The purpose with this blog is to expose the claim of modern Islamic apologists that the Qur'an is miracolous in its prediction of what they claim resembles modern science.

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: 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):

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.


  1. Allow this to be posted Hogan, please.

    I'm not planning to give a 'response', I'll tell you why on this comment.

    I wasn't planning to come back on this site because there's barely any muslims on it or anything. But I wanted to check for the sake of it.

    I come on answeringmuslims and I see a new thread lol

    I'm just 18 and I have people quoting things what I have written - creating a whole article about it, this is a bit silly? I expected just a little comment, not a whole thread ahaha.

    I'm not in a position to speak for Islam, try contacting Muslim apologists with a specialism in science?

    Why create a whole thread about me and this issue? I'm just stating that I would expect you to debate with top scientists, that's all.

    I converted to Islam knowing the main arguments against Muhammad pbuh though about his character and stuff.
    However, the most important thing was, even before I took Muhammad pbuh as a prophet I said to myself, if this Qur'an really is miraculous, I don't care if Muhammad pbuh is as bad as the prophets presented in the Bible, it turns out that he wasn't bad lol
    Yeah, I've heard some debates against the miraculous Qur'an too. Qur'an answered the questions I wanted answers for too. It gives me a reason for the existence of God, based on the Qur'anic challenge. You might know just a bit more about it if you have watched Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.
    ..and no, the true furqan is not a book that meets this challenge Nabeel lol I was laughing my head off when you spoke of the true furqan in a debate. There are rumours that this was written by Anis Sorrosh lol I don't know if they are true or not,

    So instead of quoting an 18 year old boy who has walked into the realms of religion properly not long ago, have a debate with muslim apologists who SPECIFICALLY debate science and it's history, especially in the light of Arabia. i.e a muslim historian famous scientist - whatever, you get the drift.
    Debate the top of the top people on this topic. Why debate a random young boy? I just gave a little comment.

    Yes, so Hogan's off the chain, Hogan's on fire?! For what? For creating a whole thread as if to show that I speak on behalf of Islam????

    Wow the PhD is coming is it? Giving a response to a 18 year old boy, when the 18 year old boy isn't really too satisfied with the response, because it is given to the young boy and not a whole bunch of reputable muslim scholars? And even then, it still doesn't show that Muhammad pbuh copied the embryology accounts and all of the other stuff and put it into the Qur'an and got exposed for it.

    As for my credentials, I'm a UK student. 2011 september, I'll be doing a year in University of Toronto as a part of my Bachelors which is from a very prestigious uni in the UK, you wanted to know - so I have your 18 year old equivalent credentials for biol and chem at A grade lol so what? I'm not here to debate my credentials, I only stated yours and questioned Hogan because I expect both of you to debate top people if they are going to debate this issue. I swear to you. I maybe academic but I am only 18 lol
    If you ever go to Canada 2011-2012 to debate, I would obv go to see it. Ok, I'm not going to reveal too much about me, you wanted to know my credentials.

    lol sorry Fat Man, David Wood and Hogan and Gem, but your comments were so funny, especially in light of what I have written in this comment.

    Respect (Sorry if I haven't appeared to have shown it, but I do).

    p.s Can you give us true evidence that Keith Moore backed out of his original view?

  2. Greetings brianman,

    Of course I will allow you to post your comments, you are always welcome on the blog and to comment, whenever and wherever.

    The reason why your comments on answering-msulims were singled out, was due to your very bold statements and your undermining of some of those who regularly post there.

    Secondly, your comments were dealt with in the way they were since this is the reaction we commonly get from Muslims, such as: the Qur'an is simply the truth, Muhammad was a simply a prophet (end of story), Qur'anic science is attested by Western scientists who are turning to Islam, you Christians have nothing to say, etc. These are all bold claims and they are actually not helpful in the debate; and it is worth pointing out what is helpful and what is not.

    You questioned Nabeel and my research, not realising that I spent six months doing an entire dissertation on Qur'anic science, studying, the Qur'an, Maurice Bucaille, Harun Yahya, Osama Abdallah and others to the core, including Greek philosophy and science; I am not exactly a fool on the matter.

    As to your age and limit of knowledge, that is nothing to feel inferior about, however, but then suggest that you dialogue on the details and are more careful about the statements you are making, they are not always right, such as your statement to Abdullah Kunda that answering-muslim has not proper debators; this comment of yours mislead him greatly and he quickly discovered that your statement was merely emotional and false.

    However, I do not wish to offend you are portray you in any evil way, that has never been the intention, and if you feel so I apologize.

    All the best with your future studies bro, its gona be an exciting experience; hope it goes well for you and you become a great doctor.

    And do continue to post on here, whether you have questions or whether you disagree.

    At this point and stage of this blog I am not attempting to refute the science of the Qur'an but merely to point out that Qur'anic science was common knowledge prior to the Islamic religion, hence the science in the Qur'an is not evidence of divine revelation.

  3. I have given a my reply on the other site.