THIS IS A VERY EXTREMELY GOOD READ.
El Jefe
medical situation in Arabia , at the time of Mohammed? From the
Hajramount in Yemen , the caravans of the spice trade past North,
through Mecca and Medina , and then reached into all of Europe . In
North Arabia, in about 500 A.D., the Gazaneeds took over, and by 528,
they controlled the Cyrian deserts over to the outskirts of Medina .
‘Syraic’… a form of Aramaic, related to Arabic, was their official
language. As early as 463, the Jews translated the Torah and Old
Testament from Hebrew, into ‘Syriac’ - The British Museum has a copy.
This made it available to the Guscians, who were Christians and to the
Jewish tribes in Arabia . During this time Syrgius Cyrra Cynie who
died in Constantinople in 536, one of the earliest and greatest
translators from Greek into Syraic, translated various works on
medicine, including 26 works of Galen. This made them available in the
kingdom of Khasrov I, in Persia and to the Ghasan tribe, whose
influence extended to the outskirts of Medina . Khasrov I, Arabic
Khisra, King of Persia, was known as Khasrov the great. His troops
conquered areas as far away as Yemen, and he also loved learning, and
started several - schools. The school of Jundi Shapueer became during
Kasrov first’s long reign of 48 years. The greatest intellectual
center of the time. Within it’s walls Greek, Jewish, Nostorian,
Persian and Hindu thoughts and experience were freely exchanged.
Teaching was done largely in Syriac, from Syraic translations of Greek
texts. This method Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen were readily
available when the Medical School of Jundi Shapaer was operating
during his reign.
The next step was that the conquering Arabs compelled the Nostorians
to translate their Cyriac text of Greek medicine, into Arabic. The
translation from Syriac to Arabic was easy, as the two languages had
the same grammar.
Considering the local medical situation during Mohammed’s life, we
know there were physicians living in Arabia during this period. Harith
bin Caladia was the best educated physician trained in the healing
art. He was born about the middle of the 6th century at Taif, in the
tribe of Bani Sakif. He travelled through Yemen, and then Persia,
where he received his education in the Medical Sciences, at the great
Medical School of Jundi Shapuer and thus was intimately acquanted with
the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen. Having
completed his studies, he practiced as a Physician in Persia, and
during this time he was called to the court of King Kkosrov, with whom
he had a long conversation. He came back to Arabia about the beginning
of Islam, and settled down at Taif. While there, Abu Khair, a King of
Yemen came to see him in connection with a certain disease, and on
being cured, rewarded him with much money, and a slave girl. Though
Harith bin Caladia did not write any book on Medicine, his views on
many medical problems are still preserved in his conversation with
Kkasrov. About the eye, he says that it constituted of ‘fat’, which is
the white spot. The second is constituted with ‘water’, which is the
black part. And of ‘wind’ which constitutes the eyesight. All these
things we know to be wrong now - But this was Greek thought. All is
goes to show the acquaintance of Harith with the Greek doctors.
Summarising the situation in a few words in his book, ‘Eastward
delamitry Arabs’, Dr. Lucaine La’ Clerk writes…Harith bin Caladia
studied medicine in Jundi Shapur, and Mohammed owed to Harith the part
of his medical knowledge. Thus with the one as well as the other, we
easily recognize the traces of Greek medicine. Sometimes Mohammed
treated the sick, but in the difficult cases he would send the
patients to Harith.
Another educated person around Mohammed, was Nadir bin Harith. Not
related to the doctor. He was a Quraishite and cousin of Mohammed, and
had also visited the court of Khosrov. He had learned. Persian and
music, which he introduced among the Quraish at Mecca. However he was
not sympathetic to Mohammed, marking some of the stories in the
Qur’an. Mohammed never forgave him for this, and when he was taken
prisoner in the battle of Badr, he caused him to be put to death.
In summary we see that…
1) Arabs living in Mecca and Medina in 600, had political and
economical relations with people from Ethiopia , Yemen , Persia and
Byzantine.
2) A cousin of Mohammed knew Persian well enough, to do his musical
studies in it. 3) The Ghasine tribe which ruled the Syrian desert over
to the gates of Medina, used Syriac. One of the main languages used to
teach medicine at Jundishapur is their official language.
4) An ill king of Yemen came to Taif, to consult the physician Harith
Bin Caladia, who had been trained well at Jundishapur - the best
medical school in that world, and to whom Mohammed sometimes send
patients.
5) During Mohammed’s lifetime a new medical school was established in
Alexandria , using the 16 books of Galen as their text.
This all shows that there was ample opportunity for Mohammed and the
people around him, to have heard the embryological theories of
Aristotle, Heppocrates s and Galen, when they went to seek treatment
from Harith bin Colada and other local doctors. Thus when the Qur’an
says in the late Meccan Surah of ‘The Believer’, 40: 67…‘He it is who
created you from dust, then from a sperm drop, then from a leach like
clot, that perhaps you may understand’. And then in the Surah of ‘The
Pilgrimage’… ‘O! Mankind! If you have doubt about the resurrection,
consider that we have created you from dust’.
It is correct for us to ask again, what were they to understand? What
were they to consider? And here are the Qur’anic stages again –
1- Nutfa… ‘sperm’,
2- Alaqa… ‘clot’,
3- Mudga… ‘piece of meat’,
4- Azaam… bones. And…
5- dressing of bones with muscles.’
The answer is very clear. They were understanding and considering that
which was common knowledge, the embryological stages as taught by the
Greek physicians.
I don’t mean that Mohammed’s listeners all knew the names of the Greek
physicians - But they knew the embryological stages of the Greek
physicians.
1- They believed that the male sperm mixed with the female menstrual
blood to cause it to clot, and this became the baby.
2- They believed there was a time when the fetus was formed, and
unformed.
3- They believed the bones formed first, and then was covered with
muscles.
Allah was using that common knowledge as a sign, encouraging the
listeners and readers to turn to Him. The trouble is that this common
knowledge was, and is not true.
Arab physicians after Mohammed: We must now look at two well-known
Physicians, from the period after Mohammed. Obviously they had no
effect on the Qur’an, but they demonstrated that faith, and the
embryological ideas of Aristotle, Heppocrates and Galen, continued
among the Arabs right up to the sixteen hundreds. If the correct
translation of Alaqa is ‘leach like substance’, as modern Muslims like
Shabbir Ali claim, there is no place for these post Qur’anic doctors
said so. In fact it is just the opposite. The ideas of these Greek
Physicians were being used to explain the Qur’an, and the Qur’an was
coded to enlighten the meaning of the Greek Physicians.
The human being takes its origin from two - This is speaking about
Avicenna. The human being takes its origin from two things – the male
sperm which plays the part of factor – the female sperm… first part of
the menstrual blood, which provides the matter. Thus we see that Ibn
Sina gave the female semen, exactly the same role that Aristotle has
assigned to the menstrual blood. It is difficult to overstate the
importance of Ibn Sina, as a scientific and philosophical authority,
for the pre modern Europeans.
Then we are going to look at Ibn Qaima Jaujia. Ibn Qaim took full
advantage of the agreement between Qur’anic Revelation and Greek
medicine. It is not very clear probably, but the Hippocrates is in
purplish, and the Qur’an is in bold type green, and the Hadith is in
purple, and commentaries are in red, and his own thoughts, in sort of
a blue-green. So it starts out – He is giving - He says Hippocrates
said, in the third Ch. of Kitab al-Ajinna….‘The semen is contained in
a membrane, and it grows because of the blood of its mother, which
descends to the womb. Some membranes are formed at the beginning,
others after the second month and others in the third month’. And this
phrase about the blood descending to the womb, we saw it when we
looked at Hippocrates slide. That is why God said, here in the Qur’an
is mentioned…‘He creates you in the womb of your mothers, by one
formation after another, in three darkness. That is Qur’an 39 : 6.
Then he gives his own ideas…. ‘Since each of these membranes has its
own darkness when God mentioned the stages of creation and
transformation from one state to another. He also mentioned the
darkness of the membranes’. Most commentators explain, and here are
the words of the commentators…‘It is the darkness of the belly and the
darkness of the womb and the darkness of the placenta.
In a second example, we read, Hippocrates said…‘The mouth opens up
spontaneously and the nose and ears are formed from the flesh. The
ears are opened and the eyes which are filled with a clear liquid.’
The Prophet used to say… ‘I worship Him who made my face and formed
it, and opened my hearing, and eye sight and …… and so forth. Here we
look at Hippocrates again, and they are in the second stage. It is the
same thing, which I read. Ibn Qaim is quoting Hippocrates, and speaks
about the mother’s blood descends around the membrane.
He could do this as we have seen, because the educated people of
Mohammed’s time were familiar with Greek medicine. However what is
important for us here today to realize is, that there is no place
where the Qur’an corrected Greek medicine. There is no place for Ibn
Qaim shouting…“Hey you guys you got it this all wrong - the correct
meaning of ‘Alaga’ is, ‘that which clings’, or ‘leech’ like
substance.” On the contrary, even Qaim is demonstrating the agreement
between the Qur’an and the Greek medicine - Their agreement in error.
A final witness is the commentary of Badawi in 1200 A.D. Here we have
the commentary. We have the… we have the Qur’an here, we have his
commentary, and here it is being translated. And he says then from
‘Alaqa’…‘a piece of solid blood’, is his explanation of ‘Alaqa’,
‘Alaqa’ is underlined - that is from the Qur’an. And here is his
explanation… ‘A piece of solid blood.’ Then he goes on… ‘Then from a
piece of meat’ - from the Qur’an. ‘A piece of meat originally as much
as can be chewed, and so forth.’
As I mentioned in the beginning of the study, it is been said that the
idea of the embryo developing through stages, is a modern one and that
the Qur’an is anticipating modern embryology, by depicting different
stages. Yet we have seen that Aristotle, Hippocrates, the Indians and
Galen have all discussed the stages of embryological development,
during the thousand years before the Qur’an. And after the coming of
the Qur’an, the court of the different stages, as described by the
Qur’an and the Greek doctors, was carried on in the teachings of
Avicenna and Ibn Qaim - and is essentially the same as that taught by
Galen, and those preceding him.
Concerning the bone stage, it is clear as Dr. Moore demonstrated so
capably is his text book that muscles start forming from the somites,
at the same time as the cartilage models of the bone. There is no bone
stage where there is a skeleton sitting here, and then and then the
muscles are plastered around it.
It is equally clear that ‘Alaqa’ in the Qur’an, means ‘clot’ and that
the Quraish who heard Mohammed speaking, understood him to be
referring to the menstrual blood, as the female contribution to the
developing baby. Therefore we can conclude that during all these
years, the Qur’anic Verses on embryology, saying that man is created
from a drop of sperm, which becomes the clot, were in perfect record
with the science of the 1st century of the Hijra, of the time of the
Qur’an. But when compared with the modern science of the 20th century,
Hippocrates is in error, Aristotle is in error, Galen is in error, and
the Qur’an is in error - They are all in serious error.
Now we are going to look a little bit about, ‘moon light.’ Does the
Qur’an state that…‘The moon gives off reflected light from the sun’,
before his was common knowledge? In the Surah Noor, 71 : 15 - 16, it
says… ‘See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens, one above
another and made the moon a light…‘Nur’ in their midst, and made the
sun as a lamp…‘Siraj.’ The moon is called a ‘light’…Arabic ‘Nur’ - and
the sun a lamp -‘Siraj’. Some Muslims claim that since the Qur’an
uses different words, speaking from about the light of the sun, and
the light of the moon, it reveals that the sun is a source of light,
while the moon only reflects light. This claim is implied very
strongly by Shabbir Ali in his booklet…‘Science in the Qur’an’ - and
stated clearly by Dr. Zakir Naik in his Video - ‘Is the Qur’an God’s
Word’ as you will now see clearly.
(Dr. Naik Video Clipping) “The light that we have… the light that we
obtain from the moon - where does it come from? So he will tell me
that previously we thought that the light of the moon was its own
light. But today after science has advanced, we have come to know that
the light of the moon is not its own light, but a reflected light of
the sun. I will asked him a question, that its is mentioned in this
Qur’an, in Surah Al- Furqaan , Ch. No..25, Verse No.61…‘Blessed is He,
who has created the constellation and placed therein a lamp and a moon
which has reflected light. The Arabic word for moon is ‘Qamar’, and
the light described there is ‘Munir’- which is borrowed light, or
‘Nur’, which is a ‘reflection of light.’ The Qur’an mentions that the
light of the moon is reflected light. You say you discovered it today?
…How come it is mentioned in the Qur’an 1400 years ago? He will pause
for a time - He won’t reply immediately and then he may say…‘May be,
may be it is a fluke.’ I don’t argue with him for sake…..”
(Dr. Campbell) Near the end of the video we heard Dr. Naik explain the
Arabic word for ‘moon’ is ‘Qamar’, and the light described there is
‘Munir’, which is ‘borrowed light’ or ‘Nur’, which is a reflection of
light.’ Please do not forget what he said… ‘Munir is borrowed light,
and Nur is reflected light.’ Not only is this claim to be a statement
in keeping with scientific truth, but it also claimed to be
scientifically miraculous, since this was supposedly only discovered
relatively, recently.
It is correct that the moon does not emit its own light, but only
reflects the light of the sun - But this was known already almost a
thousand years before Mohammed. Aristotle in about 360 BC discussed,
knowing that the earth was round, by its shadow on the moon. He could
only speak of the Earth’s shadow crossing the Moon, if he knew that
Moon’s light is reflected light.
If you still insist that this is a miracle of scientific knowledge,
then we must ask ourselves…‘Do the Qur’anic words themselves support
this claim?’ ‘Siraj’ - first we shall look at ‘Siraj.’ In Surah
Nur which was read above, in Surah Al Furqaan, 25 : 61, it is
simply ‘lamp’… referring to the Sun. In Surah Naba, 78:13, ‘Siraj
Wahjan’ means ‘a dazling lamp’, again indicating the Sun.
The words ‘Nur’ and ‘Munir’ comes from the same Arabic word.
Root: The word Munir is used 6 times in the Qur’an 4 times Suratul
Imran, 3 : 184, Al Haj 22 : 8, Lukman 31: 20 and Fatir 35 : 35. It is
the phrase ‘Kitabul Munir’, which Yusuf Ali translates as… ‘A book of
enlightenment’ and Picktall uses… ‘The Scripture giving light.’
Clearly this indicates a book which is radiating the light of
knowledge. Nothing about ‘reflection’… ‘Nur’.
It says in Surah Nur, 71:16 and Yunus, 10:5 that… ‘Allah made the
light… the Moon a light.’ Thus we find that the Qur’an says that the
Moon is a light, and it never says that the Moon reflects light.
Moreover in other Verses, the Qur’an says that… ‘Allah is a Nur… a
light.’ Surah Nur, 24:35, one of the most beautiful passages in the
Qur’an reads… ‘Allah is the light… Nur of the Heavens and the Earth.
The parable of His light, is as if there was a niche and within it a
lamp, the lamp enclosed in glass. The glass as it was a brilliant star
and so forth.’ Thus we see that the word ‘Nur’ is used for both, ‘the
moon’ and ‘Allah.’ Are we going to say that Allah gives off reflected
light? I think not. But if you continue to insist that ‘Nur’ used for
the Moon, means ‘borrowed’ or ‘reflected light’, and we saw above,
that Allah is ‘the light’… Nur of the Heavens and the Earth. What is
the source of this light? ‘Siraj’, of which Allah is only a
reflection?
Think about it! If Allah is named ‘Nur’ or a ‘reflected light’… who or
what, is the ‘Siraj’? Well the Qur’an tells us who the ‘Siraj’ is? But
the answer will shock you. In Surah Al Ahzab, 33:45, 46 we find… ‘O
Prophet! Surely We have send thee as a witness, a bearer of glad
tidings and a warner, and as a lamp spreading light. Here it says that
Mohammed is the lamp spreading light. In Arabic it is ‘Sirajaan
Munira’ Linguistically and spiritually, this is the end of the
discussion. Linguistically ‘Siraj’ and the adjective ‘Moon’ here are
used together for the same shining thing - the person Mohammed.
It is clear ‘Munir’ does not mean reflected light in this verse or in
any other verse. It means shining. The people of Mohammed’s time
understood that the Moon was shining, and they were right. Just as the
people of Moses’ time understood that the Sun was the greater light,
and the Moon the lesser light, and they were right. But if you insist,
the Arabic words ‘Nur’ and ‘Moon’ here mean reflected light, then
based on the use of these words in the Qur’an, Mohammed is like the
‘Sun’ and ‘Allah’ is like the ‘Moon.’ Does Dr. Naik really want to say
that Mohammed is the source of Light, and Allah is only his
reflection? Why are these so called scientific claims made, which no
Muslim can support, if he make a serious study of his own Qur’an. In a
dialogue like tonight it makes an honest discussion very difficult -
almost impossible.
Let us go on and look at the water cycle. Some Muslim authors claim
that the Qur’an shows pre scientific knowledge of water cycle. What is
the water cycle? Here in this slide, you see four steps. The first
step is evaporation. The water evaporates from the seas and the earth.
Second step it becomes clouds. Third step, it gives rain. And fourth,
this rain causes the plants to grow. Seems all very straight forward,
and everybody knows 2, 3 and 4. Even if they live in a town, they know
that clouds come and rain comes, and the flowers grow. But what about
step one – ‘the evaporation.’ We cannot see it. It is difficult. And
the Qur’an does not have step one.
Now we are going to look at a Prophet from the Bible - Prophet from
700 B.C… Prophet Amos. And he writes: ‘He who made the Pleiades and
Orion, Who turns blackness into dawn, and darkens day into night, and
then Who calls out for the waters, of the sea.’… Stage one. And pours
them out over the face of the land… stage three - The Lord (Yahweh) is
His name.
And one other Prophet is Job, in 36:26-28, at least a thousand years
before the Hijra. He says… ‘How great is God! Beyond our
understanding! The number of his years is past finding out. Stage one
He draws up the drops of water which distill from the mist as rain.
That is stage three. And then the clouds are mentioned – Stage two -
Which pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.
So here in the Bible, this difficult stage one, is there for more than
a thousand years, before the Qur’an.
Now let us go on and look at Mountains. The Qur’an has more than a
dozen Verses stating that God placed firm and unmovable mountains on
the Earth. And in some of these Verses, the mountains are listed as
either a blessing for believers, or a warning for the unbelievers. One
example of this is found in the Surah Luqman, 31:10,11, where the
mountains are one of five warnings. It says: ‘He has created the
heavens without support, that you can see, and has cast aalqa onto the
earth…‘firm mountain’–‘Rawaasiya’, lest it should shake with you. In
‘The Prophets’… Al-Ambiya, 21:31, as one of seven warnings we read…
‘And We have set on the earth, firm mountains lest it should shake
with you….. with them. ’Finally in ‘The Bee’… Nahl, 16:15, says that…
‘He has cast ‘aalga’ onto the earth… ‘firm mountains’ ‘Rawaasiya’,
lest it should shake with you.
We see then that the believers and the Non-believers are told, that
Allah has done this great thing. He strolled down and placed the
mountains, so that the earth will not shake violently with them.
Therefore we must ask ourselves… ‘What did they understand?’
In the next two Verses, another picture is given, ‘The News’, Al-Naba
78 : 6-7… “Have We not made the Earth an expanse, and the mountains as
stakes ‘Al – jebaala awtaad’, as those used to anchor a tent in the
ground. And then ‘The Overwhelming’ Al-Ghashiya, 88:17-19… ‘Do they…
the unbelievers not look at the mountains… ‘Al-jibaal’… how they have
been pitched like a tent?’ Here men are told that the mountains are
placed as tent pegs -Tent pegs keep the tents, stable. So again the
idea is put forward that the pegs… the mountains will keep the earth
from shaking.
A third picture is presented in the word ‘Rawaasiya’, used for
mountains. This word comes from the Arabic root ‘Arsa.’ And the same
root is used for the Arabic word for ‘anchor.’ To ‘throw out’ or ‘cast
the anchor’ is aalgaa almirsaa. So instead of ‘Cast the anchor to keep
the ship from moving’. ‘We have cast the mountains, to keep the earth
from shaking’. From these pictures, it is clear that Mohammed’s
followers understood that the mountains were thrown down like tent
pegs, to keep a tent in place like an anchor to hold the ship in
place. To stop the earth from moving or limit earthquakes.
But in fact this is false. The forming of mountains causes earthquake.
Therefore these Verses present a definite problem. Dr. Maurice Bucaile
recognized this, and discussed them in his book… ‘The Bible, the
Qur’an and Science.’ After quoting the above Verses about ‘Mountains’,
he says… ‘Modern Geologists described the faults in the Earth, as
giving foundations to the mountains, and the stability of the Earth’s
crust results from this phenomenon of these faults. When asked about
this, Professor of Geology, Dr. David A. Young says… ‘While it is true
that many mountain ranges are composed of folded rocks and the folds
maybe of large scale, it is not true that the folds render the crust
stable. The very existence of the fold, is evidence of instability in
the crust.’ In other words, mountains don’t keep the earth from
shaking - their formation caused and still causes the surface of the
earth to shake.
Geological theories of the present time propose, that the hardened
crust of the earth is made of sections and plates, which slowly move
with relation to each other. Sometimes the plates separate, like North
and South America, separating from Europe and South Africa . And some
times they go together and they slide next to each other, and they
bump into each other, and then they cause earthquakes. An example of
this type of mountain formation is found in the Middle East, where the
migration of Arabia towards Iran , has resulted in the Zagross range
in Iran. In many parts of the world, as one travels along the roads,
one sees a hillside, where the sand storm layers which were horizontal
when they were deposited, are now sticking up at angles. And so here
you can see, these sand storm layers, which were horizontal in the
beginning, now they are striking up at 75 degrees. They were pushed up
there by an earthquake, by the mountains being formed.
Sometimes the plates get caught on each other and starts sliding -
During this period, great forces are built up. When the forces of
friction are overcome, the piece of plate that was stuck, lurches
forward, causing a shock wave of a thrust quake, and then all of a
sudden it goes ‘dumm’ like this.
In a recent earthquake, it was calculated that the Cocos Plate in
Mexico , suddenly jumped forward 3 meters. Well if your house suddenly
jump 3 meters, there will be a Catastrophe.
Another type of mountain is that formed by volcanoes. Lava and ash
from inside the earth are thrown out and piled up, until a high
mountain is formed - Even from the bottom of the sea. And we can see
this kind of action in this picture. I hope you can see it - Not clear
is it? The ocean crust is right here and the continental crust is
there, and the oceanic crust is going down under the continental
crust, and mountains have been found here. Here is the volcano, and
here is the magma of the molted rock, going up through the volcano,
and here is another volcano with magma going up. And so this is how
the mountains are formed and earthquakes are formed.
In the case of some igneous mountains, molten rock intrudes into the
probe of the volcano’s opening and cools, to form a relatively dense
intrusion, which extends below the surface of the earth. So this… if
this gets stuck and sealed, then it would be like a plug - However it
is not a root. It does not bear the weight of the mountain - It is
really a plug. Therefore at occasions, pressure builds up under the
plug, and the volcano explodes as happened in the South Pacific at
Crackato, in 1883 when the whole island was blown away. And it
happened at Mount Saint Halena in our days, when a mountain was blown
away.
We can conclude from this information, that mountains were formed
originally with movement and shaking, and that now in the present,
earthquakes are caused by their continued formation. When the plates
buckle over each other, there are earthquakes - When the volcanoes
erupt there can bring earthquake. However it is clear that the
followers of Mohammed were understanding these Verses, to say that
Allah threw the mountains down, as a tent peg or anchors, to keep the
Earth from shaking. Throwing the mountains down under the Earth may be
poetry, but to say that mountains keep the Earth from shaking is a
severe difficulty, which is out of step with modern science.
Now we are going to take a little look at … what the Qur’an says about
the ‘Sun.’ In the Surah of the Kahf, 18:86, it says… ‘Until when
Zulqarnain… that is Alexander the great, reached the setting of the
sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water.’ I’m sorry - In 20th
Century Science... the Sun does not set in a spring of murky water.
And then in ‘The Criterion’, Al Furqaan, 25:45 to 46, it says… ‘Hast
thou not turned thy vision, to thy Lord - how He prolongs the shadow!
If He willed, He could make it stationary! Then do We (God) make the
sun its guide.” What about this? Has the sun… if we think of the sun
overhead, you have no shadow or a little tiny shadow, and then as the
sun goes down, your shadow gets longer on the other side. Well the sun
is stationary in relation to the Earth - It is not what causes the
shadow to shift. The rotating Earth guides the shadows. So if you
demand 20th century accuracy, the Surah should say… ‘The rotating
earth causes the shadows to change.
I would look at a different subject… ‘Solomon’s death.’ Whether this
is Science, I don’t know -Maybe sociology. Solomon’s death – He is
propped up on his staff. Says… ‘The jinn worked for him, as Solomon
desired. ‘Then when We decreed death upon Solomon, nothing showed them
his death, except a little creeping creature of the earth, which
gnawed away his staff. And when he fell, the jinn saw clearly how - If
they had known the unseen, they would not have continued in the
humiliating penalty of work.’ So here Solomon… he’s dead, propped up
on his staff, like a walker from Morocco overseeing only a road guy,
and no cook comes to ask him…what he wants for dinner. And no General
comes for orders, and none of his Nobles comes to say… ‘Lets go
hunting.’ No one notices. I’m sorry - I do not believe this story and
it won’t fit 20th century Sociology, or 7th century Sociology, where
the king will never be left alone like that.
Now finally let us look at ‘Milk.’ It says in the Surah of ‘The Bee’,
Nahl, 16:66… ‘We pour out to you from what is within their (the
cattle’s) abdomen, between excretions and blood – milk, pure and
agreeable to the drinkers.’ The abdomen where the intestines are….
Sorry - In 20th century medical science, the abdomens where the
intestines are… is where the intestines are - the mammary glands are
under the skin. In humans they are under the skin here - In cattle
they are under the skin between the legs. No connection - There is no
connection between the breasts and the intestines, and their feces, in
any way. Feces though in the body, it really is outside of the animal
- Animals has finished with it. It is not connected to milk or to
anything else.
And finally going to look at ‘Communities.’ The Surah of ‘The Cattle’,
Al – Anam 6:38, ‘There is not an animal on the earth, nor a being that
flies on two wings, but forms communities like you’…. Speaks about no
animal on earth, not a being that flies, and then it says, that every
one of them is communities like you - And I assume that the Qur’an is
speaking about we humans. Well, in some Spiders, when they finish
mating, the mother eats the father. Well I’m glad that my wife did not
eat me. Even in Bees, the extra male drones are thrown out to die.
Well I’m glad also that after we had four children, that my wife did
not push me out of the house too. Finally, the Lions. When the lion
gets old, the male lion gets old, a young lion comes along and drives
him away from his own wives, and the young lion takes over the wives.
But what he does with the cubs? The cubs of the old lion – he kills
them all. So I do not think that this stance is true all other
communities and all other animals do not live as communities like us.
In conclusion it is clear that the Qur’an has many scientific errors.
As a generality the Qur’an meets and reflects the science of its time
- the science of the 7th century AD. We came here to seek truth - I’ve
done my best to present valid information. If you want to see all the
references, my book… ‘The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of History
and Science’, is for sale outside that door, at a bargain price,
tonight. May the God of all truth, guide you - Thank you.
(Dr. Mohammed) Thank you Dr Campbell for your presentation. Now we
have Br. Sabeel Ahmed presenting an introduction of our next speaker,
Dr. Zakir Naik.
(Br Sabeel Ahmed) As Salaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah. It is my pleasure
to introduce one of the best scholars of our time, Dr. Zakir Abdul
Karim Naik. Age 34 years old, he is the president of Islamic Research
Foundation, Bombay , India . Though a medical doctor by professional
training, Dr. Zakir Naik is known as a dynamic international orator in
Islam and comparative Religion. Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic view
points, and clears misconceptions about Islam based upon the Qur’an,
Hadith and the other Religious Scriptures, as well as adhering to
reason logic and scientific facts.
He is popular for his critical analysis and convincing answers to
challenging questions posed by audiences, after his public talks. In
the last four years itself, Dr. Zakir Naik has delivered more than 400
public lectures world wide, in addition to many public talks in India.
He appears regularly on many international TV and Satellite TV channel
programs in several countries of the world. He has authored books on
Islam and comparative Religion. He has also participated in several
symposiums and dialogues, with prominent personalities of other
Religious faiths.
(Dr. Mohammed) May I announce, after the talks by both the speakers
and the response session, we would be having an open Question and
Answer session. So those who have come late, kindly note, we’ll have
questions on the mikes, followed by questions on index cards. Ladies
and gentlemen, may I call upon Dr. Zakir Naik to present his talk.
(Dr. Naik) …(Arabic)… Respected Dr. William Campbell, Dr. Maracuss,
Dr. Jamal Badavi, Br. Samuel Nauman, Dr. Mohammed Naik, my respected
elders and my dear brothers and sisters, I welcome all of you with the
Islamic greetings… ‘As Salaamo Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barkatahu.
May peace mercy and blessings of Allah Subhanawataala be on all of
you.
The topic of today’s dialogue is ‘The Qur’an and the Bible in the
light of Science.’ The Glorious Qur’an is the last and final
Revelation which was revealed to the last and final Messenger Prophet
Mohammed, peace be upon him. For any book to claim that it is a
Revelation from Almighty God, it should stand the test of time.
Are Miracles Real?
(Dr. Naik) Previously in the olden days, it was the age of miracles -
Alhamdulillah, the Qur’an is the miracle of miracles. Later on came
the age of literature and poetry, and Muslims and Non Muslims alike,
they claim the Glorious Qur’an to be the best Arabic literature
available on the face of the Earth. But today is the age of science
and technology.
(Ali Sina) Right from the onset, Dr. Zakir Naik makes two assumptions
that are both false. The first is the claim that “in the olden days,
it was the age of miracles”. We do not have any proof for such claim
except the fairytales of the ancient people passed to us as "holy
scriptures". Even then we see that Muhammad disclaimed being able to
perform any miracles. Unable to perform miracles, he claimed that the
Quran is his miracle. But the Quran is no miracle at all as you'll
come to see in this paper.
Dr. Naik makes another false statement and says that "both Muslims and
Non Muslims claim the Glorious Qur’an to be the best Arabic literature
available on the face of the Earth". This is not true. Only Muslims
make this claim. If Non-Muslims believed in this why they don't
convert? Non-Muslims have found many errors in the Quran, not only
scientifically and logically but also grammatically. Many actually
believe this book is the most asinine book ever written, not only
because it is violent but also because it is confused and very tedious
to read. Some of the earlier verses rhyme, but there is no beauty in
this book. Ali Dashti in his Book 23 years of Prophetic Career gives
us a list of such errors. Also M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton show more
than a dozen of grammatical errors of his book here
Einstein's Religiosity
(Dr. Naik) Let us analyze whether the Qur’an is compatible or
incompatible with modern science. Albert Einstein said… ‘Science
without Religion is lame, and Religion without Science is blind’.
(Ali Sina) For one thing Einstein did not believe in a personal God
but advocated cultivating Good, the True, and the Beautiful in
humanity itself. He wrote: “I do not believe in the God of theology
who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care
of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by
immutable laws.” [1]
And when he spoke of religion he did not have religions such as Islam
in mind. He wrote: “I have found no better expression than "religious"
for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is
accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science
degenerates into uninspired empiricism.[2]
Elsewhere he wrote: “The sense of the religious, which is released
through the experience of potentially nearing a logical grasp of these
deep-lying world relations, is … a feeling of awe and reverence for
the manifest Reason which appears in reality. It does not lead to the
assumption of a divine personality—a person who makes demands of us
and takes an interest in our individual being. In this there is no
Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being.
Einstein’s religion was a sense of veneration of the subtleties, the
intangible, and the inexplicable that lay behind all the discernible
concatenations of natural phenomena. It was not the “revealed”
religions that he spoke of. He called his religion a "cosmic
religious sense". "What I see in Nature” he wrote, “is a magnificent
structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must
fill a thinking person with a feeling of 'humility.' This is a
genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
Therefore it is misleading and hypocritical to quote Einstein who
opposed the idea of a personal and demanding god as taught in Islam to
take advantage for a kind of religion that he detested. Einstein's
idea of religion was completely distinct from what Islam stands for.
Islam is not in harmony with science. It is against it and therefore
it is not the kind of natural religion that Einstein was talking
about. It is the opposite of it. When Einstein said science without
religion is lame he was not speaking of Islam which is a blind
religion that opposes science.
(Dr. Naik) Let me remind you that the Glorious Qur’an is not a book
of Science…S-C-I-E-N-C-E, It is a book of signs S-I-G-N-S… It is a
book of Ayats. And there more than 6000 signs… Ayats in the Glorious
Qur’an out of which more than a thousand speak about science. As far
as my talk regarding Qur’an and Science is concerned, I will only be
speaking about scientific facts, which has been established. I will
not be speaking about scientific hypothesis and theories, which are
based on assumption without any proof, because we all know many a
times science takes U-turns.
Dr. William Campbell who wrote a reply to the book of Dr. Maurice
Bucaille… ‘The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and
science’ - He says in his book, that there are two types of
approaches. One is a concordance approach - Which means a person tries
to bring compatibility between the Scripture and science. And the
other is the conflict approach, in which a person tries to bring a
conflict between Scripture and science, like how Dr. William Campbell
has done very well. But as far as the Qur’an is concerned,
irrespective whether a person uses a conflicting approach, or a
concordance approach – As long as you are logical, and after a logical
explanation is given to you, not a single person will be able to prove
a single Verse of the Qur’an, in conflict with established modern
science.
Dr. William Campbell has pointed out various alleged scientific errors
in the Qur’an, and I am supposed to actually refute in the rebuttal.
But since he chose to speak first, I will be refuting a few points in
my talk - I will reply to the major part of his talk, mainly dealing
with Embryology and with Geology. The remaining InshaAllah,
InshaAllah, I will try my level best to reply in the rebuttal.
I have to do both - I cannot do injustice to the topic. The topic is…
‘Qur’an and Bible in the light of Science.’ I cannot only speak about
one Scripture - Dr. William Campbell hardly spoke about one or two
points about the Bible, which I will deal with InshaAllah. I will
speak about both InshaAllah, - I want to do justice to the topic.
(Ali Sina) Up to here is introduction and promises. From hereon he
begins with his response:
Big Bang in the Quran?
(Dr. Naik) As far as Qur’an and modern Science is concerned, in the
field of ‘Astronomy’, the Scientists, the Astronomers, a few decades
earlier, they described, how the universe came into existence - They
call it the ‘Big Bang’. And they said… ‘Initially there was one
primary nebula, which later on it separated with a Big Bang, which
gave rise to Galaxies, Stars, Sun and the Earth, we live in.’ This
information is given in a nutshell in the Glorious Qur’an, in Surah
Ambiya, Ch. 21, Verse No. 30, which says…. (Arabic).... Do not the
unbelievers see…? …. (Arabic)…. ‘That the heavens and the earth were
joined together, and we clove them asunder?’ Imagine this information
which we came to know recently, the Qur’an mentions 14 hundred years
ago.
(Ali Sina) In his fervor to make the Quran look scientific Dr. Naik
overlooks the fact that the theory of Big Bang precludes the concept
of creation. If Big Bang is true then the story of the creation and
Adam and Eve must be false and vice versa. This is elemental.
21:30, ‘The heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove
them asunder’
This is not an allusion to the Big Bang. It is the rehashing of the
Genesis:
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to
separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated
the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was
morning—the second day. Gen 1: 6-9
So if this is a miracle, the credit should go to the Bible and not to
the Quran. This fable, like many others, is borrowed from the Bible.
However, the origin of this tale dates back to pre biblical stories of
Babylonians and Mesopotamians.
The Quran is full of legends borrowed from the Bible and the fables of
the Pagan Arabs. These in turn were based on the myths of ancient
Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. Muhammad’s cosmology is the
cosmology of the ancient people. In pre-Hebrew Semitic myth two watery
tumultuous beings, one male and one female, Apsu (sweet water) and
Tiamat (salt water) give birth to a variety of sea monsters and gods.
In the ensuing chaos Tiamat, the female creator, tries to take
control. Her descendants unite against her, choosing one of their
number - Marduk, the god of Babylon to lead them. Armed with a
hurricane and riding a tempest drawn by four fiery steeds, Marduk
meets Tiamat and her evil accomplice Kingu in battle. He kills them
both.
The great god Marduk slaying Tiamat the dragon goddess of salt water.
She is the personification of the Untame, Primeval Forces of the
Universe before established order and the mother of all gods.
After the death of Tiamat her conqueror forms the heavens and the
earth by cutting her body open "like a cockleshell" and lifting up
one half to form the sky while leaving the bottom half as the earth:
"The lord rested; he gazed at the huge body, pondering how to use it,
what to create from the dead carcass. He split it apart like a
cockleshell; with the upper half he constructed the arc of sky, he
pulled down the bar". http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/worldview.html
So clearly Muhammad is not talking about the big bang. He is rehashing
a biblical tale that was borrowed from ancient mythology.
You can read more on this subject here http://www.faithfreedom.org/
debates/alAssadip5.htm
21:30 presents also another problem. It contradicts with the verse
41.11
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as)
smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or
unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing
obedience."
So which story is the right tale of the creation? Were the heaven and
the earth joined together and Allah clove them asunder or were they
apart and Allah told them to come together?
Of course both are false. The earth is inside the sky and part of it.
They can neither come together nor separate. Here we have two version
that contradict each other and both are scientifically wrong.
Does the Quran say the Sun and the Moon Revolve Around Their Own
Axis?
(Dr. Naik) When I was in school, I had learned that the Sun in respect
to the Earth - it was stationary - the Earth and the Moon, they
rotated about in axis, but the sun was stationary. But when I read a
Verse of the Qur’an saying, in Surah Al–Ambiya, Ch. . 21 Verse No. 33,
it says…. (Arabic). … ‘It is Allah who has created the night and the
day.’…. (Arabic)…. The sun and the moon…. (Arabic)…. Each one
traveling in an orbit with its own motion. Now Alhamdulillah, modern
science has confirmed the Qur’anic statement. The Arabic word used in
the Qur’an is ‘Yasbahoon’, which describes the motion of a moving
body. When it refers to a celestial body, it means it is rotating
about its own axis. So Qur’an says the sun and the Moon, they revolve
as well as rotate about their own axis. Today we have come to know
that the Sun takes approximately 25 days to complete one rotation.
(Ali Sina) Dr. Naikr claims that the verse 21:33 which says the sun
and the moon follow their orbits means they rotate around their axis
because the word يَسْبَحُونَ ysbahun means rotating around its own
axis. This is simply not true. Dr. Naik is fabricating evidence and
twisting the meaning of the words. The word here implies that the Sun
and the Moon rotate in circle, i.e. around the Earth and not around
their own axis. This is what Muhammad observed and this is what he
said. He stated what was obvious to him and to everyone else. See how
this word is translated.
Pickthall
They float, each in an orbit.
Yusuf Ali
swim along, each in its rounded course.
Hilali-Khan
each in an orbit floating.
Shakir
all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.
Sher Ali
each gliding along smoothly in its orbit.
Khalifa
each floating in its own orbit.
Arberry
each swimming in a sky.
Palmer
each floating in a sky.
Rodwell
each moving swiftly in its sphere.
Sale
[the celestial bodies] move swiftly, [each] in [its respective]
orb.
As one can see, Dr. Naik is in error. By bundling the Moon and the Sun
together, it is clear that Muhammad thought they are alike with one
being brighter than the other.
Attempts such as this, to twist the apparent meaning of the words
reveal the desperation of Muslims to find miracles and science in the
absurdities of the Quran and hide its errors. Why none of these so
called miracles attributed to Muhammad are in clear language? Why
Allah did not say the Earth is round and it is rotating around the Sun
and the Moon is rotating around the Earth? Simple and clear! In none
of the so called Quranic miracles you find clarity.
Then again, if the Quran is full of science why the Islamic countries
are most wretched? Muslim's response to this is that Muslims do not
practice Islam, that is why. But how is it that the Kafir countries
that do not practice Islam at all are better than Muslim countries
that practice it a little? Why virtually all the kafir countries are
more advanced than virtually all the Islamic countries? The more
Islamic a country gets the more backward, barbaric and poor it
becomes. Is there in this a lesson for us all?
This is what Dr Farrukh Saleem in Jang.com wrote:[3]
Fifty-seven Muslim majority countries have an average of ten
universities each for a total of less than 600 universities for 1.4
billion people; India has 8,407 universities, the U.S. has 5,758. From
within 1.4 billion Muslims Abdus Salam and Ahmed Zewail are the only
two Muslim men who won a Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry (Salam
pursued his scientific work in Italy and the UK , Zewail at California
Institute of Technology). Dr Salam in his home country is not even
considered a Muslim.
Over the past 105 years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel
Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167 Nobel
Laureates. Of the 1.4 billion Muslims less than 300,000 qualify as
'scientists', and that converts to a ratio of 230 scientists per one
million Muslims. The United States of America has 1.1 million
scientists (4,099 per million); Japan has 700,000 (5,095 per million).
A quick calculation reveals that the likelihood that a Jew wins the
Noble Prize is 2088 times higher than a Muslim winning it. If all the
science is in the Quran why all the Muslims are so miserable?
One of these eight "Muslim" Noble Prize winners is the Egyptian
novelist Naguib Mahfouz. One of his best known works, Children of
Gebelawi (1959), has been banned in Egypt for alleged blasphemy. In
1994 at the age of 82 yrs Mahfouz was stabbed by a man of Allah. When
asked if he has ever read any of Mahfouz's books, the servant of Allah
responded: "I never read any of his filthy books".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man
(Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in
Jammer, p.123.
[2] Letter to Maurice Solovine, I January 1, 1951; Einstein Archive
21-174, 80-871, published in Letters to Solovine , p. 119.
[3] www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2005-daily/08-11-2005/oped/o6.htm