"Water constituted (ὑπεστήσατο, 'stood under') the principle of all things." ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales#cite_note-17 -}

So if I read your first point correctly you are stating that the hadiths are corrupted.  Is this correct?  The next obvious question is who is going to determine which ones are corrupted?   

islamispeace wrote: Well, that would depend on whether people in that time period knew if water was an essential part of the human body and that it was one of the factors involved in creation.

I think I would find it harder to believe that there was ever a society that didn't know that water is essential to life.  And in what sense is it a scientific fact that we are made from dust??

By the way, in several other places the Quran says that we are made from male sperm -- but it never mentions the female ovum, which is at least as important.  It seems to me that the Quran's knowledge of human origins is spotty at best.

islamispeace wrote: There is a big difference in knowing that water is essential for life and survival and in knowing that water was essential to man's creation.  I doubt that many people in those days knew, for instance, that the human body is almost 60% water.  Like I said, if you can demonstrate that people knew that man was created from water (amongst other things), then you would have a point to make.

In ancient times, water was considered one of the four elements (along with air, fire and earth).  Anything liquid was considered a form of water: blood, urine, sweat, lymph.  So yeah, anyone who ever jabbed a spear into an enemy soldier would know quite well that water is a major constituent.

Man's creation from dust refers to the creation of Adam, who had no father or mother.  "Dust" does not mean the stuff you find in your house containing random particles.  Rather, it is a reference to man's origins from almost nothing.  Furthermore, the Quran states that Adam was also created from clay.  This goes back to my original post.  Just because the Quran says that man was created from water or dust or clay in one verse, does not mean that man's creation did not involve other elements or factors.

So the reference to water is to be taken literally, but the dust and the clay are not?  How do you know that?  Is there some clue in the text that tells you when Allah is being literal and when He is merely being poetic or metaphorical?  Or do you simply choose the interpretation that best suits your purpose?

Just because it does not mention the ovum does not mean the author of the Quran did not know that both male and female factors are involved.  I think it is safe to say that people in those times did know that in order to have a baby, a man needed to have sexual intercourse with a woman.  Right?  It was also understood that sperm was the "seed".

It was (and apparently still is) commonly misunderstood.  The proper analogy in the plant kingdom for sperm would be "pollen", not "seed".  The seed corresponds more closely to the female ovum -- but the ancients didn't even know such a thing existed, which is why they got it wrong.

Furthermore, I am not sure if there was even an Arabic word in those times that could be used to refer to the "ovum".  There was a word, however, for sperm or semen which is "nut-fatan" or "semen-drop".  As you can see, there was a practical reason the Quran does not mention the ovum.  You also have to keep in mind that the first audience to hear the Quran were the Arabs, who were not exactly biologists.

The common word for "ovum" is "egg", and I'm quite sure there was such an Arabic word at the time. 

islamispeace wrote: Here, by mentioning "lineage and marriage", it is clear that the reference is to all mankind.  That is how Ibn Abbas interpreted it, although he interpreted "water" to mean the "water of the male and female", referring to the male and female components needed to create life.  It shows that the early Muslims clearly distinguished man's creation from dust to refer to Adam only while man's creation from water and sperm referred to all of mankind.  Do you now agree?

If you say so, but it doesn't answer my question.  Why is the creation from dust and clay regarded as metaphorical, while the creation from water is literal?

People had different connotations for certain words than we do now.  Just because they don't agree with your connotations does not mean they were wrong.  By referring to sperm as "seed", they at least understood that sperm was essential for procreation.

This is not a matter of different connotations of a word.  The ovum is hundreds of times bigger than the sperm cell, and provides something like 99% of the physical mass of the zygote, including all of the initial cell structure, all the mitochondrial DNA and other organelles.  The sperm contributes half the nuclear DNA.  That's all.  Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong.

Yes, I know ovum and egg are interchangeable.  But, if you want to get technical, as you did above regarding the word "seed", than actually it is clear that "egg" is not understood in the same way as for instance a chicken "egg", something most of us eat for breakfast.  Do you agree? Therefore, "egg/ovum" is a modern term which did not exist in ancient times.  Furthermore, since the ovum is not easily visible like semen is, it would not surprise me that many cultures did not have a word for it.

They certainly had the word.  I don't know what the Arabic word is, but "ovum" is an ancient Latin word which applied to many different kinds of eggs.  What they didn't have was the knowledge that humans have eggs as well, functionally the same as chicken eggs but too small to be easily seen.  Consequently they made the mistake of assuming that humans are formed from semen (apparently a liquid and therefore "water").

It is a perfectly understandable error.  What is odd is that Allah would make the same error.  Why didn't He correctly say that we are formed from fertilized eggs and let the early Muslims puzzle it out?

islamispeace wrote: I did not say creation from dust was metaphorical.

Ron wrote: Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong. Sure it is.  All societies knew back then that both a male and female were required to procreate.  Therefore, it is inconceivable that they did not believe that the woman also contributed to the process of procreation.  But since the ovum is not easily identified, it is understandable that ancient cultures did not mention it.

So we can agree that ancient cultures got it wrong.  My question is, why did Allah get it wrong?  Even if He didn't want to use the obvious common word, why couldn't He have said something like "it is He who creates man from a tiny speck in a woman's womb" or something to that effect?  Why would He repeat the same mistake that the people were making?

And actually, the theory of the humours claimed that water was associated with "phlegm" which was different from blood, a different humour.  According to the website "Greek Medicine", the phlegmatic humour included phlegm along with "...all the other clear fluids of the body:  mucus, saliva, plasma, lymph, and serous and interstitial fluids." This did not include semen.  Unless you can provide a source which disagrees, you claim that semen was considered to be water by the ancients is simply not true.

You were one click away from answering your own question.  If you go to the link on the right side of the page you cited, called " http://www.greekmedicine.net/b_p/Four_elements.html - The Four Elements ", you would read that water is the main component of "All the vital fluids of the body, especially the clear fluids: phlegm, mucus, plasma, lymph and serous and interstitial fluids.  The kidneys, bladder and urinary tract, which pass superfluous Water from the body.  The mucosa of the digestive, respiratory and genitourinary tracts.  The lymphatic system.  The brain and spinal cord."  Yes, phlegm is the humor associated with the regulation of water in the body, but all fluids (and all humors, for that matter) are forms of the element water.

Again, there was no reason for Allah to mention the ovum since the ovum was not even discovered until 1200 years later!

But you just agreed with my statement that "Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong."

You seem to think that it was a matter of the utmost importance when it really wasn't.  The Quran is not a science book.

Exactly.  Hence my objection to rememberallah's claim that the Quran reported "scientific facts".  I have no problem with the Quran as metaphor, as poetry, or as vague generalizations of natural phenomena.  But scientific facts?  Hardly.

rememberallah wrote: my brother it wouldnt exactly be wrong, moreover if you svy my home is made of bricks, tell me who would say you are wrong as house is also made of cement, concrete etc. he wouldnt be like vicky the robot of "small wonder" and understand what oyou mean.

My house is made of wood.  The frame, the flooring, the beams of the roof, all are made of wood.  It does have a brick fireplace, but surely no one would consider it to be a true statement if I claimed to live in a house made of bricks.  Even if I pointed out that the the fireplace is essential in heating the house, or that the whole architectural or aesthetic design of the house was centred around the brick fireplace, still it would be wrong to describe it as a brick house.

coming back to paint, but paint can be substituted with wall paper, tiles etc. but sperm can not be substituted with anythng, so issue is not quantity that how much ovum and how much sperm, but importance.  as for the major role a verse compares women to land and man to tilling the land. how beautiful, a farmer only puts seed and water, while the land around the seed {a thousand times bigger} gives back such big big plants, trees etc. the seed is so small and yet irreplaceable. i ope you get the point.

I do get your point, and your point is simply wrong.  The analogy is backwards.  It is the woman who provides the seed, not the man.  The man simply fertilizes it, much as a plant seed is fertilized to begin its development.

Thats what we are trying to show you that it has not diverged from scientific facts, you say other civilisations believed that things were created from water, we say they also believed in wrong things, like even till 19 th century even scientists believed that ether is contained in every body {right, i want your comment on this}, which later researches proved doesnt even exist.......why hasnt such a thing happened to Kuran,

But it has, many times.  This (the process of human reproduction) is just one example, but there are many others.  The whole Quranic depiction of cosmology is equally nonsensical (e.g., references in the Quran to the sky as a "roof" or "canopy", stars falling from the sky, a flat earth "spread out like a carpet" with the sun and moon revolving around it).

The reason you don't see these as contradictions is that every time science disproves something in the Quran (or the Bible, or any other religious text) the believers simply abandon the literal interpretation and retreat into metaphor or abstraction.  If science had found that the human body was made of aluminum silicate, you would have been trumpeting the Quran's reference to "clay" as a proof of Quranic science.  Instead, the clay is metaphorical, or just a vague or poetic reference to elemental "earth", while water (dihydrogen oxide) is literal and precise.  Believers always celebrate any minor confirmations of their beliefs, and completely ignore or explain away any disconfirming evidence.

brother there is nothing in arguing just like that, dont do so,...

But you do, don't you?  Aren't you just as skeptical about Hinduism and Mormonism and Zoroastrianism all the the other religions?  How else can we know the truth, if not by questioning?

Ron Webb wrote: My house is made of wood.  The frame, the flooring, the beams of the roof, all are made of wood.  It does have a brick fireplace, but surely no one would consider it to be a true statement if I claimed to live in a house made of bricks.  Even if I pointed out that the the fireplace is essential in heating the house, or that the whole architectural or aesthetic design of the house was centred around the brick fireplace, still it would be wrong to describe it as a brick house.

it might not be a brick house but it is made up of bricks too.

Ron Webb wrote: I do get your point, and your point is simply wrong.  The analogy is backwards.  It is the woman who provides the seed, not the man.  The man simply fertilizes it, much as a plant seed is fertilized to begin its development.

no you missed it, this way or that way there is no replacement of sperm.

REMEMBERALLAH wrote: Thats what we are trying to show you that it has not diverged from scientific facts, you say other civilisations believed that things were created from water, we say they also believed in wrong things, like even till 19 th century even scientists believed that ether is contained in every body {right, i want your comment on this}, which later researches proved doesnt even exist.......why hasnt such a thing happened to Kuran,

why didnt you comment on my above point? is there something you dont want to see.

Ron Webb wrote: But it has, many times.  This (the process of human reproduction) is just one example, but there are many others.  The whole Quranic depiction of cosmology is equally nonsensical (e.g., references in the Quran to the sky as a "roof" or "canopy", stars falling from the sky, a flat earth "spread out like a carpet" with the sun and moon revolving around it).

sorry your research on Quranic cosmology is anything but good. what are you talking of Quran even science describes atmosphere as a protective roof.!!!! infact leave Quran first research science/cosmology and what is science's stand then come to Quran.

where does Quran talk of stars falling tell me??? it will show how good a research you have of Quran. the earth is circular but for us it is flat......thats the point. moreover Quran points at earth being circular.

if you take Quranic verses on sun moon etc and analyse it carefully enough you will realise the stand of Quran is that earth is not at centre, it doesnt say what is at centre but the sentence building shows it says earth is not at centre.  update yourself and come up with some proper research my brother.

Ron Webb wrote: The reason you don't see these as contradictions is that every time science disproves something in the Quran (or the Bible, or any other religious text) the believers simply abandon the literal interpretation and retreat into metaphor or abstraction.  If science had found that the human body was made of aluminum silicate, you would have been trumpeting the Quran's reference to "clay" as a proof of Quranic science.  Instead, the clay is metaphorical, or just a vague or poetic reference to elemental "earth", while water (dihydrogen oxide) is literal and precise.  Believers always celebrate any minor confirmations of their beliefs, and completely ignore or explain away any disconfirming evidence.

where have i gone into metaphor leaving literal interpretation please point out, please do. it might be said for other people whose research was weak but not to me or show me without misquoting me like all athiests do when they dont have anyother way out.

you are saying had science found out about aluminium we would be saying so n so......this is what athiest do,,,,,,,brother this is what happens when one speaks without proper research...science tells we have calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, sodium, pottasium, chlorine, sulphur, iron, copper, magnese, iodine, zinc, selenium, cobolt, fluorine, molybdenum, chromium, lead, nickel, silicon, vanadium etc,......tell me which metal have we been shouting Quran claims that we are made of tell me which have we been shouting???? this shows what kinda attitude you have and how you have been forming your beliefs, i too was athiest type but was true to myself and my opponents. its sad to see how you form opinions, you will never be able to see the truth this way.

i have already commented on water and soil issue in my previous posts, perhaps you need to go through them regarding Quran's stand.

Ron Webb wrote: But you do, don't you?  Aren't you just as skeptical about Hinduism and Mormonism and Zoroastrianism all the the other religions?  How else can we know the truth, if not by questioning?.

no i am not about other religions, i have researched well about other religions and my stand for them is anything but skeptical.....i know a lot of ignorant religous people are.

my brother questioning is different and unreasonable questioning is different, this particularly refers to your comment on questioning in last to last post.

keep questioning it is good, but be reasonable and true to your nature. Quran says "one who purifies it {nature} is sure to triumph, one who corrupts it is sure to fail"

islamispeace wrote: As I said before, dust does not refer to the stuff you find in your home.  It refers to "earth".  What does "earth" contain?  It contains, among other things, the elements (such as carbon) necessary for life to exist.  So in that sense, Adam was created from "dust" or "earth" and so were we.

If by "earth" you mean one of the four ancient elements, then I agree; but if that is the case, then obviously the words "dust" and "clay" represents a whole category of substances having earth-like characteristics.  They don't literally mean dust and clay.  So why would anyone assume that "water" literally meant H2O?

And what's your point?  I already acknowledged that ancient people believed that water was a component of the body, but there is no indication that they believed that mankind was created from water.  For God's sake, they also believed that fire was one of the components!  Was this literal fire?  According to the link you provided, "fire lights up the Sun, Moon, and stars in the celestial firmament.  Fire has brilliance and spirit, and symbolizes the Life Force within us."  Did they believe that man was created from fire as well?  And if so, why didn't the Quran, which you believe is wrong on the matter, not repeat this error?

The four ancient elements of earth, water, air and fire represent the four physical states of matter -- solid, liquid, gas, and energy (which we now know is a form of matter, and it's interesting that the Greeks beat us to this by a couple of thousand years!).  The body contains energy, so it would not have been wrong to list it as a component.

But I'm not saying that the Quran is wrong in mentioning (elemental) water.  I'm just saying that it's not much of a scientific revelation, or a confirmation of the authenticity of the Quran, as the opening post suggests.  They knew that liquids were (apparently) involved in conception, were a major component of the body and were essential to life in general.

On the other hand, if the argument is that the Quran is literally referring to H2O and making a scientific statement describing the chemical constituents of the human body, then you need to explain why that reference is literal but similar references to dust and clay are not.
 

Ron wrote: But you just agreed with my statement that "Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong." When did I say that?

You still have not demonstrated that the Arabs and other societies had a word for "ovum" as it is understood in embryology.  Therefore, your insistence that they should have been able to mention it is simply absurd.  They already knew that male and female components were involved.  But, they did not know what the female component was (since it had not yet been discovered) and hence, no word existed which could properly identify it.  As such, there was no reason for Allah to mention something that the Arabic language did not have a word for.  To say otherwise is just as absurd as saying that the Quran should have mentioned computers.

God does not run out of words, as I'm sure you know.  If He had intended to reveal a scientific truth about the creation of human life He could certainly have done so using the words available.  It's certainly no excuse to leave out the most important part.

rememberallah wrote: REMEMBERALLAH wrote: Thats what we are trying to show you that it has not diverged from scientific facts, you say other civilisations believed that things were created from water, we say they also believed in wrong things, like even till 19 th century even scientists believed that ether is contained in every body {right, i want your comment on this}, which later researches proved doesnt even exist.......why hasnt such a thing happened to Kuran, why didnt you comment on my above point? is there something you dont want to see.

But I just commented on it in my last post, and you even quoted my comment.  What are you talking about? 

sorry your research on Quranic cosmology is anything but good. what are you talking of Quran even science describes atmosphere as a protective roof.!!!!

where does Quran talk of stars falling tell me??? it will show how good a research you have of Quran.

the earth is circular but for us it is flat......thats the point.

So for you, the earth is flat?  I think that says it all.

moreover Quran points at earth being circular.

If it did it would contradict itself, but it doesn't.  Again, show me the evidence.

if you take Quranic verses on sun moon etc and analyse it carefully enough you will realise the stand of Quran is that earth is not at centre, it doesnt say what is at centre but the sentence building shows it says earth is not at centre.  update yourself and come up with some proper research my brother.

It's your claim.  Prove it (i.e. show me the evidence) if you can.  I'm not going to do your research for you.

where have i gone into metaphor leaving literal interpretation please point out, please do.

Not you.  The Quran -- in many, many places, but in particular when describing humankind as being made from clay and/or dust.

science tells we have calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, sodium, pottasium, chlorine, sulphur, iron, copper, magnese, iodine, zinc, selenium, cobolt, fluorine, molybdenum, chromium, lead, nickel, silicon, vanadium etc,......tell me which metal have we been shouting Quran claims that we are made of tell me which have we been shouting????

Clay is aluminum silicate.  It is not part of the human body.

Ron Webb wrote: rememberallah wrote: REMEMBERALLAH wrote: Thats what we are trying to show you that it has not diverged from scientific facts, you say other civilisations believed that things were created from water, we say they also believed in wrong things, like even till 19 th century even scientists believed that ether is contained in every body {right, i want your comment on this}, which later researches proved doesnt even exist.......why hasnt such a thing happened to Kuran, why didnt you comment on my above point? is there something you dont want to see. But I just commented on it in my last post, and you even quoted my comment.  What are you talking about?

no you commented nothing about ether, and i know well why you have not been commenting about it.

Ron Webb wrote: Nonsense.  Show me the evidence.

where does Quran talk of stars falling tell me??? it will show how good a research you have of Quran.

Ron Webb wrote: So for you, the earth is flat?  I think that says it all.

yes for me the earth is flat as i can not walk on circular thing, earth for itself is circular/spherical/ostrich egg shaped, but it is mercy of God that for the context of my feet it is flat.............a few airport construction engineers were talking that they have a very flat piece of land to construct airstrip....go argue with them that you are fools....you know how they will react to you.....i react to you the same way.........go and argue with the wolrds greatest engineers those who every year break land speed records at bonville flats that you people are fools unscientific, this land is not flat......the way they will brush you off, satan asks me to brush you off but my brother i will yet try to make you see your nature for our creator wants you to be on your nature. be true to yourself my brother be true to yourself if not to us. what to say my brother you are very dissapointing, you want to discuss such big issues but you dont even have the concept of context/relativity clear!!!!! thats why i from almost an athiest became an ardent believer ...i was true to myself.

moreover Quran points at earth being circular.

Ron Webb wrote: If it did it would contradict itself, but it doesn't.  Again, show me the evidence.

i have shown you how it doesnt contradict itself above, if you look at 21:33 - "it is he who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all swim along in its rounded course"

how can the night and day swim along around the earth in a rounded course if the earth is not round??? if earth was flat the night and day will have a flat course and not rounded course.

Ron Webb wrote: It's your claim.  Prove it (i.e. show me the evidence) if you can.  I'm not going to do your research for you.

i have done my research my brother, i dont want you to do my research i want you to do yours....anyways i will do it for you.......

fine for the sake of the argument lets believe for a moment that Quran talks of earth being at centre, Quran says {36:40} - "sun can not catch the moon" Now knowing Quran talks of orbits, just atleast draw a diagtam {which i cant here for otherwise i swear i would had for you} a diagram of solar system in which sun can not catch the moon, and yet you have to consider that solar eclipse do happen. ...ypu can not.....you can not have in any way have a solar system diagram of earth at centre, with moon and sun going around earth, and yet sun can not catch the moon but solar eclipse happen. Quran is pointing at earth not being at centre of orbits.

Ron Webb wrote: The Quran -- in many, many places, but in particular when describing humankind as being made from clay and/or dust.

it is not a metaphor.....i have cleared this point before, please go through my earlier posts.

Ron Webb wrote: Clay is aluminum silicate.  It is not part of the human body.

rememberallah wrote: no you commented nothing about ether, and i know well why you have not been commenting about it.

I didn't comment on ether because I don't see how it is relevant.  What is it you want me to say?  Ether was a hypothesis that some scientists proposed to explain how light waves could propagate in a vacuum.  It was never more than a hypothesis, with no experimental evidence to support it, and it was eventually proven to be false.  What does that have to do with all living things being made of water?

http://www.blurtit.com/q9458411.html - http://www.blurtit.com/q9458411.html         you will say who is he? the point is he is correct. scientists describe atmosphere as blanket {keeping us warm} to shield {protects us from meteors} to a screen {protecting us from harmful rays}.......brother you seem to be more for Qutran bashing rather than true research, as your researches on topics you are discussing is very weak.

No, the point is he is not a scientist, nor does he use the word "roof" or anything similar.

you say 81:2......i knew it, this is how good your Quranic research is......have you even cared to read verses around it??? it is talking of how God will end this universe, why didnt you say "mountains dont vanish" as next verse says that......i know whats in your heart....you are anything but close to your nature......brother be true to yourself if not to us and the world.

I didn't say "mountains don't vanish" because that would not relate to cosmology, which is the category of errors I was discussing.  I mentioned the stars falling because meteors were commonly thought to be "falling stars", and the Quran clearly repeats that error.  We now know that stars are thousands or millions of times bigger than the earth, which makes it absurd to speak of them falling onto the earth (if anything it would be the other way around), even supposing they weren't thousands of light-years away to begin with.

yes for me the earth is flat as i can not walk on circular thing, earth for itself is circular/spherical/ostrich egg shaped, but it is mercy of God that for the context of my feet it is flat.............a few airport construction engineers were talking that they have a very flat piece of land to construct airstrip....go argue with them that you are fools....you know how they will react to you.....i react to you the same way.........go and argue with the wolrds greatest engineers those who every year break land speed records at bonville flats that you people are fools unscientific, this land is not flat......

An airstrip can be flat.  The Bonneville Salt Flats are (approximately) flat, although it is described as "an area so flat that from certain perspectives the curvature of the earth can actually be seen." ( http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/the_land/bonnevillesaltflats.html - http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/the_land/bonnevillesaltflats.html ) But the earth itself is not flat.  (I can't believe I even have to explain this!)

how can the night and day swim along around the earth in a rounded course if the earth is not round??? if earth was flat the night and day will have a flat course and not rounded course.

Just because the earth is flat, doesn't mean that the dome of the sky cannot be curved:

http://www.twopaths.com/imagefiles/AncientCosmology.gif - http://www.twopaths.com/imagefiles/AncientCosmology.gif

fine for the sake of the argument lets believe for a moment that Quran talks of earth being at centre, Quran says {36:40} - "sun can not catch the moon" Now knowing Quran talks of orbits, just atleast draw a diagtam {which i cant here for otherwise i swear i would had for you} a diagram of solar system in which sun can not catch the moon, and yet you have to consider that solar eclipse do happen. ...ypu can not.....you can not have in any way have a solar system diagram of earth at centre, with moon and sun going around earth, and yet sun can not catch the moon but solar eclipse happen. Quran is pointing at earth not being at centre of orbits.

All that is required is for the sun's orbit to be higher than the moon's.

Aluminium Silicate is light weight and superwhite in colour. please go and ask a potter what color is clay of, Depending on the content of the soil, clay can appear in various colors, from a dull gray to a deep orange-red, what color is a tennis clay court??? . brother what to say of your research.........you yourself are saying "aluminiumSILICATE", go through my previous post and read we humans have silicon....wait......,do  you even know what silicate means???...

Clay is aluminum silicate, Al2(SiO3)3.  You won't find that compound anywhere in the human body.  Yes, you will find traces of silicon, but that's not the same thing at all.  Hopefully you will not find aluminum because it has no physiological function and can be toxic.

Ron Webb wrote: I didn't comment on ether because I don't see how it is relevant.  What is it you want me to say?  Ether was a hypothesis that some scientists proposed to explain how light waves could propagate in a vacuum.  It was never more than a hypothesis, with no experimental evidence to support it, and it was eventually proven to be false.  What does that have to do with all living things being made of water?

hello ron what are you talking, just go back three or four posts you will understand the context, anyways the context was that it was a reply to your idea that Quran was given scientific facts which other civilizations believed,....anyways once again, there were a lot of fallacies along with some facts in previous civilizations, one of them was ether, Quran would only take the facts and not the fallacy which was believed from aristotle to 19th century........point is Quran was not copied from any previous scientific research.

what are you saying presenting ether so lightly, you say some scientist......the whole scientific community believed in it and was shocked to find ether doesnt even exist, it was not just any other hypothesis, it was believed to be fact.

Ron Webb wrote: No, the point is he is not a scientist, nor does he use the word "roof" or anything similar.

can only a scientist make a scientific comment???.....think what you have said, what he has said is correct, he might not have used the word roof, but things are explained like this, eg. mt. everest is called the roof of the world, is it,..........it is in context of it being the highest point on earth. so also sky as roof of earth is in context of its protective role......you know na sky plays a protective role or not???? research if you don't.

Ron Webb wrote: I didn't say "mountains don't vanish" because that would not relate to cosmology, which is the category of errors I was discussing.  I mentioned the stars falling because meteors were commonly thought to be "falling stars", and the Quran clearly repeats that error.  We now know that stars are thousands or millions of times bigger than the earth, which makes it absurd to speak of them falling onto the earth (if anything it would be the other way around), even supposing they weren't thousands of light-years away to begin with.

the fall of stars in the verse is in context of their power, influence, light and not fall like "johny keeps falling from stairs"....the fall is like "fall of roman empire".....thats why the translation makes it clear "when the stars fall loosing their light".....this is said as to make those people who believed stars to be gods, that even stars will end. eg. see 77:8 it will become clear to you as same vision is repeated in other words.

Ron Webb wrote: An airstrip can be flat.  The Bonneville Salt Flats are (approximately) flat, although it is described as "an area so flat that from certain perspectives the curvature of the earth can actually be seen." ( http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/the_land/bonnevillesaltflats.html - http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/the_land/bonnevillesaltflats.html ) But the earth itself is not flat.  (I can't believe I even have to explain this!)

brother you don't need to explain this, i well know all this......it is to you that i am explaining that earth for itself is ostrich egg shaped but for the context of us humans it is flat. i explain to you the concept of context/relativity, draw a straight line using a scale and pen/pencil.......to you it will be staright, zoom into it a hundred times and see if it straight at all. it will be anything but straight.  this is context. ie earth is flat for us and yet ostrich egg shaped for itself.

Ron Webb wrote: Just because the earth is flat, doesn't mean that the dome of the sky cannot be curved: http://www.twopaths.com/imagefiles/AncientCosmology.gif - http://www.twopaths.com/imagefiles/AncientCosmology.gif

Ron Webb wrote: All that is required is for the sun's orbit to be higher than the moon's.

but then sun catches up with the moon and solar eclipse happens.......you can not have any other model but one in which earth is not at centre. ie sun having a different race track {orbit}, and the moon having a different race track {orbit}.

in earth at centre model sun and moon are in same race track but different lanes, like earth, mars, venus etc. are in same race track but different lanes.

i repeat for the last time if you still have not got it.....the sun can not catch the moon as sun is not going around the earth but moon is.

Ron Webb wrote: Clay is aluminum silicate, Al2(SiO3)3.  You won't find that compound anywhere in the human body.  Yes, you will find traces of silicon, but that's not the same thing at all.  Hopefully you will not find aluminum because it has no physiological function and can be toxic.

rememberallah wrote: what are you saying presenting ether so lightly, you say some scientist......the whole scientific community believed in it and was shocked to find ether doesnt even exist, it was not just any other hypothesis, it was believed to be fact.

Let me explain to you how science works.  An observation is made, for instance the wave-like properties of light.  Then a hypothesis is formed to explain the observation, e.g. there might exist an invisible substance called "ether" to allow light to propagate as a wave through a vacuum.  Then experiments are done, e.g. the Michelson�Morley experiment, to try to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Whether or not a great many scientists "believed" the hypothesis to be correct is irrelevant.  Science is not about belief, it is about evidence.  The concept of ether remained a hypothesis, and only a hypothesis, until it was experimentally tested; and when the experiment disproved it, the hypothesis was rejected.  It was never regarded as a "fact".

None of which has anything to do with this discussion anyway.

can only a scientist make a scientific comment???

Well, if you're claiming that "science describes atmosphere as a protective roof", then yeah, I think you sort of need to actually quote a scientist to substantiate that claim.  Otherwise, it's rather like me quoting a Christian as evidence for what Muslims believe.  And it would also help if the quote actually used the word "roof", don't you think?  I'm frankly not interested in your interpretation of his interpretation of science's interpretation of the atmosphere.

ie earth is flat for us and yet ostrich egg shaped for itself.

Speak for yourself.  Perhaps the earth is flat for Muslims, but not for me.  I can't normally see the curvature, but that's only because I can't normally see the earth as a whole.

where does Quran give such a description....where??? show me.

I didn't say the Quran gave that description.  You asked how the earth could be flat if the sky is described as a dome, and I showed you.

but then sun catches up with the moon and solar eclipse happens.

Not unless the three bodies are lined up exactly, which is a relatively rare event.  Usually the sun passes to one side or the other.  (Come on, don't waste my time -- even you know better than this.)

you have commented on everything but left the main thing........you said "If science had found that the human body was made of aluminum silicate, you would have been trumpeting the Quran's reference to "clay" as a proof of Quranic science."..........i have once before answered this, but this time i answer you in yet another way,..................no, if that had been the case people like you would had pointed out that Quran's reference to clay is not clay as referred today in science ie Al2(SiO3)3, but by "clay" Quran just means simple "mud" as pointed out in 15:26, 15:28, 15:33.....you would had said so, you would had been correct in this...... but now, i say what you would had said. thus your whole aluminium silicate thing falls flat.

Right, so we both agree that the reference to clay is metaphorical, not literal.  And yes, as a scientific claim it falls flat, which is my point.

So the roof is metaphorical -- it's not really a roof, but it has (a few) qualities similar to a roof.
And falling stars are metaphorical -- they don't really fall, but if they lose their influence, that's sort of like falling, right?
And the clay and the dust are metaphorical -- not actual clay and dust but just similar properties (like elemental earth).

BUT the reference to water -- ahh, now that is literal!   Not elemental water, i.e. anything having liquid properties, but actual, chemical H2O!

Don't you see?  You're just going through the Quran, finding occasional passages that were undoubtedly originally intended as metaphorical but that just happen to have turned out to be literally true in some sense, and claiming that they are amazing "scientific" discoveries.

Muhammad had no more idea of H2O than he had of Al2(SiO3)3.  He wasn't referring literally to the chemical compound we call "water" any more than he was referring to literal clay or dust.  As islamispeace said, "The Quran is not a science book."  Trying to interpret it that way is futile, and totally misses the point of the book.

Ron Webb wrote: Let me explain to you how science works.� An observation is made, for instance the wave-like properties of light.� Then a hypothesis is formed to explain the observation, e.g. there might exist an invisible substance called "ether" to allow light to propagate as a wave through a vacuum.� Then experiments are done, e.g. the MichelsonMorley experiment, to try to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Whether or not a great many scientists "believed" the hypothesis to be correct is irrelevant.� Science is not about belief, it is about evidence.� The concept of ether remained a hypothesis, and only a hypothesis, until it was experimentally tested; and when the experiment disproved it, the hypothesis was rejected.� It was never regarded as a "fact". None of which has anything to do with this discussion anyway. brother it is the 3rd time i am telling you that to see the context you have to see your post against which i talked of it for the first time, it will make sense then. But you wont go back n see, btw you have talked of so many different topics were they related to man being created from water? But like you i wont force my way but will try to see what you are showing and then comment on it Well, if you're claiming that "science describes atmosphere as a protective roof", then yeah, I think you sort of need to actually quote a scientist to substantiate that claim.� Otherwise, it's rather like me quoting a Christian as evidence for what Muslims believe.� And it would also help if the quote actually used the word "roof", don't you think?� I'm frankly not interested in your interpretation of his interpretation of science's interpretation of the atmosphere. if you cant understand what is the way of language then what to say, in my last post i made the stand very clear. Speak for yourself.� Perhaps the earth is flat for Muslims, but not for me.� I can't normally see the curvature, but that's only because I can't normally see the earth as a whole. Can Allah see the earth as a whole? you yourself say you cant see the curvature of earth, this point to i have cleared in my last post. Peace be on you I didn't say the Quran gave that description.� You asked how the earth could be flat if the sky is described as a dome, and I showed you. you showed moon and sun going round, night and day can not go round flat earth, however i also showed you how quran points out that sun doesnt go around the earth which was not the scientific fact till then as science fact was sun goes around earth, so that model doesnt even fit . Point is clear quran speaks of night and day going around earth, the arabic term used for round has its root in tying of a turban, now you will be able to explain that human head is actually flat and the cloth still is tied in round and not stright way. I think you dont know the concept of context ie things are spoken of in context, eg. China is far one man says, china is near another man says and both are correct, one speaks of in context of hus neighborhood and another in context of moon, sorry if you dont understand this relativity. At macro level of planetss earth is round, at microlevel of us humans it is flat, see you yourself said you cant see the curvature of it Not unless the three bodies are lined up exactly, which is a relatively rare event.� Usually the su n passes to one side or the other.� (Come on, don't waste my time -- even you know better than this.) [quote] surely i know better than that in my last post i made it clear, now you are trying to take the discussion in circles.i in my last post have proved it well that quran doesnt speak of earth at centre of solar system, why do you selectively quote my lines, quote my full sentences, like i do

BUT the reference to water yes it is literal just as creation from mud is, adam was created from mud and water�[IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="LOL" />� Not elemental water, i.e. anything having liquid properties, but actual, chemical H2O!

Don't you see?� i am not just going through the Quran, finding occasional passages that were undoubtedly originally intended as metaphorical but that just happen to have turned out to be literally true in some sense, and claiming that they are amazing "scientific" discoveries.

Muhammad (pbuh) had no more idea of H2O than he had of Al2(SiO3)3.� He was totally illitrate and yet some claim he is the author of Quran and not see this book can not be from a human. "yes,The Quran is not a science book.but it will automatically contain scientific facts as God talks about his creation in it"

-------------
The whole world is like Hazrat Umar but no one is like his sister and brother in law.

Ron Webb stated, �"Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong;"

First, the error is not in the Quran, but rather the error is in Ron Webb�s reasoning.

It is illogical for Ron Webb to assume that mentioning the sperm but not the ovum is �just plain wrong.�

Here is an analogy to clarify why Ron�s assumption is illogical.

If a person states that a car uses gasoline to run, is that person wrong for not having mentioned the oxygen with which to mix with the vaporized gasoline, compressed, and then ignited?

In the context of a discussion on why a car could not run on the moon, a person may say that a car uses oxygen to run. That person is not wrong for not having mentioned gasoline because he was not claiming to give a full description on how cars run. He was talking about the part that was important for the context of his discussion.

Likewise, a discussion on the importance of fossil fuels could mention gasoline and not oxygen.

Neither description mentioned the electricity which comes from the battery acid and alternator that a car needs to run.

A discussion on how an electromagnetic pulse could knock out automobiles because cars use electricity to run would not need to mention gasoline or oxygen.

In the context of the Quran where it is admonishing humanity to be humble, mentioning the origins from sperm is sufficient to make that point.

So, again, the error is not in the Quran, but in the argument of the unbeliever.

Second, the Quran does refer to the ovum.

Looking at the Muhammad Assad translation:

Quran 76,2

Verily, it is we who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled, so that We might try him . . . .

In the notes for that verse, Assad writes, "with the female ovum": cf. 86: 6-7

And then when we read 86-7, we find:

Quran: 86, 6-7

...he has been created out of a seminal fluid issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman]

Then when we read Assad's description of 86, 6-7 we find:

The plural noun tara'ib, rendered by me as "pelvic arch", has also the meaning of "ribs" or "arch of bones"; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Qura'anic expressions, this term relates specifically to female anatomy (Taj al-`Arus).

So, while the Quran does not state the word "ovum," it does state that the sperm is combined with something that comes from the abdomen of a woman.

As for living things being made from water being obvious because of the fluids in the bodies of living things, blood accounts for only about 7 to 8 % of human body weight. Other liquids account for even less. So, no, it was not obvious at the time of the writing of the Quran that humans are mostly made of water.

�Blood accounts for 8% of the human body weight,^�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood

What I find interesting about this thread is how hard the unbelievers will work to try to convince themselves that the miracles of the Quran are not such, and what disingenuous arguments they will construct towards that end.

I will address their other fallacies time permitting, God willing.

schmikbob stated, �Thales of Miletus proposed exactly this over a millenium prior to the life of Mohammed.�

Thales thought that ALL things were made of water. But the Quran states that LIVING things are made of water, not ALL things.

If the Quran had repeated that, the Quran would both be wrong, and open to accusations of being influenced by human thought.

But the Quran does not repeat Thales� claim either word for word or in meaning. The Quran, rather, says that all living things are made of water. This is both correct and different than what Thales claimed.

When the Quran states that all living things are made from water, the unbelievers feel pressured to explain away this miracle of the Quran.

One of their arguments is to argue that the Quran is copying knowledge that was already known, such as copying a Greek philosopher such as Thales.

Thales states that water transforms into earth.

Wikipedia states, �Thales applied his method to objects that changed to become other objects, such as water into earth�.�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

The Quran does not repeat this error.

Thales believed that the world floated on water and that earthquakes were from waves.

The Quran does not state that.

If the Quran was copying Greek philosophers, the Quran would have contained that, or at least something of what they were saying. But the Quran does not do that.

Thales thought that all matter was living things. The belief that all matter is alive is called, �Hylozoism.� He goes so far as to say that magnets show life because of their ability to attract.

The Quran does not state that magnets are alive, evinced by their ability to attract metals. The Quran makes it clear that regular matter is lifeless

If the Quran was copying Thales, it could have copied that. Rather, it rejected that.

Thales thought that amber and lodestone must be alive because when rubbed together, they can attract objects.

The Quran does not make that error.

Thales thought that because all matter was alive, that there is no difference between the living and the dead.

For Thales, �there could be no difference between the living and the dead.�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

The Quran, on the other hand, makes a sharp distinction between the living and the dead, stating that God can bring the living out of the dead (implying that they are two different things.)

We know today that living things are made of the stuff of non-living matter, but as Thales� beliefs show, such an idea was not obvious in the ancient times.

Let�s look at some other Greek philosophers to see if the Quran was copying them.

Anaximenes was another pre-Socratic Greek philosopher like Thales. However, Anaximenes believed that everything is composed of air.

The Quran does not copy that.

If the Quran was copying Greek philosophers, the Quran would have contained that.

Whereas Thales, who thought that all things were composed of water, Anaximenes thought that all things were composed of air.

If the Quran was copying ancient Greek philosophers, the Quran could have copied either of their statements, but the Quran does not copy either.

Anaximenes asserted that �the earth let out an exhalation of air that rarefied, ignited and became the stars.�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximenes_of_Miletus

The Quran does not state any such thing.

Anaxinemes asserted that �the moon and sun are likewise considered to be flat and floating on streams of air.�

The Quran does not state any such thing.

Anaxinemes stated that earthquakes are caused by too much moisture in the earth (causing it to swell), or not enough, causing it to crack.

The Quran does not state any such thing.

Heraclitus thought that everything was made of fire.

�Every thing is really fire. �

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Tragic_Age_of_the_Greeks

The Quran does not make any such mistake and does not assert that.

Anaxagoras was a Greek philosopher who believed that everything was already at its most basic form. For him, water could not be reduced down to anything else such as oxygen and hydrogen. Bone could not be reduced down to something more basic, hair could not be reduced down to more basic elements. Everything in nature was already at its most basic form.

Again, the Quran does not copy the Greeks.

I can write ad infinitum about how the Quran does not copy the ancient Greeks and how what they stated differed in sharp contrast to what the Quran states, but suffice it for now that the examples are many.

The disbelievers who see the miracles of the Quran and know in their hearts that it is a sign of Allah, but who do not want to believe because it would require too much change in their lives and too much responsibility, are forced to rationalize away the miracles.

They glibly blurt out that the Quran�s ideas already existed, but a careful and detailed scrutiny shows that the Quran does not randomly repeat the ideas of the ancients.

As the Quran predicts, the disbelievers will argue that the Quran retells the stories of the ancients, but the Quran tells the believers to respond that the Quran does not do that, and is instead the undoubted word of the Almighty.

As for the human body being composed of liquids like blood, as I stated earlier, the human body is only 8 percent blood, which is itself not entirely water.

So, whereas it is obvious to us today that living things are made mostly of water, such an idea was not obvious to the ancients, especially when plants might give off a little thick sap, but can be chopped such as trees, and can burn when used as firewood.

Little by little, I will expose the fallacies of the disbelievers who attempt to hide the miracles of Allah with illogical and fallacious arguments.

I did a little in my last post, and God willing, I will do so again in my next post.

I Love this thread !

I Love the gold that the disbelievers inadvertantly give to the believers.

Watch this:

1. Matt Browne stated:
"The ancient Greek knew far more about science than the people anywhere in the world in the 7th century."

2. Schmikbob stated:
"Science had moved on from the beginnings of science by the 7 th century AD."

Do you see that?

Matt Browne, a disbeliever, stated that science was far more advanced among the ancient Greeks than anywhere in the world during Muhammad's time.
Then Schmikbob, another disbeliever stated that science was much more advanced in Muhammad's time than in ancient Greece.

See that?
The disbelievers contradict each other and just argue for the sake of arguing. That's what I've been saying all along.

Here is what they said in the full context, just to be fair:

1. Matt Browne,
I don't see any need to keep searching for proofs to reinforce this belief. The ancient Greek knew far more about science than the people anywhere in the world in the 7th century. The Golden Age of Islam began more than 100 years later.

2. Schmikbob,
Beebok, why you would list errors made over a thousand years prior to the life of Mohammed and say "look, the Quran doesn't say these things" doesn't argue your case.  Science had moved on from the beginnings of science by the 7 th century AD.  I was simply saying that Mohammed and the Quran didn't have anything relevatory to say that wasn't already known in the 7th century.

------------------------------

This is nothing against Schmikbob or Matt Browne personally.
I'm sure they're great guys and if we knew each other we would get along swimmingly.

But their arguments against the miracles of God Almighty are useful to me because they are representative of the typical arguments that disbelievers raise.

So, first I showed how Schmikbob changed his argument from his original claim of Thales already knowing the knowledge contained in the Quran to later claiming that Thales and other scientists of his time were irrelevant because science had move far forward between Thales time and Muhammad's time.
When one argument was disproven, he made an opposite one as if the first one never existed.

Then I showed how Schmikbob's argument changed within the same post.
He had first claimed that the Quran's statements were reflective of what was already known, and then later in the same post said that the Quran's statements could not be counted as any sort of knowledge because they were vague and could mean various things.

Finally, I've shown how the claims made between two disbelievers contradict each other, based on whatever they find to be convenient at that time to try to disbelieve the clear miracles of God Almighty.

As I've said before, and as I will point out repeatedly, the disbelievers do not believe their own arguments.

They know that the Quran is the truth from God, but they don't want to believe so they just argue for the sake of arguing so that they can try to convince themselves that they don't have to believe.

Go back and look at their comments and you will see that they are:
1. intelligent
2. sane
3. decent

So why are their arguments so ridiculous?
Because that is what people do when they are in denial.

Perfectly normal people who are intelligent, sane, and decent will resort to all sorts of sophistry in order to avoid a truth that they do not like.

But such specious and disingenuous arguments are easily disproved after careful scrutiny and precise logic.

That is what I will do in this thread over and over again, God willing.
I will examine every word of the disbelievers with laser like focus, apply it to the known academic rules of logic, and expose their fallacies.

People who are insane or defective in intelligence have an excuse on the day of judgment as to why they did not believe.
Normal people have no excuses.

In my next posts, God willing, I will continue to examine the arguments of the disbelievers under a microscope of detailed and precise scrutiny and expose the fallacies present therein.

I thank God for the disbelievers. Their failed arguments against the Quran increase the faith of the believers, inshaAllah.

Nice try Beebok, you continue to impress only yourself.

On the one hand you say "Here is an analogy to clarify why Ron�s assumption is illogical.  If a person states that a car uses gasoline to run, is that person wrong for not having mentioned the oxygen with which to mix with the vaporized gasoline, compressed, and then ignited?  In the context of a discussion on why a car could not run on the moon, a person may say that a car uses oxygen to run. That person is not wrong for not having mentioned gasoline because he was not claiming to give a full description on how cars run. He was talking about the part that was important for the context of his discussion."

On the other hand  you say "Thales thought that ALL things were made of water. But the Quran states that LIVING things are made of water, not ALL things.  If the Quran had repeated that, the Quran would both be wrong, and open to accusations of being influenced by human thought.  But the Quran does not repeat Thales� claim either word for word or in meaning. The Quran, rather, says that all living things are made of water. This is both correct and different than what Thales claimed."

Why, because he left out the rest and discussed only the portion that was �important for the context of his discussion�?  You can�t have it both ways, as much as you�d like to.

Your ability to blind yourself to your own fallacies is impeccable.  Much like St Augustine could write entire chapters on the details of angels and the certainty of their existence, you seem to be able to write nonstop about the implications of what Mohammed didn't write.  I am inspired.  Perhaps my next post will be about what the possible implications of what you haven't said. 

The Quran is a brilliant book of religious faith and inspiration to believers in Islam.  The Bible is the same to it�s believers.   Neither is a science book as much as some would wish it to be so. 

 Schmikbob stated:

{

rememberallah, I'm afraid that disproving your statement is not how science and the scientific method works.  Your hypothesis that the Quran contains scientifically miraculous statements needs facts to back it up.  You have provided none, only opinions as to what certain verses mean.  These are not facts.  Let me say it one more time, for emphasis.  Your opinion as to the meaning of Quranic verses do not constitute facts and facts are what you need to prove anything including your assertion that the Quran contains foreknowledge of modern science.  It is not up to me to disprove anything.  You are the one with the theory.  Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method and logic before you seek to lecture on science and probability.

}

That has so many errors, one is not sure where to begin.

What Schmikbob probablty meant to say was something similar to, ""you have only provided an interpretation of the verses, and have not shown that your interpretation is the correct one."

For now, let's take Schmikbob's statement actual statements and deconstruct them, piece by piece.

Schmikbob states:

{

"rememberallah, I'm afraid that disproving your statement is not how science and the scientific method works.  Your hypothesis that the Quran contains scientifically miraculous statements needs facts to back it up."

}

First, the phrase "scientifically miraculous" is a contradiction.

He should have said, "scientifically accurate."

Rememberallah claimed that the Quran is scientifically accurate.

He said:

"This is a scientific fact which could not had been known 1400 yrs ago . . . ."

The scientific accuracy, then, could be considered to be a miracle.

Second, Schmikbob is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scientific method and a misunderstanding of what a hypothesis actually is.

In the connotation of the scientific method, a hypothesis is a falsifiable statement.

In the connotation of formal logic, a hypothesis is an antecedent or premise to a consequent.

In the connotation of statistics, a hypothesis is the assertion that a relation exists between events.

In the connotation of vernacular usage, it means an educated guess.

Since Schmikbob has evoked the scientific understanding, then we will proceed with that.

A hypothesis, in that context then, is a statement that can be falsified through observable testing.

For example, if I assert the statement that an object falling near the earth accelerates at 9.8 meters per second squared, then this assertion can be tested by dropping an object in a vacuum and measuring its acceleration. The assertion will have been falsified (or disproven) if the object does not fall at 9.8 M/S^2, so, the assertion qualifies as a hypothesis.

A hypothesis needs data from empirical testing to back it up. If the data supports the hypothesis, then the hypothesis can be considered to be a fact. The explanation of gravity causing the fall is called the theory.

So, is Rememberallah's assertion falsifiable through observation?

Yes, all we have to do is to read the Quran to see if it actually states what Rememberallah's hypothesis states. If the Quran does not state it, then Rememberallah's statement has been falsified.

So, is Schmikbob correct to state, " . . . that disproving your statement is not how science and the scientific method works?"

No. Disproving his statement is exactly how the scientific method works.

If a hypothesis is stated, then falsifying it through observation is exactly how the scientific method works. If a hypothesis is stated that water is always a liquid, then observing ice disproves it.

Schmikbob goes on to state:

" It is not up to me to disprove anything.  You are the one with the theory. "

Here, Schmikbob is showing his confusion between a theory and a hypothesis. What he referred to earlier as a hypothesis, he now refers to as a theory.

Schmikbob goes on to state:

"Perhaps you should read up on the scientific method and logic before you seek to lecture on science and probability. "

Evidently, it is Schmikbob who has demonstrated a need to read up on the scientific method and logic before lecturing on it.

Regardless, the scientific method is generally used for explaining natural phenomenon. Evoking the scientific method in this context, as Schmikbob has done, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method. What is needed here is linguistic analysis.

Proving that the universe expands is a matter of the scientific method.

Pointing out that the Quran states that the universe expands is not a matter of the scientific method. It is a matter of linguistic analysis.

Schmikbob states:

"Your hypothesis that the Quran contains scientifically miraculous statements needs facts to back it up. You have provided none, only opinions as to what certain verses mean.  These are not facts. "

It is frustrating to see the general population's misunderstanding as to the difference between facts and opinions.

In high school in the USA, our teachers taught us that a fact is something true, and that an opinion is a matter of personal taste or of conjecture.

In college Logic and Critical Thinking classes and in Philosophy classes, some of us learned otherwise.

In high school, we were taught that, for instance, "Mozart is a good musician" is an example of an opinion, and "A hydrogen atom has one electron" is an example of a fact, and that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. The misconception has pervaded the general population and is repeated frequently, even by some scholars who should know better.

Actually, it turns out that an opinion is anything that someone believes, which can include facts. So, if someone believes that a hydrogen atom has one electron, then that belief is both an opinion and a fact. They are not mutually exclusive.

Put more simply, if someone believes that a Hydrogen atom is heavier than Oxygen, then their opinion is false. If they believe that Hydrogen is lighter than Oxygen, then their opinion is true and is a fact. If they believe that salt tastes good, then that is not falsifiable and then their opinion is just a matter of personal taste, no pun intended.

So, I think that what Schmikbob means when he says "opinion" is "interpretation."

Although an interpretation is a type of an opinion, and an opinion can be arrived at through interpretation, an opinion can include conjectures, facts, personal tastes, or anything believed.

So, what Schmikbob should have said to accurately reflect his meaning was something similar to, "you have only provided an interpretation of the verses, and have not shown that your interpretation is the correct one."

However, even that meaning is shallow. To the general population, it is often believed in error that a statement can only have one correct meaning. However, in the later part of the 20th century, post-structuralist linguists began to rediscover what ancient rhetoricians already knew, that any given text can have multiple interpretations which follow cogently from the words.

This is something that the Quran acknowledges for itself, and even the prophet Muhammad stated that what has been sent to him was intended to carry as much meaning in as short a text as possible.

He stated, "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim" meaning the broadest meaning in the briefest expressions.

As Muslims, we believe that since the Quran had to make sense to all people in all times, it had to carry levels of meaning so that ancient as well as modern as well as future people could understand it.

But enough for now. More later, God willing.

Ron Webb stated:

{

And yet in {30:20}, among other passages, the Quran says "He creates you out of dust". 

So is it dust, or is it water?

}

Ron Webb asks later,

{

"And in what sense is it a scientific fact that we are made from dust??

}

I can think of at least two ways that this is correct:

1. In Assad's translation and explanation of the Quran, he writes

{

"created out of dust", i.e.., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth.

}

That's the understanding that I've always had of the Quran's statement there. It always seemed obvious to me. I'm surprised that somebody is asking the question that Ron is asking.

2. Before finding this Islamic web site, I had come across at least two science documentaries on cable television that stated that humans as well as well as other materials that make planets are made of left over dust from the death of stars during supernovas.

If you don't believe me, then listen to what scientists are saying.

In an article called:

Physicist Finds Out Why "We Are Stardust..."

found here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625080416.htm

In that article, LSU physicist Edward Zganjar states the following:

"Those elements were ejected into space by the force of the massive explosion, where they mixed with other matter and formed new stars, some with planets such as earth. That's why the earth is rich in these heavy elements. The iron in our blood and the calcium in our bones were all forged in such stars. We are made of stardust."

That article from the online Science Daily e-magazine article starts off by stating:

{

When Joni Mitchell, in her song "Woodstock," sang, "We are stardust..." she was being factual as well as poetic. Every element on earth, except for the lightest, was created in the heart of some massive star. 

}

I've mentioned two ways above that the Quran's statement about humans being created from dust could be true in response to Ron Webb's question of "And in what sense is it a scientific fact that we are made from dust?"

There are probably other ways also.

I don't know if the Quran is referring to one of those ways, both, or some others. My point is that Ron Webb's challenge that the Quran's wording of human creation of dust does not match any scientific understanding has been met a challenge met.

------------

I want to point out some very important things here:

1. The song lyrics mentioned in the Science Daily article demonstrate that a statement can be correct both poetically (figuratively) and literally, much as the Quran often is. Often times in literature, double meanings, triple meanings, and others are intended. The argument of the disbelievers that a figurative meaning might also have been intended by the author of the Quran does not logically exclude the possibility of literal meanings also.

2. The song lyrics mentioned in the Science Daily article didn't also mention that we are made of water, although we are also made of water in addition to non-water molecules and various elements such as iron and calcium mentioned in the Science Daily article.

Yet that exclusion didn't stop Science Daily from referring to Joni Mitchell's lyrics as accurate. This is an example of the understanding of cognitive linguistics that just because a one part of something is mentioned, that doesn't mean that other parts must be excluded.

Humans are indeed made out of water and out of elements which can be found in various forms of dust. The Quran mentions both.

Ron Webb's attempt to find a contradiction in the Quran between creation of water or dust fails because he excludes that both are true.

This is similar to his error in claiming that if the Quran only mentions only the sperm in the formation of a fetus, then that must mean that nothing else is included in the formation.

First, Ron made the error that if the Quran didn't mention a part, the Quran must be ignorant of the unmentioned part.

Second, Ron made the error that if the Quran mentions two parts, then the Quran must be contradicting itself because only one part is possible.

Those two arguments from Ron further demonstrate that Ron doesn't believe his own arguments. On the one hand he demands inclusion of every part, but then later claims that mentioning multiple parts is mutually exclusive.

His argument is almost as silly as if he had claimed that mentioning sperm as a part of making a human in one place and mentioning water in another place contradict each other.

I'm seeing over and over again that the disbelievers don't even believe their own arguments.

By the way, recall that the Quran does mention that the sperm mingles with something in the abdomen of a woman as I mentioned earlier.

Later, Schmikbob attempted out of desperation to argue that if Muslims can claim that the Quran's exclusion of a fact doesn't necessarily mean ignorance of that fact, then that claim of the Muslims must also be extended to the idea that the Quran's exclusion of fallacies doesn't mean rejection of those fallacies.

His argument is deceptive.

For example, if I claim that Joe has knowledge of medicine because Joe made some accurate statements about medicine and that Joe made no errors, then my claim is not disproven by the argument that Joe might have believed in some fallacies that he didn't mention.

Obviously Joe might have believed in some fallacies in the topic of medicine, but pointing that out doesn't disprove my argument.

Furthermore, Schmikbob's argument ignores the context of the discussion which is as follows: Muslims claimed that the Quran contains statements which scientists only later discovered to be true.

Schmikbob's mentioning of the possibility of the Quran's author believing a fallacy is non sequitur. It doesn't address the argument, and does not logically disprove it.

So, while it is objectively and axiomatically true that the exclusion of a fallacy does not prove rejection of that fallacy, Schmikbob's argument is deceptive because it ignores the context of the discussion and is not a proper criterion for disproving a claim of knowledge.

I'm seeing over and over again that the disbelievers don't even believe their own arguments.

In summary,

1. It is not just Muslims who claim that exclusion of a fact or principle in a statement does not necessarily exclude its possibility.

Even in the regular usage of language we can see examples of that linguistic understanding as implied in the Science Daily article.

2. A statement can have both factual and poetic truths. These are not mutually exclusive categories.

3. Whereas not explicitly including a fact does not prove ignorance of that fact, not explicitly rejecting a fallacy does not prove acceptance of that fallacy.

4. The Quran's statement about human creation from dust does not necessarily contradict scientific understanding of that statement as a disbeliever tried to argue.

5. Claiming water and dust in the creation does not prove a contradiction.

Schmikbob stated, "Then you should study in detail the hadiths on the Quran which detail the meaning in the Quran and Mohammed's words much differently than you and the majority of Muslims do. "

Here he is asking (rhetorically) why Muhammad's statements about the meaning of verses of the Quran do not match exactly the modern scientific meaning.

First, notice that by asking why the understanding of Muhammad and the early Muslims did not match the scientific understanding of the verses, the disbelievers are implicitly contradicting their other claim that Muhammad gained his knowledge of science from the understanding that was current for his time period.

In other words, stating that Muhammad's sayings don't confirm a scientific understanding of the verse implies that the verses are ambiguous while stating that the Quran borrowed existing knowledge implies that the verses are clear and do match with verifiable knowledge.

Second, I'd like to see him give examples of Muhammad's explanation of a verse not just differring from the modern scientific understanding of it, but even contradicting it such that both readings could not be intended meanings on different levels.

Third, I anticipate that after he is unable to find significant examples of that, he will change his argument to something like, "why didn't Muhammad explain any of those verses with the modern scientific understanding we have today."

There are several possibilities here.

1. As Muslims, we believe that Muhammad only had the knowledge that God gave to him. God might not have given Muhammad that knowledge of the Quran. Since the disbelievers don't believe that Muhammad received anything from God, then there is no point discussing that yet.

2. If Muhammad did have an understanding of a verse that matched modern scientific knowledge, it wouldn't make much sense for him to describe it to a people who didn't have the scientific foundation to understand his explanation.

3. The point of Muhammad's mission was not to teach science, but to transmit the message.

4. If he did give such explanations, people would probably not remember it since people tend not to remember things they don't understand in detail.

5. Perhaps he did occasionally give such explanations, but early Muslims couldn't remember it due to it being vastly different from what they understood of reality, or remembered it incorrectly due to Muhammad's scientific explanation being so different from what they were able to understand.

" The Quran does not give accurate examples of natural phenomena that scientists discovered later. "

LOL, that is amazing how disbelievers can deny what is right in front of their eyes.

Quran 6:111,

{

Even if We sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak with them, and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise.

}

No, the accurate examples of natural phenomenon are right there in front of your eyes as are the other proofs, but you can not see it.

Quran 6:110

{

We will turn away their hearts and eyes from the truth because they refused to believe in it at first. And so we shall leave them in their overweening arrogance, blindly stumbling to and fro.

}

You accuse Muslims of arrogance, but there God is saying who is truly arrogant. According to God, the arrogant are those who deny the proofs of Islam because they have blinded themselves with denial.

You say Muslims like me are arrogant. God says that those who deny his proofs are arrogant. Who shall I believe? A mere mortal or God? I shall believe God.

Do not say that the proofs are not there. Rather say the truth, that you are unable to see the proofs.

Quran 6:24-25

{

. . . they will deceive themselves . . . We have cast veils over their hearts and made them hard of hearing lest they understand your words. They will believe in none of Our signs, even if they see them, one and all.

}

------------

"The Isra and Mi'raj are the most important myths in Islam."

That's interesting that you have no problem stating that beliefs in Islam are myths, but then claim emotional injury when Christianity is called false.

-------

�A problem only arises if followers of one religion claim that the spiritual truths of their own religion is the only truth. Modern Christians don't make this claim anymore.�

Uh, actually I�m hearing modern Christians claim that Islam is a false religion very frequently.

Preacher Franklin Graham called Islam a religion of evil.

I heard preacher Chriswell refer to Islam as a �curse.�

I�ve heard them refer to Muhammad as a pervert and demon possessed.

Another modern Christian burned the Quran in public.

But that does not make me want to fight them.

Quran 6:33-35

{

We know too well that what they say grieves you. It is not you they are disbelieving; the evil-doers deny God�s own revelations.

}

It just makes me want to debate them.

Quran 46:35

{

Bear with them in patience . . . .

}

-------------

"...there's nothing more hurtful than labeling Christianity and Hinduism as false religions."

First, I'll just have to live with that because labeling Christianity as false is part of Islam.

Quran 5:72-73,

{

Unbelievers are those who say that God is the Messiah, the son of Mary

. . .

Unbelievers are those who say that God is one of three

 }

Quran 3:85,

{ And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him. }

Quran 46:5

{ Who is more in error than the ones who pray to idols . . . ? }

I'm just repeating what God has revealed.

If you don't like the revelation, then you can complain to God, astaghfurillah.

Second, as far as words, your Western secularism is full of insults against Islam and Muslims (e.g. Muslim men treat women badly, etc).

So what?

I laugh at such insults because I know what the truth is. We shall see on the Day of Judgment.

But for someone representing Western secularism to complain about insults coming from Islam in the context of the Wests' insults against Islam and Muslims is doubly laughable in its hypocrisy.

Third, you have no problem labeling the beliefs of Muslims as myths (implying falseness).

Fourth, you don't seem to really believe in Christianity yourself other than as just poetry and fable, so you yourself see it as false.

----------

"It's the kind of words that undermine world peace."

What undermines peace are things like the greed to covet oil such as the USA�s bombing of Iraq's water treatment facilities in 1991 and sanctions which led to wide spread cholera and other diseases which murdered 500,000 Iraqi children in just a few years.

That�s the sort of thing that undermines peace.

US secretary of state Madeline Albright later told Leslie Stahl that it was �worth it.�

Saying that Christianity and Hinduism are false just opens the door for polite debate.

To claim that it starts war in light of the things that really start wars is categorically false.

{ God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have not made war on your religion or driven you from your homes } Quran 60:9 

--------

"It reeks of Muslim narcissism and arrogance."

We shall see on the Day of Judgment who was arrogant.

Will it be those Muslims who humbly accepted God's message, or those who denied it while pridefully living in opulence built on plundering the world through centuries of imperialism and neo-colonialism while narcissistically imagining themselves as humane and enlightened?

God has revealed in the Quran those who will be truly judged as arrogant. It will not be up to you or me to decide. It is God who will decide who was arrogant. George W. Bush said he was the decider. No, it is God who is the Decider. Not you, not Bush, not me.

---------

"Religious narcissism impedes modernity. "

That deference and apotheosis of modernity (Western secularism) and the automatic assumption that "modernity" is the right way is itself arrogant.

I haven't seen anything more narcissistic than Western secularism�s image of itself as the right way and humane while it debases itself in debauchery that is a throwback to ancient paganism, child sacrifice through abortion, every type of deviance, high-tech piracy through global imperialism, flattering one's self of charity after causing massive suffering through neo-colonialist looting, etc.

I'm sure Western secularism seems right to you.

{  Thus We have made fair-seeming to each people its own doings.  } Quran 6:108

And, when you say to the unbelievers to stop doing evil in the world, they say, we only do good.

------------

{ Open-minded mature Muslims have evolved beyond that. }

So you get to decide what is mature, and you're complaining about Muslim arrogance. hmmmm.

-----------

{ They don't think in categories like true and false religions. }

Islam itself contains the idea of true and false religions. There is no separation.

Moral relativity is just satanic deception.

God has revealed that only Islam is right:

Quran  6:153

{ This path of mine is straight. Follow it and do not follow other paths. }

----------

{ They appreciate diversity without hurting each others feelings.}

Well, it looks like God has hurt your feelings in His revelations.

You may complain to Him on the Day of Judgment and ask Him to apologize, astaghfurillah.

-------

"I can recommend . . .  Paul Davies."

Davies is already on my list.

----

�A true follower of Jesus will do everything to promote world peace and choose his words wisely avoiding to hurt the feelings of other people.�

Yeah, right. That�s why he said in Luke 19:27 to slay whoever did not accept him as lord (and no, it was not part of the parable. The parable was over when he said that.)

And that�s why he referred to the Pharisee as serpents and sons of serpents.

-------

�Telling a Buddhist that he or she is wrong and a follower of a false religion accomplishes absolutely nothing. �

And yet you have no problem telling Muslims that our beliefs about scientific explanations in the Quran are false.

And you have no problem referring to our beliefs as mere myths and fables.

Quran 6:26-27

{

When they come to argue with you the ubelievers say: �This is nothing but the fables of the ancients.� . . . If you could see them when they are set before the Fire!

}

But telling the false religions that they are false does accomplish something.

It accomplishes fulfilling God�s command to warn them that God has revealed that they are wrong.

Quran 51:55

{ Pay no heed to them. Exhort them. Exhorting helps the true believers. }

For example, God has commanded us to tell the Jews also that they are wrong.

Quran 62:7

{ Say to the Jews . . . if you alone are God�s friends . . . God knows the wrong doers. }

God has commanded us to tell the Jews and Christians and idol worshippers that they are wrong. It does not matter that they will or will not believe us. We are to warn them all the same.

----

 �Is there a proof for who is right?�

There is proof for those whom God will guide. There is no proof for those who have chosen to not see the proofs.

Quran 52:44-45

{

Even if they saw a part of heaven falling, they would say, it is just a bunch of clouds.

So leave them alone until they meet their Day when they will faint with horror.

}

I love this site !

Not only do we Muslims get to point out the miracles of the Quran such as the descriptions of natural phenomenon long before modern science discovered them, but in addition to that we also get to point out another truth in the Quran: the perfect prediction of how the disbelievers will react when confronted with the signs of the truth.

The Quran predicts that they will be blind to it, and behold, even when you put it right in front of their eyes, they absolutely can not see it and say that it is not there.

Praise be to God.

The disbelievers have inadvertently helped us point out another miracle of the Quran: the perfect prediction of their blindness to the obvious.

That�s amazing if you think about it. I would have thought that when you put something in front of somebody�s eyes, they will have to acknowledge it; but just as the Quran predicted, they absolutely can not see it!

This site is also useful because it allows for pointing out the deceptions of the disbelievers.

So this site is useful for:

1. Pointing out the descriptions of nature in the Quran that scientists discovered later.

2. Pointing out the accuracy of the prediction of the Quran of the blindness of the disbelievers.

3. Pointing out the deceptive tactics of the disbelievers. 

If the disbelievers were not here, we Muslims could only have the first and would not have the opportunity for the second and third above.

At first, I thought about reporting Matt Browne to the site administrators for the insulting comments calling Muslims arrogant and narcissistic; but then I thought to myself, �wait a minute, this guy is very useful to help me point out to my Muslim brethren the kinds of deceptions that disbelievers use, just like Schmikbob and the other guy were useful by pointing out their contradictions and insincerity.�

He complains that referring to them as disbelievers is offensive after he gets through talking about Muslim arrogance and Muslim narcissism

Do you think he really cares about hurt feelings?

The Quran refers to them as disbelievers and he is just trying to shut us up from repeating the Quran.

The response to him should be, if you take offense to how God has described you in his revelations, then you may ask Him to apologize and recant. Only then will we stop saying it.

Here is another example. On one hand he says that he is against telling people that their beliefs are wrong; but then he adamantly tells us Muslims that our beliefs about the scientific accuracies in the Quran are wrong.

What can we glean from that? He doesn�t believe what he is himself saying. He is just trying to get us Muslims to be silent because he doesn�t like what we are saying; so he is using every deception he can find to accomplish that.

Here is another example. In one sentence he says that he does not say that beliefs in Islam are myths. In the very next sentence he says that the Quran (the main source of beliefs in Islam) contains myths. Seriously?

He claims that mixing science and scripture is an insult to both. Do you think he really cares about that, or that he is just trying to shut us up?

At least the Florida pastor who burnt the Quran expressed his true feelings. Give me a thousand like him before the one that says let�s be nice from one side of his mouth then mutters insults under his breath from the other side of his mouth like calling me delusional. 

Why do you think Saladin gave king Richard a spare horse after Richard's horse was struck down in battle? Because Richard was honest about his intent. King Richard didn't march into the holy lands with an army saying, I come in peace.

Bush said he wanted to liberate Iraq from Saddam while his corporate masters wanted to loot the oil. Similarily, Matt Brown says he wants to save us from delusion, but his devil masters wants to loot our faith. Lawrence went to Muslim lands saying he wanted to be friends, but was actually sent to further British imperialist policies. Matt Brown says he wants to be friends, but is actually sent to further Satan's imperialism of disbelief. The result of Lawrence was that Palestine was lost and the British RAF dropped mustard gas on Kurdish villages in the 1920's and machine gunned the survivors who fled. The result of a Matt Brown is eternal hell. I'd prefer a thousand Richards over a single Lawrence or Bush.

Now Matt is saying that if the Quran had explanations of scientific phenomenon, then Muslims would have made contributions to the sciences, as if that is a good point.

First of all, the scientific descriptions are already there in the Quran. There is no point in discovering what is already discovered.

Second, just because he doesn�t know about Muslim knowledge, he assumes it is not there. An ancient Muslim Persian poet wrote, �delle har zarre ke beshkafi, aftabesh dar miyan bini.� which means, �when the tiniest thing is broken, its sun becomes visible.� There was a massive bath in Iran which could be warmed by a single candle. The British tore it apart but couldn�t figure out how it worked.

Third, note how he deceptively tries to hide Muslim contributions to science from the Golden Age of Islam (750 to 1250 AD), before the devastating Mongol invasions that built towers of human heads. (The Mongols conquered Persia around 1256). He starts his question from 1350. Do you think that is an accident? No, he understands his tactics of deception. Cunning, smiling, and rubbing his hands.

Fourth, Muslims didn�t have a serious scientific community. The lack of science is a statement on the ineptitude and lack of motivation and lack of interest of us Muslims, not of the Quran. You can lead someone to water, but you can�t make him drink. Even now we can't get our act together worth squat.

Fifth, those in royal power were just interested in their own opulence and court conspiracies. The Ottoman sultans repressed and outlawed the printing press because they feared it would destabilize their power. The ex-Shah of Iran would imprison inventors whose inventions looked like they might decrease the king�s control. Not only was there no funding or incentive for discoveries, it was dangerous. What would a Muslim do with a discovery? Keep it to himself, or hide it in a poem, or something like that of course.

The reasons go on and on. But better than list them all, hand the question back to him. If your Bible really teaches turning the other cheek, then why did you give small pox infected blankets to the Ottawa? Why did you tell the Arapaho and Cheyenne that they could have peace at the banks of the Colorado river, but then slaughter them at Sand Creek? Is it because your Bible doesn't really teach turning the other cheek, or because you chose to ignore it?

But his question is not useless. It does point out, once again, the sophistry and lack of sincerity in the specious and disingenous arguments of the disbelievers. A devil doesn't have a horn and a tail. He has a twisted smile and crooked words. The horns and tails are not in the physical appearance, but rather in the behavior and in the warm, wormy, words of seduction to disbelief.

Well, since Matt Browne is obviously just resorting to repeating the same arguments that have been repeatedly rebuffed, it is time to get back to the other arguments.

If the disbelievers enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing, then they can argue with Hell for eternity. They can say to the flames, we are not in Hell, and then Hell will say, yes you are, and they can exchange that for eternity.

It is enough for us who are sincere that he has been disproven so many times.

As for the others, Let us move on and look at some more of the deceptions of the other disbelievers. Let us look at Ron Webb again.

He states, "The reason you don't see these as contradictions is that every time science disproves something in the Quran (or the Bible, or any other religious text) the believers simply abandon the literal interpretation and retreat into metaphor or abstraction. "

That's just his accusation against us. He never brings any proof of that. It just shows his speculation and conjecture.

He says, "The whole Quranic depiction of cosmology is equally nonsensical (e.g., references in the Quran to the sky as a "roof" or "canopy", stars falling from the sky,"

As for stars falling, stars do fall into the gravity of black holes.

As for the sky being a canapy, it is indeed. It surrounds the earth and it keeps out the suns harmful ultraviolet rays.

Praise be to God, SuponAllah !

The exact things that the disbelieves bring to try to show that the Quran is wrong are just more examples of the Quran being right.

Actually, the Quran does not say that the stars fall to the earth, it just says that they fall; and indeed they do fall into black holes.

Quran chapter 52, verse 44:

And if they were to see a fragment of the heaven falling, they would say: A heap of clouds.

and in another translation of the same verse.

If they saw a part of heaven falling down, they would still say it is but a mass of clouds.

As I read the above verse, there are certain segments that jump out at me like this:

1. falling down

2. a part of heaven

3. saw

4. of clouds

5.  they would still say

6. but

7. a mass

8. they saw

The most important and noticeable part of that sentence is the term "falling down" because it does not say "towards earth" or "to the ground" or anything like that. It does not say, "falling down towards earth." It just says, "falling down" or just "falling" in the first translation. The abscence of something like "to the ground" or "to the earth" is very conspicous to me.

I ask myself, well, where else besides earth can something fall? I answer myself, an object can fall any where there is sufficient gravity. The earth is not the only object in the universe that has gravity. Gravity occurs on anything that has enough mass.

The greater the mass, the more it warps space around itself, and so the greater the gravitational pull will be.

So, the abscence of words like "to the earth" is significant to me. Interpretation of a text to me occurs not just with the words that are present, but also with the words that are abscent.

The second part that I notice is "a part of heaven."

I ask myself, what is an example of "a part of heaven?"

I imagine stars, planets, meteors, and the light given off by the stars.

I'll come back to this a little later.

So then I look at the word "saw."

Here the Quran is emphasizing the visual aspect of the fall of a part of heaven. The Quran is talking about what this fall of a part of heaven would look like.

I ask myself, what would it look like for "a part of heaven" to fall.

That would require planets, stars, and the light of the stars to fall. Can I imagine what that fall would look like? Would it be a straight line like a ball dropped from my hand?

Considering that something with enough gravitational power to pull stars and the light of stars towards itself would curve space to an intense degree, I think that the fall would appear more like water circling around a drain.

Maybe it would look like hurricane clouds circling the eye of the hurricane.

Is there anywhere that I have seen something like that before?

Well, I have seen science documentaries that illustrate black holes in space which have such intense gravitational pulls that stars and even the light of stars fall down towards them. These images to me look very much like the clouds of a hurricane orbiting the eye of the hurricane.

That leads nicely to the next part of the sentence which jumped out at me. The word "clouds."

I find it interesting that the word used here is the plural "clouds" and not the single "cloud." The Quran does not say that it will resemble a cloud, but rather that it will resemble clouds.

Also, I find it interesting that the Quran does not say that the falling section of heaven will resemble seperate clouds, but rather a plurality of clouds as one mass or heap or group, depending on the translation.

If the Quran had said that the falling heaven would resemble a single cloud, then this verse would be less interesting to me.

Likewise, if the Quran had said that the clouds were in seperate masses, then this verse would also have been less interesting to me.

Rather, the Quran describes a plurality of clouds in a single mass. A hurricane is just that. It is a cluster of clouds as a single rotating mass.

Note the following quotes:

"All hurricanes form from preexisting cloud clusters." - http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/wflm/tut/hurricane/hurr4.html

and

The eyewall surrounding the eye is composed of dense clouds that contain the highest winds in the storm.

The storm's outer rainbands (often with hurricane or tropical storm-force winds) are made up of dense bands of

thunderstorms ranging from a few miles to tens of miles wide and 50 to 300 miles long.

http://hurricanes.noaa.gov/pdf/hurricanebook.pdf

This is what a black hole resembles when viewed in science illustrations and documentaries.

In a science documentary called "Deep Space Marvels," released in the year 2001, in an episode entitled "Survival," it discusses black holes.

It stated that while black holes cannot themselves be seen because the center is so small and pulls in even light, one could find the space debris that fall into it.

A scientist on the show said that the planets and stars falling into the black hole would resemble gas, smoke, and clouds like the debris around the vortex of a tornado.

The scientist actually used the exact word "clouds" as part of the description to describe the planets and stars falling into the black hole.

Here again is surah 52, ayat 54:

If they saw a part of heaven falling down, they would still say it is but a mass of clouds.

So, not only do stars fall as the Quran states, the disbelievers do describe it as clouds, just as the Quran predicts.

Ron Webb assumed that the phrase stars falling referred to falling to the earth. He added those words to the text in his mind to match his expectation that the Quran was wrong.

So, the error is not in what is in the Quran, but in the expectation in his mind.

Praise be to Allah !

Not only does the Quran give accurate explanations of scientific phenomenon that were discovered long after the Quran was revealed, but the Quran even accurately predicts the behavior of the unbelievers and the disbelievers.

Beebok wrote: prediction of how the disbelievers will react when confronted with the signs of the truth. The Quran predicts that they will be blind to it, and behold, even when you put it right in front of their eyes, they absolutely can not see it and say that it is not there.

Beebok wrote: At first, I thought about reporting Matt Browne to the site administrators for the insulting comments calling Muslims arrogant and narcissistic

Did you tell Matt Browne that you found those references to be offensive?  That is how peace in made.  In speaking to each other.  By letting a person know how you feel.  Often we do not know that we hurt people's feelings.  We need to be told.

Beebok wrote: The response to him should be, if you take offense to how God has described you in his revelations, then you may ask Him to apologize and recant. Only then will we stop saying it.

Again, long before Muhammad, the unbelievers spoken of were those who did not believe in the message of Jesus.

This is something to give deep thought to.

I. Significance of the verse:

1.

��if "a mass of clouds" is an apt description, then how does it show ignorance to describe it that way?�

The ignorance is in believing that it is just only materialistic in its origins, absolutely nothing else, and not a sign of God�s existence and greatness.

The ignorance is in explaining it away as a mere mechanical phenomenon.

The analogy is that just as disbelievers see the miracles of the Quran and explain them away, some see the signs of God in nature and just explain it away.

The Quran frequently describes actions in nature as being signs of God and for people to reflect upon them to understand that God is behind them and to then be grateful and awed.

2.

��what sense would 52:44 make if we assume that Allah was referring to stars falling into black holes?  It would be a total non sequitur. �

It makes perfect sense. There is a place in the universe so amazing that time stops, space itself moves at the speed of light, and the regular laws of physics break down. Something that awesome should amaze people into believing in God. It shows that nature is in God�s hands, and not the other way around.

It shows God�s greatness to create and control such a thing.

It shows that time is controlled by God, and not God controlled by God such as those who say, �what existed before God.�

The laws of physics, causality, all these things are in the hands of God, and not God in the boundaries of the laws of physics.

And yet, some say, things like, how could God have existed before time started with the big bang?

Even when people see the wonders of nature, they explain it away as mere coincidence and accident and mechanics, much as they explain away the miracles of the Quran as mere coincidence. 

II. Is the Quran�s mentioning of stars falling a nonsensical cosmology?

And

How is this among the valid interpretations?

A disbeliever in the Quran may believe that a mere mortal who authored the Quran thought that stars are like small shiny objects in the atmosphere which may fall.

If that is the case, then why would they appear like masses of clouds if the mortal thought that they were just little shiny objects? How does a little shiny object become like masses of clouds?

When a primitive man would have thought that a star was like a floating spark or a tiny glowing gem, or something like that, then he would have expected that upon falling, he could pick it up, or that it might break into tinier pieces, but not turn into heaps of clouds.

So, we can see that it doesn�t make sense to assume that the author of that verse was a mere primitive mortal perceiving stars with the typical perception of people back then.

So, from what author�s perception would it make sense that stars falling would be described as they have been described in the Quran?

Well, if the author had the perspective of someone who not only knew how actual stars react when they fall, but also has the perspective to see into the future and witness the reaction of unbelievers when they finally witness it as well.

What author at that time could have had the perspective of not only knowing how stars actually appear when they fall, but also had the perspective of knowing how disbelievers in the future would react?

So, we can see that the Quran�s real Author did not see the stars as just tiny little shiny objects in the sky as the disbelievers had assumed. 

III. Other uses of the word star in the Quran

It is interesting to note that nowhere in the Quran in which it mentions that stars fall does it say that they actually fall to the earth.

For example,

{ And when the stars fall } -  Quran, 81:2

The word the Quran often uses for star above is:

l-nujumu

And the word used for falling there is:

inkadarat

The word "inkadarat" can also mean, "to dim," which is interesting because some stars do indeed dim to become what are known as white dwarfs.

Stars like our sun that run out of fuel can become dim white dwarfs. Sometimes they can become so dim that some scientists state that they qualify for one of the two types of dark matter, or the inelastic, baryonic dark matter, as opposed to the exotic, heavy-particle dark matter, which can be read about here:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0103/23darkmatter/

and here:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/feb/11/warm-white-dwarfs-could-reveal-inelastic-dark-matter

Also, according to:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/searchlight-beams.html

Some stars that run out of nuclear fuel . . . are very dim, requiring powerful telescopes to be seen. This combination of rarity and faintness means they were only discovered comparatively recently.

I find it interesting that God chose the Arabic language for the Quran because a word like "inkadarat" can be used to describe stars and it is correct in any definition of itself that is used.

In other words, whichever definition of "inkadarat" is used to describe stars (l-nujumu), it is correct !

The word �l-nujumu� appears again in 77:8

{ When the stars are obliterated }

Interestingly, we know that some stars are destroyed in super nova explosions. How did someone living in Muhammad�s time know that stars become obliterated?

However, �l-nujumu� is not the only word in the Quran used to describe stars.

In modern English, a star is a massive sphere of gas that burns with nuclear fusion.

In Arabic, however, a heavenly object that gives off its own light is called a �l-nujumu� which is translated as �star,� and a heavenly object that reflects light is called a

�l-kawakibu� and that is also translated as star.

So, in English translations, both �l-kawakibu� and �l-nujumu� are translated as star, but the latter refers to heavenly objects that reflect rather than emit, and the former refer to those that reflect.

For example,

{ When the stars scatter } Quran, 82:2

In that verse, the word being used for star is �l-kawakibu,� and the word being used for scatter is �.�

Interestingly, in none of those cases where stars or planets that reflect light are mentioned, does it actually say that they fall to the earth either. It says that they scatter, or they fall, but it doesn�t say that they fall to the earth.

So, we have one verse shown here where it says that a fragment of the heavens fall, another where it states that stars (l-nujumu) fall, another where it says that light reflecting planets scatter or disperse (intatharat); but in none of those instances does it state that they fall to the earth. 

IV. When the word star in the Quran does not mean star because of the grammar

By the way, as a side note, be careful of English translations that use the word �star.�

They usually do not differentiate between the words �l-kawakibu� and �l-nujumu.� They usually use both words for star.

Indeed, in some examples, English translations use the word star where neither of the above are mentioned.

For example, in 72:8, English translations translate �washuhuban� into star when it just means �flaming fire.� That is a correct description of a star, but it is not �l-nujumu� which is used elsewhere.

In some other instances, it is necessary to understand the grammar in order to understand what the word l-nujumu means.

For example, in 53:1 it uses the genitive masculine noun form of �l-nujumu� which is �najmi.� Then, the second word of 53:4 �huwa� which means it, is a reference to �najmi.� There, it explains that it refers to the revelation of the Quran.

So, whereas �l-nujumu� translates literally as star, the grammar of that verse indicates that it is being used metaphorically for the Quran itself.

Here it is:

{ By the star when it descends } 53:1

. . . .

{ It is not but a revelation } 53:3

There, it is by the grammar that we know the meaning of �l-nujumu,� or �najmi� in this case.

I can go on at some more length about this subject, but I should cut it short for brevity�s sake. 

V. Summary and Conclusion

If a disbeliever is going to insist that the author of the Quran meant that the stars fall to the earth, then they should explain why in none of those three instances does the Quran�s verse say that they fall to the earth because one would expect that if the author meant �to the earth� then that would probably have occurred in at least one of those instances.

The Quran mentions a segment of the heavens falling (not all) and that it appears like masses of clouds. It describes the segment of the heavens that fell.

If the Quran had stated in 52:44 that all the heavens fall instead of just a segment falling, then we would not be able to take this understanding.

That verse had to mention �a segment� as opposed to �all� and it had to leave out �to the earth.�

If either that verse had mentioned �to the earth� or had left out �a segment of the heavens� then we would not have been able to take the understanding that I have explained.

All the wording of the verse 52:44 had to be correct to take this understanding.

1. It had to mention �a segment� of the heavens to signify that it is not all of the heavens,

2. it had to leave out �to the earth�

3. it had to mention that it would have the appearance of masses of clouds

4. and that the disbelievers would dismiss it as a mere materialistic explanation.

We can see how well the description of stars falling fits with what we now know about how they fall near black holes.

Knowledge of black holes is with the Author of the Quran. The Quran mentions stars falling, but not to the earth, and describes the appearance of a segment of the heavens falling as masses of clouds after falling, and it describes the behavior of the disbelievers centuries after the verse was revealed to Muhammad, peace be upon him. We can see this phenomenon occurring near black holes, and so we can see that the Author had knowledge of them.

Even if a disbeliever insists that the Quran is not talking about stars falling into black holes, they must still at least concede and acknowledge that the Quran�s description is not nonsensical. They thought that the idea of stars falling was nonsensical in cosmology, but stars do indeed fall as the Quran states, and there are masses of clouds visible in the process which is also accurate.

Some Muslims take only a poetic and figurative interpretation of verse 52:44 mentioning a fragment of the heavens falling as the disbelievers would like us Muslims to take. Those Muslims believe that the verse means merely that even if the disbelievers were to see something astonishing and miraculous, they would still explain it away as something mechanical and materialistic. That understanding is also correct.

As I�ve stated in previous posts, the verses of the Quran are true on multiple levels. One correct understanding does not negate another.