Leary, Chapter 4: The Monophysites: 4 Organization of the Monophysite Church, 1979 (http://evans-/experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary03.htm): An additional probability of influence upon the environment ofMuhammad was the arrival of run-away Ethiopian slaves. The Ethiopian invasion of Arabia approximately AD 570,led to the Arabian trend to obtain Ethiopian slaves as mercenaries; several of these later escaped to Medina and joinedMuhammad. Some scholars have suggested that these were the secret teachers (Sura 22: 12), who derived there byviolence and fraud (Sura 25: 5), with foreign tongues (Sura 16: 105) from whom it was suspected that Muhammadobtained much of his Qur’anic information
[23] Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814: Narrated Anas, Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Translator: M.Muhsin Khan (http://www.memon.com/HTML/Islam/Bukhari/bukhari.htm)
[24] The Qur’an makes reference to seven heavens and an equal number of earths (65: 12); this number follows in linewith the Talmud; see Aboth D ’Rabbi Nathan, chapter XXXVII, A, Cohen (ed.) The minor Tractates of the Talmud,Massektoth Ketannot, vol.2, London:The Soncino Press, 165, 185. For further information on the influence of Greek philosophy on the Jewish communitysee Stead Christopher, 1998, in (ed) Craig, Edward, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 5, London andNew York, Routledge 1998: 819 & Zeller Eduard, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, USA, Cleveland andNew York, Meridian Books/The World Publishing Company, 1963: 277-84
[25] Qadir, 1990: 27; for more information see The Encyclopedia of Islam, New EDN, Vol.1 A-B, edited by an editorialcommittee consisting of H.A.R. Gibb, J. H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht, assisted by S.M. Stern asSecretary General (pp.1-320). B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J Schacht, assisted by C. Dumont And R. M. Savory aseditorial secretaries (pp.321-1359), London, Luzac & Co, 1960: 52
Debunking the claim that the Quran Predicts Modern Science: The Qur’an and the World of Atoms
Does the Qur'an Predict the Sub-atomic world and particles? This is the claim of certain Islamic apologists, such as Mustafa Mlivo, Muhammad Assaid and Zakir Naik among others:
Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur’an prior to Science and Civilisation; see:
http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htmAnd
Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048
Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik
These among others claim that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles).
Let's assess the claim:
The particular Qur’anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads:
‘...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ’
See also Sura 10: 61:
‘He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...’
Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur’an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust.
But let us for a moment assume that the Qur’an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur’an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad?
The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties.
All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite.
Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus’ ‘moving at random’, which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185).
Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88).
This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus’ understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it.
Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin.
However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition.
Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries.
The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC:
‘It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)?
What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again?This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam.
And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms.
The Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255).
If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur’an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum?
Why is the Qur’an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes:
‘At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184).
This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur’anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur’anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science.
The Qur’an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed.
Lucretius’ description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur’anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter.
Lucretius continues:
‘...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5).
While Lucretius’ postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science.
If the Qur’an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired.
What is much more logical however is that the Qur’an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur’an.
Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur’an prior to Science and Civilisation; see:
http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htmAnd
Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048
Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik
These among others claim that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles).
Let's assess the claim:
The particular Qur’anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads:
‘...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ’
See also Sura 10: 61:
‘He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...’
Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur’an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust.
But let us for a moment assume that the Qur’an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur’an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad?
The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties.
All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite.
Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus’ ‘moving at random’, which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185).
Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88).
This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus’ understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it.
Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin.
However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition.
Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries.
The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC:
‘It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)?
What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again?This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam.
And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms.
The Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255).
If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur’an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum?
Why is the Qur’an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes:
‘At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184).
This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur’anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur’anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science.
The Qur’an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed.
Lucretius’ description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur’anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter.
Lucretius continues:
‘...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5).
While Lucretius’ postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science.
If the Qur’an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired.
What is much more logical however is that the Qur’an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur’an.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)