> Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an? (video from CEMB)

[yhunt]

Assalamualaikum my dear brothers and sisters in Islam.
I am new to this forum.
I am in need of some help to refute this anti-islamic video against the scientific miracles in the Quran.

This video was given to me by a "ex-muslim".

YouTube- Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an?

YouTube- Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an?

(hmm... I can see there are a few threads made already on the miracles, but i think there are a few things in this video which have not been answered.)

JazakAllah khair for taking your time out to view this thread :)

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Before I reply to the video, I should mention first: Harun Yahya is an unreliable source! His explanations of certain verses do not follow the rules of Tefsir, therefore his is not an Islamic source. I've discussed the errors in his work, and the dangers thereof on numerous threads in this forum already.
And much more important:
Just because Harun Yahya is wrong, doesn't mean Islam is wrong. Just because his interpretation of the Qur'an is wrong, doesn't mean the Qur'an itself is wrong.

Claim 1.1:
The writings of Aristotle, Hypocrites, Galen and others describes these things long before the Qur'an.
Equivocation fallacy
While indeed those works describe some embryonic stages, they do not mention details of the first stages, which they couldn't have observed with the naked eye. The Qur'an on the other hand does describe those. In other words, the argument equivocates all different descriptions of embryonic stages, despite their differences.

Claim 1.2:
The Quran is simply drawing on knowledge that is prevalent at the time.
Slippery slope fallacy
Well next to the fact that this claim builds on the previous claim, which was an equivocation fallacy, this claim in addition is also fallacious because it's a slippery slope. It has not been shown that the Qur'an indeed did draw on that knowledge, or that this knowledge if it were existing was available to Muhammed (peace be upon him). In other words, it is just speculation.

Claim 1.3:
In fact it appears not only to reflect the accuracies of Greek ideas, but their inaccuracies also. [quoting 76:2] This sounds very much like the fluid Hypocrites spoke off.
Equivocation fallacy; Slippery slope fallacy
First of all, this is the same equivocation fallacy as before. Just because it sounds like it, doesn't mean its the same. Furthermore, it's a slippery slope fallacy again. The arguer claims that the Qur'an copies inaccuracies, however there is nothing scientifically inaccurate about the quoted verse. So even if we accept similarity between this verse and Hypocrites' ideas, that doesn't substantiate the arguers claim that the Qur'an copied inaccuracies of ancient Greek ideas.

Claim 1.4:
In fact it appears not only to reflect the accuracies of Greek ideas, but their inaccuracies also. [quoting 86:6-7]
Appeal to false authority, Slippery slope
Here the arguer is building on a false interpretation/translation of the Qur'an, and then arguing that since the interpretation is erroneous, the Quran itself must be erroneous as well. However if we look at different translations we see that Pickthal for example translated this not as backbone but rather as "loin".
I don't speak Arabic though, so perhaps somebody with more knowledge can address this issue here.
As for the rib, it could refer to the creation of eve from the rib of Adam, rather then the fluids from between the ribs.

Claim 1.5:
This [verse 86:6-7] reflects the view of Hypocrites.
Equivocation fallacy
The view of Hypocrites is quite different and much more detailed from what is mentioned here in this verse.

Claim 1.6:
It is also worth noting that the Qur'an always mentions the semen, but nowhere does it mention the female egg or the actual process of fertilisation which one would expect to be in any basic description if it was known to the author.
False claim; Slippery slope fallacy
The Quran does mention it in (76:2). According to Tefsir ibn Kathir:

[إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَـنَ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ]
(Verily, We have created man from Nutfah Amshaj,) meaning, mixed. The words Mashaj and Mashij mean something that is mixed together. Ibn `Abbas said concerning Allah's statement,
[مِن نُّطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ]
(from Nutfah Amshaj,) "This means the fluid of the man and the fluid of the woman when they meet and mix.'' Then man changes after this from stage to stage, condition to condition and color to color. `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas all made statements similar to this. They said, "Amshaj is the mixing of the man's fluid with the woman's fluid.''

Granted this does not reveal any details, but it's unfair to claim that the Qur'an would describe semen in more detail then it describes eggs, or that this would testify of a lack of knowledge on the author's part. It's also a slippery slope to claim that we should expect this in any description. The purpose for the description is not educating mankind in biology. Instead these things are merely mentioned in the Qur'an to make mankind reflect on it, so the details of semen and eggs are not really required or expected here.

Claim 1.7:
[quoting 23:14]; This account follows the 4 stages described by Galen, writing about 500 years before Muhammed; and includes his belief that bones were formed before the flesh.
Equivocation fallacy
The quoted verse does not state that bones were formed before the flesh. So again, the arguer is trying to equivocate the Qur'anic description with a false description. In fact, if you look at Tefsir ibn Kathir again, it says:

Then it becomes a red clot, like an elongated clot.' `Ikrimah said, "This is blood.''
[فَخَلَقْنَا الْعَلَقَةَ مُضْغَةً]
(then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh,) which is like a piece of flesh with no shape or features.
[فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَـماً]
(then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones,) meaning, `We gave it shape, with a head, two arms and two legs, with its bones, nerves and veins.'
[فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَـمَ لَحْماً]
(then We clothed the bones with flesh,) meaning, `We gave it something to cover it and strengthen it.'

So the stages here are:
1. Cloth of blood
2. Flesh
3. Flesh with bones
4. Flesh with bones with skin (different type of flesh).
Also note that this Tefsir was written long before scientific advancement thought us these embryonic stages.

Claim 2.1:
The Qur'an describes Iron as being sent down from the heavens before it was known that meteors containing iron felt down on earth from outer space. [quoting 57:25] [continues by mentioning various civilisations who were well aware of this]
Here the intro of my post, where I explained about Harun Yahya's mistakes becomes relevant. While popular writers like Harun Yahya might be quick to make uninformed claims about this, this only shows such writers were not well informed. Just because a popular writer, who has no degree in religion makes some ridiculous claims, doesn't mean that Islam or it's followers are ridiculous itself. There is nothing erroneous about the Qur'anic verse itself, or about the Tefsirs of those verse by scholars.

Claim 2.2:
Actually all elements from earth came from outer space. By singling out iron, the qur'an only seems to reveal it's ignorance of this fact.
Fallacists fallacy; Apeal to false authority; Slippery slope fallacy
The arguer is here again building on Harun yahya's false interpretations. If you look at an actual Tefsir, you see a whole different thing:

25. Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Mizan that mankind may keep up justice. And We brought forth iron wherein is mighty power, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help Him (His religion) and His Messengers in the unseen. Verily, Allah is Powerful, Almighty.
The Benefits of Iron
Allah said,
[وَأَنزْلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ]
(And We brought forth iron wherein is mighty power,) meaning, `We made iron a deterrent for those who refuse the truth and oppose it after the proof has been established against them.' Allah's Messenger remained in Makkah for thirteen years. During that time, the revelation continued being sent to him, containing arguments against the idolators and explaining Tawhid with detail and proofs. When the evidence was established against those who defied the Messenger , Allah decreed the Hijrah. Then He ordered the believers to fight the disbelievers using swords, using them to strike the necks and foreheads of those who opposed, rejected and denied the Qur'an. Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawud recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,
«بُعِثْتُ بِالسَّيْفِ بَيْنَ يَدَيِ السَّاعَةِ حَتْى يُعْبَدَ اللهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ، وَجُعِلَ رِزْقِي تَحْتَ ظِلِّ رُمْحِي، وَجُعِلَ الذِّلَّةُ والصَّغَارُ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَ أَمْرِي، وَمَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُم»
(I was sent with the sword just before the Hour so that Allah be worshipped alone without partners. My provision was placed under the shadow of my spear, and those who defy my order were disgraced and humiliated, and he who imitates a people is one of them.) This is why Allah the Exalted said,
[فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ]
(wherein is mighty power,) in reference to weapons, such as swords, spears, daggers, arrows, shields, and so forth,
[وَمَنَـفِعُ لِلنَّاسِ]
(as well as many benefits for mankind,) meaning, in their livelihood, such as using it to make coins, hammers, axes, saws chisels, shovels and various tools that people use for tilting the land, sowing, cooking, making dough and manufacturing other objects necessary for their livelihood. Allah's statement,
[وَلِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُ وَرُسُلَهُ بِالْغَيْبِ]
(that Allah may test who it is that will help Him (His religion) and His Messengers in the unseen.) meaning, whose intention by carrying weapons is the defense of Allah (His religion) and His Messenger,
[إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَوِىٌّ عَزِيزٌ]
(Verily, Allah is Powerful, Almighty.) meaning, surely, Allah is Powerful, Almighty, and He gives victory to those who give victory and aid to Him. However, Allah does not need mankind's help, but He ordered Jihad to test people with each other.

We see that the Tefsir doesn't even seem to mention that it comes from the heavens. The verse is clearly not directed to educate people regarding the origin or iron, so there's no reason why the Qur'an should mention the origin of other elements for that matter. Furthermore, it's obviously a slippery slope to claim there is a lack of knowledge merely on the basis that it is not mentioned.

Claim 3:
The Qur'an describes the moon's light as reflected light long before it was known. [quoting 71:16 and 25:61]
Yet again, one of Harun Yahya's mistake. And another good example of the danger of not following the rules of tefsir. The Verse itself says nothing wrong. The official Tefsirs say nothing wrong, yet Harun yahya's interpretations are obviously mistaken, and thus Muslims and Islam are seen as un-informed by asociation.

Claim 4.1:
The Qur'an mentions that fresh water and salt water does not mix before this was known. [Quoting 25:53] Once again there are other meanings that could be applied.
Unsubstantiated claim
Unfortunately the arguer fails to mention those other possible explanations. Again I should mention that there are strict rules to Tefsir which Muslims have to follow. So the official Tefsir is more reliable then any alternative interpretation the arguer might come up with. Tefsir ibn Kathir says:

[وَهُوَ الَّذِى مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ هَـذَا عَذْبٌ فُرَاتٌ وَهَـذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ]
(And it is He Who has let free the two seas, this is palatable and sweet, and that is salty and bitter;) means, He has created the two kinds of water, sweet and salty. The sweet water is like that in rivers, springs and wells, which is fresh, sweet, palatable water. This was the view of Ibn Jurayj and of Ibn Jarir, and this is the meaning without a doubt, for nowhere in creation is there a sea which is fresh and sweet. Allah has told us about reality so that His servants may realize His blessings to them and give thanks to Him. The sweet water is that which flows amidst people. Allah has portioned it out among His creatures according to their needs; rivers and springs in every land, according to what they need for themselves and their lands.
[وَهَـذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ]
(and that is salty and bitter;) meaning that it is salty, bitter and not easy to swallow. This is like the seas that are known in the east and the west, the Atlantic Ocean and the Straits that lead to it, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the China Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and so on, all the seas that are stable and do not flow, but they swell and surge in the winter and when the winds are strong, and they have tides that ebb and flow. At the beginning of each month the tides ebb and flood, and when the month starts to wane they retreat until they go back to where they started. When the crescent of the following month appears, the tide begins to ebb again until the fourteenth of the month, then it decreases. Allah, may He be glorified, the One Whose power is absolute, has set these laws in motion, so all of these seas are stationary, and He has made their water salty lest the air turn putrid because of them and the whole earth turn rotten as a result, and lest the earth spoil because of the animals dying on it.

Claim 4.2:
However if we accept the meaning given; it was already known about anyway. And one thousand years before Muhammed Aristotle wrote [quoting meteorology book 2 chapter 2]
Equivocation fallacy, slipery slope
First this is a fallacious equivocation again. And a very big one in fact, the two claims are nothnig alike. The Qur'anic verse describes a sort of barrier, there were fresh and salt water meet, preventing the salinity of the sea to make the rivers salt as well. Aristotle on the other hand doesn't make any such claim. Instead if we read the context of the quote:

Again, they are met by the same difficulty as those who say that at first the earth itself was moist and the world round the earth was warmed by the sun, and so air was generated and the whole firmament grew, and the air caused winds and solstices. The objection is that we always plainly see the water that has been carried up coming down again. Even if the same amount does not come back in a year or in a given country, yet in a certain period all that has been carried up is returned. This implies that the celestial bodies do not feed on it, and that we cannot distinguish between some air which preserves its character once it is generated and some other which is generated but becomes water again and so perishes; on the contrary, all the moisture alike is dissolved and all of it condensed back into water.

The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind, but not in its natural place. For this is a question which has been sufficiently discussed (I mean about the natural place that water, like the other elements, must in reason have), and the answer is this. The place which we see the sea filling is not its natural place but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up. The same thing happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the food when it enters the body is sweet, yet the residuum and dregs of liquid food are found to be bitter and salt. This is because the sweet and drinkable part of it has been drawn away by the natural animal heat and has passed into the flesh and the other parts of the body according to their several natures.

It becomes quite clear that Aristotle is speculating about the cycle of water, and the ways in which the earth might absorb it and cause springs, and how some water might condense in the air and cause rain. It has nothing to do with the claim of the Qur'an. Furthermore we can argue just like in previous similar claims, that it is a slippery slope. It has not been shown that the Qur'an draws upon this knowledge, so any claim as such are purely speculative in nature.

Claim 5.1:
The Qur'an reveals the big bang before it was known about. [quoting 21:30] If this is supposed to be a description of the big bang, then it is a terrible one.
Again we're dealing with one of Harun Yahya's hasty conclusions. Again if we study authentic Tefsir:

The Signs of Allah in the Heavens and the Earth and in the Night and the Day
Here Allah tells of His perfect might and power in His creation and subjugation of all things.
[أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ]
(Have not those who disbelieve known) means, those who deny His Divine nature and worship others instead of Him, do they not realize that Allah is the One Who is Independent in His powers of creation and is running the affairs of all things with absolute power So how can it be appropriate to worship anything else beside Him or to associate others in worship with Him Do they not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, i.e. in the beginning they were all one piece, attached to one another and piled up on top of one another, then He separated them from one another, and made the heavens seven and the earth seven, placing the air between the earth and the lowest heaven. Then He caused rain to fall from the sky and vegetation to grow from the earth. He says:
[وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَآءِ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ حَىٍّ أَفَلاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ]
(And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe) meaning, they see with their own eyes how creation develops step by step. All of that is proof of the existence of the Creator Who is in control of all things and is able to do whatever He wills.

We see that there's nothing contradicting science, and indeed that the descriptions in the qur'an are surprisingly accurate.

Claim 5.2:
The earth formed 9 billion years after the big bang in some tiny outpost of a vast universe. One could hardly think of a more inaccurate description of the big bang then this verse.
Appeal to false authority
Well for starters the argument is building on a false interpretation of the verse. If you look at the actual tefsir, quoted in the previous paragraph it's clear that this verse does not explain big bang, but instead explains the formation of earth.

Claim 5.3
It does however follow very precisely creation mythologists that were believed in at the time of Muhammed. According to the Sammarians the heavens had been separated from the earth. And the idea that the heaven and the earth were one single block which was broken into two was common in ancient Egypt.
Equivocation fallacy
Those ideas were nothing alike. First of all, the Sammarian account says that the heavens had been separated from the earth is different from what the verse is saying. Just because they might share some similarity, doesn't mean we should dismiss the qur'anic description as well. The verse does not contradict our scientific knowledge, the Sammarians viewpoint does.
Secondly the Egyptian beliefs are ripped completely out of context to make fit the subscription. Nut and Geb were not a "unified" heaven and earth; they were idols considered to be husband and wife. In fact, its even ludicrous to suggest that Islam, which is so firm against polytheism, would draw inspiration from such mythology.

Claim 6:
The Qur'an reveals that everything comes from water before this was known. [refering to 21:30] And once again it is false. Aristotle records that: Thales believed: "that it (the nature of things) is water". And Anaximander stated that: "life came from the sea"
Equivocation Fallacy
The quoted references are hardly equal to the claim in the Qur'anic verse. The first is very vague, and relies on interpretation, the second only makes a partial claim saying that life came out of water, rather then claiming everything came out of water.

Claim 7:
The Qur'an reveals that the planets move in orbit before this was known. [quoting 21:33] This verse clearly reflects the view current in Muhammed's day that the sun moon and planets all moved around the earth. There is absolutely nothing in this verse that suggests anything else.
Equivocation fallacy
There is nothing in this verse that suggests they move around the earth. The earth isn't even mentioned in this verse. So to claim that this verse is a reflection of ancient erroneous views is yet again a equivocation fallacy.

Claim 8:
The Qur'an reveals an expanding universe before this was known. [quoting 51:47] First off this verse is not talking about the universe it's talking about the sky. And secondly it makes no sense to suggest that God is expanding the universe after the verse has just said: "God has built the sky." (passed tense). Since the universe was already expanding 9 billion years before the sky was formed.
Again we're dealing with Harun Yahya's mistakes. The verse and official Tefsir though, make perfect sense. and there's no reason to believe they're not miraculous, just because of Harun Yahya's lousy interpretation of it.

Claim 9:
The Qur'an reveals the gaseous state of the universe before the big bang before this was known. [quoting 41:11] Firstly Gas and smoke are not the same thing. Gas is a state of matter, smoke is a collection of solids liquids and gasses that are emitted when a material combusts. Secondly, if one looks at the verses before and after this verse, one can see very clearly that it cannot have anything to do with the gaseous state of the universe.
Yet another examples of Harun Yahya's bad Tefsir. The original verse and explication make perfect sense. Harun Yahay's interpretation does however not.

Claim 10.1:
The Quran mentioned the 7 layers of the atmosphere before this was known. [quoting 2:29] First off all modern science usually specifies 5 layers, not seven.
Yet again, an example of Harun Yahya's unreliable interpretations.

Claim 10.2:
But more importantly the Qur'an is obviously not talking about the atmosphere but rather about the heavens; where the moon, sun, planets and stars are. Because it also says: [quoting 37:6] And also [quoting 71:15-16]. One hardly needs to point out that the stars sun and moon are nowhere near the earth's atmosphere. The Qur'an is clearly talking about the pre-Copernican view of the universe; that regarded the earth as the centre with the seven heavens containing the sun moon planets and stars around it.
This one I cannot respond to, can anyone with knowledge of Arabic please clarify this one? What I can tell with my limited knowledge is that indeed all three verses appear to use the same word for heaven: سماء or aren't they?

[salman]

on sperm in ribs; this is Islamic orthodox understanding regarding this issue, everything else is off the hook:
Qur'an 86:6-7 - Sperm is produced in backbone? refutation
The Quran Does NOT say that Sperm is created from between the backbone and Ribs!

Links to another thread on the topic of scientific miracles in the Qur'an and it was not too long ago: Help to refute objections against existence of God and Qur'anic Scientific Miracles

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
First link says invalid link;
Second link doesn't load.

[salman]

wa'alaykum as-salam

jazak Allah khayr for notifying akhee, i have fixed the broken link. The second one is from Multaqa and it is often slow or down. What I will do is that copy the posts from there to our link and that should work just fine, insha'Allah

[yhunt]

Assalamualaikum! JazakAllah khair for your quick responses!! May Allah subhanu'watala reward you all for your hard work.ameen.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
MashaAllah, that first link explains the issue quite thoroughly.
Anybody got something for that last claim that is still un-answered?

[Ibrahim]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aleykum
MashaAllah, that first link explains the issue quite thoroughly.
Anybody got something for that last claim that is still un-answered?

Hi iv been having some confusion lately as well. The quran states everything was made of water. But what about jin (who are created our of fire)
The quran also states everything was made of pairs, but what about those asexual bacteria and hermaphrodites and stuff
and what about angels. There are no female angels, so how are they in pairs
can someone please help solve my confusion
my iman and trust in Allah and quran is not high i dont know why
can anyone suggets ideas to increase my iman and knowledge

[Abdul-Fattah]

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

Hi iv been having some confusion lately as well. The quran states everything was made of water. But what about jin (who are created our of fire)
The quran also states everything was made of pairs, but what about those asexual bacteria and hermaphrodites and stuff
and what about angels. There are no female angels, so how are they in pairs
can someone please help solve my confusion
my iman and trust in Allah and quran is not high i dont know why
can anyone suggets ideas to increase my iman and knowledge

Aselam aleykum
My advice to you is, look up the exact verses and go to Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir
There you find a reliable tafsir of the qur'an most of those confusions are already cleared when reading this. It's just so dificult for us since we don't know arabic, but when you see the tafsir you see that almost all the confusion arises from innacurate translations. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the translations of the Qur'an are bad, they are however merely a translation, and can only provide us with the basic information, not always the finer nuances that are language-specific.

ps: if you find clarification for your questions in the tefsir, or if it causes even more confusion, do post it here inshaAllah, and we can see from there.

[TheRationalizer]

As Salamu Alayka yaa Abdul-Fattah

There are two possible scenarios
1: Information in the Quran was known.
2: Some information in the Quran was unknown.

Case 1 is easy to prove if we can find a single historical reference to a human having possession of this information. Even if we cannot work out how Muhammad could have come into possession of the information we still cannot consider the Quranic verse a miracle because it rules out the possibility that the ONLY way Muhammad could possess the information is through supernatural revelation.

Case 2 is harder to prove because all worldly knowledge of the time may not have been documented. However if the information was not discovered until more recently (say the last 500 years) due to technological discoveries then it would be a good candidate for consideration. However the information must clearly state the fact. If the statement can be considered true for example whether the Sun orbited the Earth or vice versa then it is not a clear statement and therefore not a miracle.

So, are you someone who believes in case 1 or case 2? If you are a believer of case 2 then would you please present your SINGLE most convincing example of this argument and explain exactly why it describes the phenomenon in question?


Regards

TR