Personal study of a friend's article
Introduction
This work is not written in a professional language and nor is my organization of material so accurate as that of researchers. Its reason is the lack of experience for such a thorough research. Nevertheless it was an excellent experience and I tried very hard to minimize the possibility of error. I am not going to give this research work a name for I don’t think I should. If it is named it will become something near to a book (although not published). But I don’t want to. There are three reasons for this. The first one is like ‘To tell the truth’; I expect better performance from my first book after reading books in English for about six years. The second reason is several borrowings from other author’s. The third one is the controversy of the topic. I would not like to write a book based on this topic.
I began the writing of this work on 28th June, Sunday.
I had never imagined it to be so difficult a task. The time taken in writing and organizing this work was much longer than my expectation. And working with an average of six hours per day is very exhausting. It becomes excruciating for eyes and back when one does the work on computer. Though computer eases some burden during organization. I guess I have used this word ‘organize’ more than enough. But I am apt to do it, as arrangement in helpful order was the most strenuous task of all and it continues to hang heavy on my head.
This work is divided into five parts.
Part I is a brief introduction of how and when I became atheist.
In Part II much is written about social sciences and the ground is prepared which will later help us throughout this discussion. I have described language families of the world, language change and ‘cultures’ which will endow us some spheres wherein we can study human beings and their thoughts.
Part III is the venue where we study Quran and Science. I have included some works of religious scholars or as I like to say apologists for our study.
Part IV holds further discussion for Quran, Science, and language.
Part V will be a philosophical inquiry of God and religion with some help from tools that I underlined in Part II. We will also study language. At the end I will attempt to make final conclusions with some additions to those of Part II.
For the following you are advised to be careful during observation and bear in mind important facts. You will also find extensive quotations and borrowings from other authors, which I have particularly done to make what I want to say clearer. You should also look into the dictionary now and then to find out the meanings of the words (I will write before the words in parentheses) you may not be familiar with. My language will occur speedy because it was difficult for me to write so many things in a small space and time. It may get boring here and there, most probably due to exhaustion of continuous work. I hope you will read it completely because I have put a lot of effort in it. Do not get carried away by the length of the work. You are urged not to miss anything if you find it uninteresting or difficult to understand because I have attempted to gradually open my points.
Part I
The beliefs that I currently hold are not just a consequence of Russell’s Why I am not a Christian? Which I am sure you have not read completely; or you have not understood completely or perhaps your faith and environment have not permitted you to fathom deeply. In fact, I read it a long time after I had become an atheist. However that is not my concern. What I should first like to relate is my own conquest in this field which I can take the risk of naming knowledge. The first book that I read and which bears some relationship to this topic was The solitaire mystery by Jostein Gaarder. I successfully concluded that there was indeed a God Who had created this universe and created us all. This was followed by Sophie’s World by the same author which more or less confirmed my previous beliefs except that I earned some acquaintance with various philosophers. To tell the truth, I did not completely understand it; partly because of my young age and young experience as most of the issues contained in it had never occurred to me, and partly because some of its contents were too difficult to grapple. Maya was the book that I read next. The author was yet again Jostein Gaarder and I must say most ashamedly that I managed to make too little out of it. I had also tasted the abstract metaphysical world wherein one can create notions, which are always peculiar to him, alone. I made up several ideas that do not have any reality and are not consistent with an objective approach. But there was not more to it.
In the period that ensued I was absorbed very much by Shiaism. It reached its zeal when I found that there was not a single article belonging to it that contradicted Quran and a greater part of Hadith. This was a part of the Shia beliefs of cracking off from the surface of an Ayat and searching the treasure that lies beneath. Yet, there were several social principles which seemed to contradict the universality of this faith. So that I felt much obsession in the period that followed and was transiently nicked by extremism in the process. When my father gave me The battle for God by Karen Armstrong the present setup began to drift. This combined with Jerusalem, one city, three faiths by the same author helped to ease some tight hold of dogmatic ideas. I should like to tell you that Miss Karen was among the first of those western intellectuals of religion who suggested that Muhammad was not a false Prophet and one of those Semites, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Her works also helped me to gain insight in other ‘Abrahamic religions’ and, of course, their history.
My brother who had been following me for some time in reading the philosophical books had reached, to my astonishment, very far. It was I who had to follow him now. A thorough study with a mind more capable than before of the previous topics (I am referring to Gaarder’s books) assisted me in unlocking most of his (Gaarder) ideas. There were two other books which taught me much about discrepancies in a religion and evolutionary biology. These were Christopher Hitchen’s God is not great and how religion poisons everything and The Selfish gene by Richard Dawkins. Their effects, however, were to be felt after the lapse of some time. Then I got in touch with philosophers of the past three centuries and awoke to the realities of Skepticism, Historicism, Nihilism and, later, Logical Positivism. The study of modern philosophy began in the beginning of 2008. Now I was prepared to proceed to the modern philosophy. I was equipped with much liberal mind this time of dear ‘Marxism, Leninism, etc’ and ready to swallow many truths. This was accompanied by Existentialism (not the existentialism of Descartes but of Sartre and Heiddegger), Sociology, Anthropology, (and half a year later) Philology, and Linguistics along with spoons of Structuralism. In the process I threw off the bonds of religion and also made several amendments to my previous ideas, sometimes readily and willingly and sometimes with painfully reluctant concessions but still I was being progressive.
Prior to that I had made several advances in History and Geography, which were particularly helpful in precise understanding of other studies. Before the beginning of my third year at o’levels, I read (not completely) Russell’s Why I am not a Christian? Reread some of his A free man’s worship. Although I had already become an atheist thanks to Doing Philosophy and Will Durant’s Pleasures of Philosophy where I came across much of anthropology, sociology and psychology. Then I studied parts of Analytic Philosophy, Logical Positivism (again), Philosophy of Science and the relation of Logic with Mathematics and Science. These were included in several books, notes and on Internet. I did not study this stuff again and again afterwards to discredit religion, but to learn modern philosophy. I do not wish to picture myself as the paragon of learning or an erudite but to make clear whence my beliefs could have emanated, and this is not all that I have studied; there is some more which has slipped my mind for the time being. Much of ‘which’ has been used hitherto and this is sufficient for Part I.
Part II
As I have said many times in your presence and absence we (6.2 billion) people of this planet are divided into several different races which are either a part of a parent or have descendants, depending on the angel we look through. We will study from the parent’s point of view. There are about twenty-four or more different type of peoples. Or perhaps it would do better to say that ‘there are about twenty-four different type of language families rather than peoples’. I do not have a better substitute for ‘peoples’ or ‘language families’ because both of us do not belong to the same ‘intellectual culture’.
These people (which includes us) are: Indo-Europeans, Hamito-Semitic (or Afro-Asiatic), Sino-Tibetan, Elamo-Dravidian, Ural-Altaic, Eskimo-Aleut, Native American, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Austronesian, Australian, Samoyed, Finno-Ugric, Basque, Khosian, Caucasian, Paleo-Siberian, Korean, Japanese, Burushaski, Austro-Asiatic, Vietnamese, Dai-Kadai and Papuan. However, all the scholars do not agree on exactly this model and differ as to the division of the some families. You should not worry about learning all these; but the first four may form part of our discussion, which I will try to keep brief. You can also gain precise information about their origins, spread and geographical distribution just by writing each name in google or wikipedia. It might arouse your interest.
Their Geographical distribution is as follows:
Asia: Indo-Europeans, Hamito-Semitic (or Afro-Asiatic), Ural-Altaic, Sino-Tibetan, Elamo-Dravidian, Caucasian, Paleo-Siberian, Korean, Japanese, Burushaski, Austro Asiatic, Vietnamese, Dai-Kadai and Papuan
Europe: Indo-Europeans, Ural-Altaic, Samoyed, Finno-Ugric, Basque, Caucasian
North and South Americas: Indo-Europeans, Native American
Africa: Indo-Europeans, Hamito-Semitic (or Afro-Asiatic), Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoi-san
Australia: Indo-Europeans, Australian (pama-Nyugun and non-pama-nyungun)
The map on the previous page does not illustrate language families exactly as I have described but it is still convenient for some important groups which may form part of our discussion; Indo-European (green), Afro-Asiatic (yellow), Sino-Tibetan (dark pink, in and around China) and Elamo-Dravidian (Bluish-green, southern India).
You may have noticed how the Indo-Europeans form a part of all the continents. They reached America, Africa and Australia through colonization. Hamito-Semitics, Ural-Altaic and Caucasian are spread over two continents as well. Caucasians have fallen into this geography by no effort of their own but restricting pressure of other peoples. There are other groups which sound lonely and individual such as Basque; much of this group is concentrated in northern Spain with a population of about 7 million but with no other relation. Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese and Papuan belong to the countries of their respective names. Khoi-san, Dai-Kadai and some of those mentioned above have no other relative. What is it that determines their identity? I used the terms ‘peoples’ and ‘language families’ earlier. So, to be brief, they are the ‘genetic’ and ‘linguistic’ similarities, which help us to recognize them.
All of these families originated from their own common ancestors and as they separated their languages formed dialects which became languages again and again dialects and so the story continued. This process will be explained later. The Indo-Europeans originated in Ukraine in about 6500BCE or before and spoke a common ‘Proto-Indo-European language’ until they expanded into Asia and Europe. Before Common Era was previously termed Before Christ, BC while CE was previously called Anno Domini. These migrations took place at different times and for different reasons which I cannot explain here due to brevity of time. As they became more and more separated they came in contact with peoples who influenced them and were influenced in turn so that their language began to differ. However there are many other reasons for language change but I have given only one. Now, I will divide the Indo-Europeans.
Germanic: (Gothic), English, German, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish.
Romance (or Romanic): (Latin), French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian.
Slavic (or Slavonic): Great Russian, Ukrainian, White Russian (or Belo-Russian) Polish, Czech, and Slovakian.
Baltic: Lettish, and Lithuanian.
Iranian (or Iranic): (Avestan), Persian, Pashto, Kurdish, Balochi, and Tajik.
Indo-Aryan (or Indic): (Sanskrit) Hindi/Urdu, Bengali, Gujarati, Sindhi, Punjabi, Sinhalese, and Siraiki.
Celtic: Irish, Gaelic, Welsh, and Breton.
Greek: (no further division)
Armenian: (no further division)
There are other language families in this group which have become extinct and also other languages residing in these families which I have not named because I do not wish to confuse you with many unfamiliar names. A language is not constant and keeps changing with time. The most significant way is by the lending and borrowing of words, metaphors and phrases to refer to objects and ideas which one has borrowed from another intellectual culture. These changes are caused sometimes by fusion with other languages, or getting influenced by other language and hence always by the continuous span of time due to the change in ‘intellectual culture’, ‘culture of fathomability’ and ‘culture of humour’. There are again several other reasons which I am not stating.
The above map illustrates the expansion of Indo-Europeans. But the homeland described here is different from what I have written.
English German French Latin Greek Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) Persian
Is Ist est
(ê) Est esti Asti Ast
(ê)
Look at the table above. It gives the cognates of the word ‘is’ used in several Indo-European languages. It would be nonsense to say that all these people borrowed it from one or the other. Of course, the rational explanation is that they were inherited from a common parent. There are thousands of other words, terms and examples which I have not used here for the scarcity of time and space. Moreover, modern science gives us genetic evidence to prove this.
Here is an example of counting in some Indo-European languages:
English Urdu Persian Siraiki French Russian
One Aik Yak Ha(i)k Une Adin
Two Do Deu Doo Deux Dva
Three Teen Seh Trei(h) Trois Tri
Four Char Ch(h)ar Char Quatre Chetire
Five Panch Panj Panj(h)e Cinq Pyat
Six Chay Shesh Chee Six Shest
Seven Saat Heft Sut Sept Sem
Eight Aath Husht Athe Huit Vósem
Nine Nao Nao Nao(n) Neuf Devyat
Ten Dus/Dis Dah D(y)ah Dix Desyat
However, this is not only the evidence linguists look for while drawing up language families. What I have put forth is a very simple approach, nevertheless only this much evidence is sufficient for now. Their approach is much larger or rather holistic and complex. For them the fundamental evidence lies in the grammar of a language.
What is a dialect? There is no standard definition of a dialect but I can give an example. Siraiki language, as you may have noticed is not same everywhere. It is different in Multan (called Multani) as compared to Bahawalpur (Bahawalpuri), D.G.Khan (Dera-jaati), Jhang (Jhangvi) etc. But all of these are mutually understandable and commonly called Siraiki. These are dialects of Siraiki. I should like to point out here that these dialects have further divisions particularly related to speech but these do not matter. These differences are not always common to a language because there is usually a ‘more developed central-dialect’ that is preferred by the people of that language so that they adopt it. Siraiki people do not have a ‘more developed’ region so their speech remains relatively same in their respective areas but is often influenced by Punjabis in parts of ‘northern Siraiki’ areas as Punjabis there tend to be more advanced socially and economically so Siraikis prefer to mix their speech with them. Moreover Siraiki resembles Punjabi in many ways, so we can say as the evidence suggests that these may have been a single language once but became different due to the influence on contact with Sindhi, Balochi and Pashto on people of southern Punjab; while those of north became closer to Khari boli, Dehlvi dialects, Rajasthani dialects etc (in northern India). The word ‘Siraiki’ has itself originated from the term Sindh-Asur used by Sindhis (in about 17th century?) for the people of northern Sindh (or southern Punjab). ‘Asur’ then became Asurki (northerner), and finally Siraiki.
There is another point that I should explain here which I did not deliberate upon earlier. Take Germanic languages as an example. There was a time when all the Germanic people spoke a single language which was a dialect of (PIE) proto-Indo-European. By about 1500BCE it became the language (proto-Germanic) of all the Germanic peoples as they settled in new areas away from Ukraine. This divided once again into dialects such as West and North Germanic and there were further divisions until these dialects were no longer mutually intelligible among Germanic Peoples by about the 150BCE? or even before. And thus, they became new languages of a Germanic family. The first and oldest attested Germanic language is Gothic spoken by the Goths, an earliest Germanic tribe. It was first written as a translation of Bible in about 370CE during the conversion of Goths to Christianity but is no longer spoken. Older language bears more similarity with its fellow languages as you will find in the case of old English (Anglo-Saxon). Look at the words below as used in some Germanic languages.
English: (1) apple (2) Brown (3) Day (4) Finger (5) Night (6) Stone
Gothic: (1) aplus (2) Bruns (3) Dags (4) Figgrs (5) Nott (6) Stáins
German: (1) apfel (2) Braun (3) Tag (4) Finger (5) Nacht (6) Stein
Dutch: (1) apple (2) Bruin (3) Dag (4) Vinger (5) Nacht (6) Steen
Low-Saxon:(1) apple (2) Bruun (3) Dag (4) Finger (5) Natt/Nacht (6) Steen
I believe you would not have any difficulty in concluding that these are only different pronunciations for similar words. Again this is not the only aspect that a linguist looks from while studying languages of the same family. There are other points involved such as the grammar, morphology, etymology (look for the meanings of these words in a dictionary) etc. The words that we have here are mostly objects or at least those that we can sense. In the whole of Indo-European family we can recognize several similar words related to the culture of fathomability and sometimes intellectual culture as well. But examples of words implying abstract meanings are fewer because such things develop over time with the development of Human mind. We cannot find such common words as ‘Culture’ and ‘Society’ in their two languages until one borrows it from another. Of course, Culture itself has existed as a part of daily life of Indo-Europeans but for Human beings its study is a recent development particularly with the advancement of ‘Written History’.
The following shows the journey covered by English from its first appearance until now:
450–1100 Old English (Anglo-Saxon)
1100–1500 Middle English
1500–1650 Early Modern English (or Renaissance English)
1650–present Modern English (or Present-Day English) – The language as spoken today.
Line Original Translation
[1] Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum, What! We [of] Gar-Danes (lit. spear-danes) in yore-days,
[2] þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon, [of] people-kings, trim (glory) afrained(have learned of by asking),
The above table gives a part of Anglo-Saxon epic written in mid-sixth century. Notice that it is in rhyme.
You must be struck with the idea that it is German but its not. It is Anglo-Saxon. ‘What!’ expresses such modern meaning as ‘Behold’! Dagum means ‘of days’. A translation that I obtained is like this: Listen! We have heard of the glory of the Spear-Danes, of the kings of the people, in days of yore.
This also clarifies the reason why do we usually study the oldest language of a family if we wish to study the whole family. The oldest English bears greatest similarity with fellow Germanic languages. In order to study Iranian, Indo-Aryan, and Romanic languages, scholars study Avestan, Sanskrit and Latin respectively; the oldest languages of their family. Modern English is very far away from its fellow languages so it will not be an ideal language for gaining some understanding into Germanic languages.
Below is the Anglo-Saxon by about tenth century.
Line Original Translation
[1] Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Father ours, thou that art in heaven,
This is again not much easier to understand. But it seems closer to English than the first one. Þ is pronounced somewhere between th and d. þu is same like German du which is not different from French Tu and Siraiki/Punjabi too or Hindi/Urdu tum; that is ‘you’. Heofonum has today become Heaven.
Original Translation
¶ Cnut cyning gret his arcebiscopas and his leod-biscopas and Þurcyl eorl and ealle his eorlas and ealne his þeodscype, twelfhynde and twyhynde, gehadode and læwede, on Englalande freondlice. ¶ Cnut, king, greeteth his archbishops and his people's-bishops and Þurcyl, earl, and all his earls and all his peopleship, greater (having a 1200 shilling weregild) and lesser (200 shilling weregild), hooded(ordained to priesthood) and lewd(lay), in England friendly.
Here is yet another sample for you to examine. It is the speech of King Canute (Cnut) the great in 1020CE. I guess there is not much that I can comment on it but you should just run your eyes over it once. Start removing one letter or two before or after each word and you will see how if simplifies and may give a better look!
Here is another sentence of the English once used in England. By this time French had begun to seriously influence English. You will see that there is a whole class of new words. It is part of a letter written by a girl to her father and dates to mid-fifteenth century.
‘I sent you diverse messages and writings, and I had never answer again.’
She should not have used the word diverse; nor does ‘message’ typically have the sense it had then, of verbal communication sent through a messanger. ‘Again’ should be replaced by ‘in return’. I venture to propose here that depending on the way she looked at words and their meanings its cause might be the influence of French. In French, the prefix re- is used to express the meaning of again or back. She has used again and means back but this is not the way we look at it. Look at the words below.
prender – reprender to take – to take back
établir – rétablir to establish – to establish again
envoyer – renvoyer to send – to send back
Her phrasing too can be changed to sound as we do. ‘I had never’ could be ‘I never had’ or rather ‘I have never had’ would be perfect. ‘An’ should be added before ‘answer’.
I have another sentence which comes from Shakespear’s The merchant of Venice, volume1. ‘What ring gave you…’ It appears as if two people had just fought over a ring and someone who was higly disapproved of the fight said this. You can make other meanings of it as well. Look at the complete form ‘What ring gave you, my lord’. Someone not familiar with Shakespear’s English and very much influenced with Indian movies may conclude that a wealthy person had a poor one or his family assassinated or having trapped them in some case nicked his ring. But a person such as you who has much experience with English language will surely say that the sentence if it wishes to give the sense I have just expressed should be something like ‘what did a ring give you, my lord?’ And there can be many more meanings. Yet, what Shakespeare actually wants to say ‘What ring did you give?’ What is implied is only the form or type of ring. But in our quest for seeking a deeper explanation in the absence of the context in which the statement is made and looking at it from the angle of different people we nearly had some people killed!
What should certainly be going in your mind is that I have explored only one of the sentences of various Englishes? It is, of course, because I am generally ignorant of the other Englishes and thus not a part of the culture of fathomability to which they belonged.
In the period that followed from the invasion of Britain by Anglo-Saxons in fifth century, this language was influenced by Celtic languages and French following Norman invasion in about 1070CE? and after further changes it finally became English as we call it today, in a form heavily influenced by French words.
Le cinema, la musique, la television, les spectacles sportifs constituent des distractions importantes. This is, of course, not English. This language does not even belong to the Germanic family. If you are a keen observer you may have noticed this. It is French. But I don’t think that you can’t understand it. This is what it means; ‘the cinema, the music, the television, the athletic shows constitute the important distractions’. Most of these words are of Romance (either Latin or French) origin, but you can still make out the meaning even though I am sure you have not read any Romance language. You share culture of fathomability with these things. All of these words have been borrowed into English over a stretch of time. This is an example of how a language changes under the influence of another. Words may not be the best option for making out similarities between languages! The Romance languages are not so simple. Consider the sentences: Voila un chat. Ecco un gatto. (There is a cat)
To you they are not much similar except for un (which means a) but a linguist will tell you at the first sight that they have Romance parent. In Latin catto means cat. The Italian pronunciation changes ‘k’ to ‘g’ while in French the words of Latin origin beginning with ‘ka’ becomes ‘ch’ (sh). This is how they have ‘inherited’ (not borrowed) from Latin. In fact, there are about forty or such words in French beginning with ‘k’, majority of which are borrowed from different languages. But there are many words inherited from Latin beginning with ‘k’ sound which become ‘qu’. Moreover, under pressure from Germanic and to some extent Celtic languages French words do not end like ‘o’ as often happens in many other Romance languages. What about Voila and Ecco? This is not held in much regard, as sentences in two languages of same family are never entirely same. This is, of course, what accounts for their becoming different languages.
Now consider this: there is a cat, ‘Da ist eine katze’; I love you; ‘Ich libe dich’. Compare the French ‘Je vous aime’. Despite the fact that English has changed so much over time yet one can recognize the similarity it bears with German.
Ferdinand de Saussure the father of modern linguistics said regarding the evolution of language, ‘...language degenerates, or rather evolves, under the influence of all the agents which can reach either the sounds or the meanings. This evolution is inevitable. There is no example of a language which resists it. At the end of a certain time, one can always demonstrate obvious changes’.
Give me the leave of turning away from the topic for explaining something else. There are some terms which, although, do not have any internationally acclaimed status but which I will use only to render my subject easier. I have already used them. I cannot define them with ease, as I am poor at drawing definitions so I shall give examples. What is intellectual culture? I used this term above. The word culture refers to the way of life of a people, including their attitudes, values, beliefs, arts, sciences, modes of perception, and habits of thought and activity. Intellectual means having highly developed understanding. My brother and I belong to the same intellectual culture because we have studied most of the philosophy together and carried out lengthy discussions upon them. There may be several philosophical or theological points which Faizan and you may have drawn up together but which your father, or say, sisters cannot exactly comprehend. In that case both of you belong to the same intellectual culture.
Next comes the ‘culture of fathomability’. Suppose there are two persons standing together. One of them is a member of Siraiki speaking community and the other belongs to Urdu speaking community. They talk to each other for a long time but in their respective languages but still manage to efficiently communicate their thoughts. How do they do it? It is only possible if they belong to the same culture of fathomability. You should note that I have mentioned languages of the same family but this is often possible between Czechs and Germans in Austria. It can also occur when one of us goes to live with Native American for a month or so. He will learn their ways and be able to comprehend them, as he enters their culture of fathomability. You could say that language itself is culture of fathomability as the Punjabis and Siraikis understand each other’s language without realizing it but I do not agree to that view. Language is one such ‘tool’ or ‘equipment’ which helps in entering the culture of fathomability of others. Because there are some points at which Punjabis and Siraikis will appear to understand each other. These points are what all the Punjabis and Siraikis share as their culture of fathomability. There are other points upon which Siraikis concord with Sindhis and Balochs but Punjabis do not, and these points are not a part of their (Punjabis’) culture of fathomability. In brief, it refers to the way we look at the objects in space.
And finally comes the ‘culture of humor’. The word ‘humour’ has Latin (an old Romance language) origins when it meant ‘liquid’. In ancient medical theory there were four principal ‘humours’ in the human body (phlegm, blood, cholera, and black bile). If any of these predominated in a human’s body so it determined his composition making him phlegmatic, sanguine, choleric, or melancholic. But the meaning changed to ‘mood’ and ‘character’ and finally that which causes laughter. Here I would like to extend the meaning of humour to include not only the aspects related to fun but also those of tragedy. As an example you can suppose that while you have been speaking Multani all your life but one day you come across a group of Dera-jaatis talking to each other. They burst out laughing but you do not even if you manage to understand what they are saying. It is because you have never happened upon with their culture of humor. But you may laugh at another occasion when some Bahawalpuris do the same even when you do not understand what they are saying. Now this is because your culture of fathomability may have matched with them at this point. Even when I visit my village after a long period it takes me a lot of time to pick up the culture of humour and laugh at what the others (locals) say. Similarly, one finds Shias crying and sobbing during majlis. Belonging to the same culture of humour they understand what story is going on even when some Indo-Aryans happen upon Iranians and they cannot hold back their tears.
If you wish you could run a look at least once at all that we discussed in the beginning to apply the meanings of my terms.
Throughout my discourse I have not given complete evidence for such facts, as how do we know the date for the origins of Indo-Europeans or exactly where they appeared first. It is only because I do not want to throw you into confusion with a heap of information of names, facts and dates. Once you have read this work you are welcome to search the Internet, as the information is freely available. The information that I have given during discussion is dynamic and has continuous divisions one after another. There is no end to it. Thus the term ‘continuum’ is frequently used while such topics are dealt with. Please check the meaning of this word in as many dictionaries as you can. I am sure you have not been following me with the same speed that I am presently going at. And I doubt, furthermore, whether you have understood my point? Therefore I find necessary that I should write these down to make it clear what I wanted to extract from all this. There are very few points which you are required to learn.
All of us belong to either one language family or another.
A language changes from time to time.
So do the meanings of words.
And thus, the meaning that sentences imply.
A language even varies from person to person (as we saw in Shakespeare’s sentence) primarily due to their different ‘internal culture of fathomability’.
The meaning of these three terms: intellectual culture, culture of fathomability, culture of humour. (You will see how these terms become more meaningful)
There were other points that we could have concluded from what we have discussed so far but I will discuss them later.
I suppose I am nearly done with the Indo-Europeans and now I will come to the Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) family. It is necessary to deliberate upon the Afro-Asiatic family because this is the family that includes three monotheist (if that is what they are called) faiths or three major faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The origins of ‘Hamito-Semitic’ can be traced back to Biblical tradition. According to the Testaments, three of Noah’s children survived him, Ham, Shem and Japheth. From Ham all the North Africans descended, Semites from Shem, Egyptians and Greeks (Greeks are actually Indo-Europeans) from Japheth. There is an error regarding the origins of Egyptians. Contrary to the Biblical account, they too, are Hamites. Afro-asiatics first originated in about 6500BCE, most probably in Ethiopia. Here is the list of Semitic languages:
Akkadian: Assyrian and Babylonian. These languages are extinct now.
Aramaic: Syriac, Galilean, Palestinian, Samaritan. Except for modern Syriac, all are extinct.
Canaanite: Amorite, Ugaritic, Eblaite, Phoenician, and Hebrew.
Arabic: Quranic Arabic, Maltese, Egyptian, Sudanese, Iraqi, Peninsular, Aswani, Hadramauti, Shahri, Soqotri.
Ethiopian: Geez, Tigrinya, Amharic.
Distribution of Afro-Asiatic is shown in yellow.
There are several other languages belonging to these groups but I have not mentioned them for the same reason; I don’t want to confuse you with so many names. My grouping is not as precise as that of linguists, nevertheless, it is not on the whole incorrect. I would only comment about Arabic here. In the Arab world different types of Arabics are spoken. They are not even same as the Quranic Arabic whose purpose is only liturgical (use dictionary) these days, although other Arabics alongside the Quranic were also spoken in Peninsula. The Quranic Arabic is learnt only by scholars who then study Quran and Hadith and old Arabian texts. Maltese is spoken in Malta and is very much Romanized due to the influence of Romance languages. Peninsular is not intelligible for those who speak Soqotri (in Socotra). Earlier I said that Egyptian is a Hamitic language. Egyptian as used today, is one such Arabic language which is very different from all the others. It first came to life with the invasion of Egypt by the Arabs. Before that Egyptians spoke a Hamitic language which is today called Old Egyptian, it was written in Hieroglyphs. Recall how Modern English resulted from Anglo-Saxon. But the case here is quite different as Modern Egyptian has more similarities with other Arabics but English does not have such with either Celtics or French.
Despite that Arabic and Hebrew belong to different sub-families you will be astonished by the similarities between them. I found some information regarding this on the internet and am indebted to him who provided it, but I don’t know his name.
The Root-and-Pattern System: A Key Characteristic of Semitic Languages Semitic languages have what is called a root-and-pattern system. Most words have three root consonants. These consonants are the most important consonants in the word; they give the basic meaning. In any given word, these consonants are placed at specific points in a pattern formed by a combination of vowels and other, extra consonants. The pattern modifies the basic meaning of the word in predicatable ways. The number of patterns that occur in the language, though large, is limited. For example, the root-consonants k/kh-t-b/v give the basic meaning of “writing” in both Arabic and Hebrew. Putting these consonants into various patterns gives a number of meanings all related to writing:
Arabic: k-t-b
kataba “he wrote”
kutiba “it was written”
k•tib “writer”
maktüb “written”
maktab “desk, office”
maktaba “library, bookstore”
kit•b “book”
kutayyib “booklet”
kit•ba “writing”
k•taba “he corrsponded; he wrote a letter to someone”
Hebrew: k/kh-t-b/v
katav ‘he wrote”
ketuba “written document, especially a marriage contract”
ketovet “inscription”
ketiva “writing”
katuv “Verse, passage from the Bible”
katvan “copyist”
nikhtav “it was written”
hikhtiv “to order to be written; to dictate”
mikhtav “letter”
Words of the form maktab (maffial) and maktaba (maffiala)—also maffiil, miffial--are
nouns of place. They usually mean “the place where the verb X (fafiala) is done”;
sometimes they derive from a noun, and mean “the place where the noun X is found.”
Arabic Examples:
kataba he wrote maktab office, desk
maktaba library
darasa he studied madrasa school
sakana he dwelled maskan dwelling
rakiba he rode markab boat
Hebrew Examples:
shakhan he dwelled mishkan dwelling
rakhav he rode merkava chariot
Numbers: Arabic: Hebrew:
One: w•˛id e˛ad
Two: ithnayn shnayim
Three: thal•tha shalosh
Four: arbafia arbafi
Five: khamsa ˛amesh
Six: sitta shesh
Seven: sabfia shevafi
Eight: tham•niya shmone
Nine: tisfia teshafi
Ten: fiashara fieser
Personal Pronouns: Arabic: Hebrew:
Singular:
I an• ani
you (man) anta ata
you (woman) anti at
he huwa hu
she hiya hi
Plural:
We na˛nu ana˛nu
you (men) antum atem
you (women) antunna aten
they (men) hum hem
they (women) hunna hen
Arabic Past or Perfect Tense = Hebrew Past or Perfect Tense
I wrote katabtu katavti
you (m) wrote katabta katavta
you (f) wrote katabti katavt
he wrote kataba katav
she wrote katabat katva
we wrote katabn• katavnu
you (mpl) wrote katabtum katavtem
you (fpl) wrote katabtunna (katavten)
they (m) wrote katabü katvu
they (f) wrote katabna katvu
I believe it is sufficient. This forms a part of the evidence that the linguists look for while discovering language families. They look from different aspects in different languages.
The Semitic languages are a language family whose living representatives are spoken by hundreds of millions of people across much of the Middle East, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa; they constitute a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family. Now Afro-Asiatic can be a larger language family just like Indo-Europeans and Semitic languages like Germanics or any another Indo-European family. The most widely spoken Semitic language today is Arabic (322 million native speakers). It is followed by Amharic (27 million), Tigrinya (about 6.7 million), and Hebrew (about 5 million). Arabic, as you know is the language of Quran, Hebrew of Bible. They were the Hebrews who brought Judaism, Syriacs who contributed to early spread of Christianity and Arabs who brought Islam.
Semitic languages are attested in written form from a very early date, with texts in ‘Eblaite’ and ‘Akkadian’ appearing from around the middle of the third millennium BCE, written in a script adapted from ‘Sumerian’ cuneiform. Sumerian, itself is a language of another family, ‘Elamo-Dravidian’. The other scripts used to write Semitic languages are alphabetic. Among them are the Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Soqotri, and Ge'ez alphabets.
Proto-Semitic (like Proto-Germanic) is assumed to have reached the Arabian Peninsula by approximately about 3000BCE, from which Semitic daughter languages continued to spread outwards. When written records began in the mid 3rd millenium BCE, the Semitic-speaking ‘Akkadians’ and ‘Amorites’ were entering Mesopotamia (Iraq) from the deserts to the west, and were probably already present in places such as ‘Ebla’ in Syria. By the beginning of the 2000BCE, ‘East Semitic’ (Akkadian) languages dominated in Mesopotamia, while ‘West Semitic’ (all the others) languages were probably spoken from Syria to Yemen, although ‘Old South Arabian’, the ancestor of Aswani, Hadramauti, Shahri, Soqotri is considered by most to be South Semitic.
In the 1st millennium BCE, the alphabet spread all around, giving us a picture not just of Canaanite but also of ‘Aramaic’, ‘Old South Arabian’, and early ‘Ge'ez’. ‘Phoenician’ colonies spread their Canaanite language throughout much of the Mediterranean, while its close relative Hebrew became the vehicle of a religious literature, the Torah and Tanakh, that would have global ramifications. Phoenician alphabets were then copied by Greeks. These and other derivatives would centuries later be used for all European languages. The rise of Assyrian empire brought about the end of their Babylonian cousins (descendants of Akkadian) who had flourished for so long. As an ironic result of the Assyrian Empire's conquests, Aramaic became the ‘lingua franca’ (use dictionary if required) of the region (easterb Syria) gradually pushing Hebrew (in Israel), Phoenician (modern day Lebanon), and several other languages to extinction, and developing a substantial literature. Meanwhile, Ge'ez texts beginning in this era give the first direct record of ‘Ethiopian Semitic’ languages.
The rise of Achaeminid Empire (an old Persian Empire) in neighbouring Iran dealt a heavy blow to Assyrian Empire and established Iranian dominance throughout Middle East as far as Egypt, and helped ease some pressure on Hebrew; though it had been in use after the fall of Israelite Kingdom in 7th century BCE. However, Syriac (a descendent of Aramaic) maintained its status from 400 to 200 BCE. It finally rose to importance as a literary language of early Christianity and continued into the early Islamic era. With the emergence of Islam in the 7th century, the ascent of Aramaic was faced a fatal blow by the Arab conquests, which made another Semitic language, Arabic the official language of an empire stretching from Spain to Central Asia.
With the patronage of the caliphs and the prestige of its liturgical status, it rapidly became one of the world's main literary languages. It became the main language of not only central Arabia, but also Yemen, the ‘Fertile Crescent’, and Egypt. Its spread among the masses took much longer however, as native populations of Afro-Asiatic origins outside the Arabian Peninsula gradually adopted Arabic; partly because it was not much different from their own language and easier to learn and partly because it had risen to much eminence in the region; like English has today. The other Afro-Asiatics (apart from Semites) abandoned their mother tongues for Arabic. The settlement of Bedouin tribes in these conquered areas exerted pressure on their languages serving as an impetus for language change. Thus the entire ‘Afro-Asia’ was Arabized.
In the case of Egyptian a new amalgam of language resulted heavily concentrated with Arabic. Why was it so? The Old Egyptian had been used for more than 3000 years, although it changed with time but was not influenced by any other language during this period. The Egyptians were not Nomads like most North Africans, they were farmers and had developed their language consistently for a long period.
This is an Afro-Asiatic family tree I found in Kelley L.Ross’ article, The Semitic and other Afroasiatic Languages . Do not confuse yourself in its vastness.
Later Arab incursions penetrated into North-West Africa and again the settlers rushing in and the influence of their language ‘Arabized’ these new peoples. They may have been Hamites. Some of the Hamitic sub-families which survived this assimilation were the following:
Cushitic
Chadic
Berber
This map is a modern one but it does not show all the semitic languages.
‘Egyptian is not closely related to the Semitic languages, but its other affinities are unclear. The other groups of Afroasiatic languages, Cushitic, etc., which used to be grouped together with Egyptian as the Hamitic languages, are only recently attested. Their ancient antecedents and the nature of their relationship to the rest of the language family are unknown. They now appear to be as distant from each other as from the Semitic languages, and the Hamitic category is no longer regarded as phylogenetically useful. An interesting comparison is between the verb systems of Egyptian and Semitic languages. Most Semitic languages, like Hebrew and Arabic, have two verb tenses, with prefixes for an imperfect and suffixes for a perfect. These express temporal aspect more than tense, i.e. incomplete action, in present or future, for the imperfect, and complete action, whether in present or past, for the perfect. Egyptian retains these forms, but they are little used, mostly replaced by participles with pronominal suffixes. On the other hand, the Eastern or Akkadian branch of the Semitic languages has three verbal tenses. The suffixed form is a stative, expressing states, while the "preterite" and "present" (perfect and imperfect) are both prefixed inflections. This by itself might be a clue that Egyptian is more closely related to the Western Semitic languages than to the Eastern; but it is only one indication among many, and otherwise there are many differences between Egyptian and all Semitic languages.’
I believe this will give you better understanding of the case of Egyptian. It is a member of Hamitic languages, there is no room for a ‘Japhethic’ family division. I borrowed it From Kelley L. Ross’ article the Semitic and other afroasiatic languages.
The table below shows examples of some linguistic similarities in Afro-Asiatic languages.
English Arabic (Semitic) Berber (Berber) Somali (Cushitic) Beja (verb is "arrive") Hausa (Chadic)
he dies Yamuutu itmetta wudimtay iktim Yamutu
She dies Tamuutu tmetta wedimatay tiktim Tamutu
they (m.) die Yamuutuun tmettan wedimteen iktimna Sunmutu
you (m. sg.) die Tamuutu tmettid wadimatey tiktima Kamutu
you (m. pl.) die Tamuutuun tmettam wadimateen tiktimna Sunmutu
I die ˀamuutu tmettiɣ wadimtay aktim Namutu
We die Namuutu ntmetta wadimanay niktim Munmutu
We have had much of ‘Afro-Asiatics’, of Noah and Abraham and their children. Now lets get back to the analysis of languages and their relation with the way human beings look at their environment. I am quoting some passages from Mr. P.H.Matthews’ Linguistics A Very Short Introduction. You will find that the tone of the writer is more like that a teacher and consistent. He is referring to the way we look at things. You will find him interesting I am sure.
“There is, however, another way of talking about bird and oiseau. As words, both are in italics, and each word is used, bird in English and oiseau in French, in referring to a certain range of creatures. An English speaker might use an expression such as those birds to refer to the various groups of them; a French speaker might use, of the same groups, an expression such as ces oiseaux. These are our basic findings, and they directly concern the way the words are used, first in one language and then in the other. But in presenting them we are again obliged to talk in English, or in French, or in some other human language. We therefore establish a convention by which the meaning of oiseau in French can be indicated by a word in English, in inverted commas, whose meaning in English is the closest to it. Thus, from an English viewpoint, we write oiseau ‘bird’ just as, from a French viewpoint, we might write bird ‘oiseau’. We are not, however, appealing to a prior concept of ‘bird’, as a meaning that all languages must have in common. The basic relation is again between the words bird and oiseau, between these and Spanish pájaro, and so on.
“Once we see things in this light, we are less fazed when precisely common meanings do not exist. Anyone who learns French learns, common meanings do not exist. Anyone who learns French learns, for example, that no single French word corresponds to English river. Fleuve is sometimes used when river would be appropriate, but often riviére will be used instead. Nor, for that matter, do the limits of the use of riviére correspond quite to the differences in English between river and stream. Now French and English speakers have been neighbours for centuries, and their languages have much in common. Even in this illustration we can at least start from a rough correspondence. But in other cases an apparent similarity can easily mislead us.”
I am back. If you have not understood it, I would advise you to read it again. One can make out that ‘culture of fathomability’ is not same in everyone. Everyone has a different way of looking at the things and the words that correspond to them. Recall the way the girl (mentioned above) of mid-fifteenth century looked at the word again and how you would today. Similarly someone who has recently learnt a language will find sentence construction in that language difficult no matter how vast a vocabulary he possesses. Moreover his syntax (look into the dictionary for its meaning) or the arrangement of words to make some meaning may vary from a native speaker.
Qu’est-ce qui est arrivé? What happened?
Qu’est-ce qui ne vas pas? What’s wrong?
I am a student of French and usually surprised at these two sentences. In the first sentence the word ‘qui’ (as being used here) if means ‘who’ (as it always does) will give a different meaning; ‘What is that who arrived?’ but still what French mean is ‘What is it that happened?’
The second is rather incomplete if one wants to infer the meaning stated above. A general translation should be ‘What is that who is not going?’ But again the word ‘qui’ is taken out of its original bounds to give a meaning which would contradict a large part of French semantics; if the meaning ‘that’ is taken. With ‘that’ the translation becomes ‘What is that (that) is not going?’ The original French text could be changed to ‘Qu’est-ce qui ne vas pas bien?’ This would mean ‘What is that (that) is not going well?’ Bien means ‘well’. Nevertheless the French are comfortable with,
‘Qu’est-ce qui ne vas pas? What’s wrong?’
I am looking through the culture of fathomability of English language. That is what I do with every new language. Perhaps, the culture of fathomability is never simple for a stranger to fathom it.
Matthews again. “What, for example, is the word for ‘mother’ in Navajo? Navajo is the language of a people in the Southwest of the United States who have, so far, resisted being sucked into speaking only English. Their traditional culture is not, as we might anticipate, remotely like ours. Yet they too are born of women. We have in English a word, mother, that refers to this biological relationship between each persons and their female parent. We might well think that, if any ‘meaning’ pre-exists by virtue of the world we live in, surely that does.
“The anthropologists who first worked with this people found that there was indeed a form, shimá, which they could translate English mother. But it does not follow that the use, or even a primary use, of shimá should be glossed as ‘biological female parent’. According to a 1970s account by Gary Witherspoon, the whole cultural emphasis is on the affective action of a shimá in both, giving and sustaining life. A shimá is a being who acts in that way; and, in a society intensely sensitive to the rights of other people and other creatures, every member of a mother’s clan is, at one level, a shimá. So, at the first in a series of less general levels is every member is female. The term is often qualified; for example, shimá yázhi can, though it does not always, translate aunt. Nor should we assume that a shimá is necessarily human. For it is not just people that give and sustain life. So, for example, does a cornfield or a flock of sheep; and each of these is a shimá. So does the earth itself, and the earth too is a shimá.
“‘Aha!’ we say, ‘but when one talks of “Mother Earth”, one does not mean that the earth is literally a parent.’ Certainly in English, where mother is used primarily in reference to a biological female parent, that expression can be seen as secondary. A dictionary will first give the primary definition; then a series of extended senses, in which the same word is applied to someone else who acts in part like a mother, to an object from which a run of other objects is reproduced, and so on. But, in the traditional culture of Navajo, the earth is not perceived as merely a ‘like a shimá’. In Witherspoon’s words, it is ‘not only an actual mother but … also the greatest of all mothers’. For the earth is a living being who created the earliest Navajo people and continues to sustain her children. At this point we have barely scratched the surface of the cultural-cum-linguistic system in which shimá has its place. The example does, however, make clear that we cannot take a word in our own language and assume that there are forms in any other language that can be placed in simple correspondence with it. Still less can we take a word like mother and project from it a meaning ‘mother’, defined by other meanings such as ‘female’ and ‘parent’, which we assume that any language must distinguish from others. ‘Meanings’ are not simply given in nature, or in the way the world itself is. They are bound up with a culture of which language is one aspect.
“The moral we can draw is not just that one language can be strikingly different from another. We must also train ourselves to look objectively (search the meaning in dictionary) at what is said, in our own language or in our own culture, about language… It is also natural to say what words mean in another language by putting words in our own language in inverted commas. When we say accordingly that oiseau ‘means “bird”’, we are tempted to think that a meaning ‘bird’ is something out there to which oiseau is related. We are tempted to say, by the same logic, that bird too ‘means “bird”’.”
This was easier to understand. If you don’t mind I would urge you to go through it again.
Do you know any correspondence for the Arabic ‘ulul amr’ in English. There are such terms as Rub ‘Lord’, Maola ‘Master’ and Ila (not Allah) ‘God’. An English can use Lord and Master to refer to anyone or ‘any noble man’ who is not divine but Muslims would not and may call this practice Shirk although we know that English, being Christians, are monotheists. Note that there is no correspondence of Allah in English so commonly Allah is used. Ilah and Khuda (Persian word) are commonly translated as God in English (Dieu in French). Ulul amr has different meanings and the meanings change from Shias to Sunnis. According to Sunnis the word is an equivalent of Khalifa (but it is not translated as Caliph in English) and it refers to ‘someone who has authority in some given time and space’. The meaning used by Shias is not much different, ‘someone who has authority in infinite time and space’. The difference lies between some given and infinite time and space. Now you can see that for the Shias this word has some divinity but not for the Sunnis. Where Sunnis can refer to their equal-to-caliph leaders as ulul amr, the Shias use it only for their imams. What accounts for this is a difference in intellectual culture though the word is same. No such concept exists among the English as they can apply such a position to a Lord or a President or a Prime Minister or a Bishop or even the Pope, as they prefer for any rank. So the intellectual culture of English (or the Europeans as well) is very remote from that of the Arabs. What is an English Muslim going to do then if he has to deal with such a situation? He will simply borrow the word in his own language even though it will never become a part of the intellectual culture of all the other English people. Because they cannot find the angle of this rank between all those other ranks, Lord, President, Prime Minister, Bishop, Pope etc. This is not a minor problem as an ulul amr, in many ways, is only third to Allah and second to the Prophet, Muhammad for all the Muslims. I am sure you have not heard of this term before as you spend most of your time studying the hierarchies of paradise and hell; and do not get yourself involved in such serious theological issues. As majority of Muslims say In cheezoon mein nahin parna chahiyeh kyun kai iman kamzor ho jata hai.
The above problem is quite similar to that of Mr. Matthews’ about the correspondence of river in French except that this belongs to the intellectual culture and that belonged to the culture of fathomability. The commonly given equivalent for riviére as he states is ‘river’, which itself appears to be a loan word.
Let us look at another example of such a case. We have already come across much of the cognates for ‘is’ as used in most Indo-European languages. However, such terms are common in a language so it is very important that they should be relatively same in a language family. What about other words; those which have somewhat abstract meaning? One such example could be truth. The story of this word is very interesting. I am not referring to adjectives such as ‘truthful’. A person who is faithful to his master would, in deed, be ‘truthful’ in his eyes but that is not how everyone would prefer to look at him. When, for instance, the master is recalling the virtues of his servant before someone he would say that my servant is ‘faithful’ but what he actually wants to say is that he is ‘truthful’ and sadly, does not have this word in his mind. A person who gives you the exact account of any incident such as a robbery will be speaking the ‘truth’. The meanings that we use in for this word in such cases extend from such words as ‘honest’, ‘good faith’ and ‘sincerity’.
The English word truth is from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a –th nominalisation (use dictionary) of the adjective true (Old English tréowe). The texts of early Modern English often use terms ‘By my troth’, which means ‘Upon my honour’ or ‘ What I am saying is true’ etc.
The English word true is from Old English (West Saxon) (ge)tríewe, tréowe, cognate to Old Saxon (gi)trûui, Old High German (ga)triuwu (Modern German treu ‘faithful’), Old Norse tryggr, Gothic triggws, all from a Proto-Germanic trewwj- "having good faith". Old Norse trú, holds the semantic (use dictionary) field ‘faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief’ (archaic English troth ‘loyalty, honesty, good faith’). What does it tell you? Of course, it is not an ordinary fact. It tells us that though there may have been a term related to the meaning of truth but there was no unified concept of such a word in Proto-Germanic language. The word ‘truth’ as I have referred in the two senses above was a very late development. This means that the pool of ideas of ‘truth’ did not exist among PIEs as among us but developed very late to become a part of our culture of fathomability. Although there were may be concepts such as honest. Thus, 'truth' involves both the quality of ‘faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity’, and that of ‘agreement with fact or reality’, in Anglo-Saxon expressed by sōp.
This will cause us to question the concept of ‘truth’ in our intellectual culture. According to a Muslim the universal truth is that Allah has created us all. The scientific truth is that we are a product of evolution. There are two truths here belonging to the intellectual culture of Islam and Science and the onus is upon us to decide which one we wish to believe. Did the Indo-Europeans have idea of ‘truth’ in this sense. I do not mean a Scientific or Islamic truth buth such concept as general or universal truth. How could they? They did not have any correspondence for ‘truth’ in culture of fathomability, the concept was millenia ahead!
All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological distinction between truth ‘fidelity’ and truth ‘factuality’. To express ‘factuality’, North Germanic opted for nouns derived from sanna ‘to assert, affirm’, while continental West Germanic (German and Dutch) opted for continuations of wâra ‘faith, trust, pact’. Furthermore, it is cognate to Slavic věra ‘(religious) faith’, but influenced by Latin verus. Romance languages use terms following the Latin veritas, while the Greek aletheia and Slavic pravda have separate etymological (please use dictionary again) origins.
I borrowed the information regarding ‘truth’ from a wikipedia page but made conclusions myself. Its sources were ‘Holtzmann’s law for the -ww-:-gg- alternation’ and ‘A concise dictionary of old Icelandic, Geir T. Zoëga (1910)’.
French and Hindi contain several common words but I will give only two words, one from each language. Suicar and Suivre from Hindi and French respectively. The former means ‘to accept’ while the latter means ‘to follow’. You can certainly feel the proximity between them and conclude that they may have had a common origin in PIE language but over time they began to give different yet closely related meanings; although you will have to look for the roots of these words in other Indo-European languages as well. Still you will not fail in drawing the parallels between this situation and that of the voyage that ‘truth’ completed in terms of the extended meanings of words.
English Urdu Persian French Russian Siraiki
East Mashriq Mashriq Orient Zápat Puad
West Maghrib Maghrib Ouest Vastók Pajad
North Shumal Shumal Nord Séver Ubba
South Janoob Janoob Sud Yook Lamma
Directions (compass) in some Indo-European languages.
Do you find any connection among them? Of coure, you do not except for the Urdu/Persian (which are borrowed from Arabic) and some similarities in English/French. In Pehlvi (an earlier form of Persian), East and West were Khawar and Bakhtar respectively. But individually they are all different. The reason is simple. It is only the result of the development of intellectual culture and influenced by the environment. For instance these directions are not same in all Siraiki dialects. This is how they are in my locality (Derajaati). North and South however are respectively ‘Ubba’ and ‘Lamma’ in Balochi as well. We inherited these from our ancestral language, Balochi. This discovery (of direction) is a part of intellctual culturural development..
What further developments do we achieve here? Different languages are using words which in general correspond to different meanings to obtain something that their people are now beginning to share. It is even more surprising when languages of the same family are borrowing a term from different families to generalize it in order to give meaning to something that appears so innate to us these day; the concept of truth does appear innate. Although intellectual culture is being refered here. Ludwig Wittgenstein, a German Philosopher said ‘A new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion’. This also suggests how the words, which were not in our vocabulary once but being used now, influence our thoughts to great extent. For example, could you ask me ‘what is the truth of the universe’ when this word did not exist in our language? You may have asked me the same question is some extended sense such as ‘Where did the universe come from?’ And suppose if I said God created it, you would not necessarily take the meaning that it is a ‘universal truth’.
Lets take another example. Why could the Persians or any other peoples not conceive of ulul amr before the Quran used it? It is of utmost importance in Islamic religion. You may say that God revealed it but according to me it was a development of intellectual culture not only during the Muhammad’s time but also in the fourteen centuries that followed; for this word is a part of language of many people and so they can think of it now and add more meanings to it. Or tell me why could not Buddha think of God? Why does this word not even exist in the Buddhist theological vocabulary? After all you believe this word and the concept it carries to be innate. The Arabs in Muhammad’s time did not use this term in the same way as Muslims do today. I will discuss this again in the fourth part but what I want to conclude for now is that words in our language influence our thoughts.
One such situation about the influence of words on our thoughts appeared in about 8th century when the Persians were converted to Islam and automatically had to borrow numerous terms belonging to the cultures of Arabs. They had not experienced those ideas before. These helped to push ‘Zoroastrian thought’ to extinction. This led to the collapse of Iranian Zoroastrian religion. We are often told that other than Christians and Jews all other religions were disarrayed and it was Islam which re-organized the society. However, that is not true. Persians had learnt mathematics and science from Greeks, Egyptians (through Greeks), Indians, Chinese (through Indians). They contributed to its advancement. Zoroaster himself produced highly developed form of religious philosophy. At the time of conversions, Persians lost the roots of intellectual culture (theological concepts) which they had themselves developed and entered into the semitic culture, which had already been partly influenced by Iranian Philosophy. Similarly, Buddhist Philosophy was very much developed and had made several contributions to the various aspects of our life and most of it is still applicable today. I will discuss more about this in the last section.
Below is an extract from Shelton A.Gunaratne’s essay.
When China was the center of world trade—“the most economically developed and technologically advanced place on earth” (Holcombe 2001: 64)—in the medieval and the early modern periods (before the industrial revolution shifted the center to Europe), the spoken Chinese based on Central Plain norms—and subsequently Mandarin Chinese—became the privileged language of the Far East. Holcombe (2001: 67) states that fourteen distinct spoken language systems existed in the early Han dynasty in China even though “a kind of standard spoken lingua franca, based on Central Plain norms, seems to have existed” from the late Zhou era. However, despite the mutual unintelligibility of the spoken language systems and the very different language stocks in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, all of East Asia during the Tang dynasty adopted the Chinese writing system that the Japanese called kanji (hanja in Korean, and hanzi in Chinese)—“the writing of the Han” (Holcombe 2001: 61). Because kanji are “tied inextricably to a particular set of ideas,” unlike the letters of an alphabet, the use of kanji throughout East Asia created an “empire of ideas”—a powerful glue that bound the region (Holcombe 2001: 66). The impact of kanji has been such that 30 to 60 percent of each of the modern Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese lexicons consists of “borrowed Chinese vocabulary” (Holcombe 2001: 75). Therefore, Holcombe (2001: 103) says, the Sinification (from Latin Sinae, China) of East Asia was “more complete and permanent than the so-called Indianization of Southeast Asia.” As China’s economic power waned, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese began to de-emphasize the use of Chinese as a prestige language.
I request you to be more attentive in the following lines as I am arriving at a decisive point. A word that we borrow from another language can be expelled from the language whenever the tide turns. It may not have much impact on the language borrowing that word until it creeps into some ‘shared components’ of culture when it becomes particularly threatening to that culture. Ulul Amr is an example of such a word in Persian language. It now influences the religious philosophy of many Persians in a way they may not have been influenced had the Arabs not invaded Persia. But a time may come when all of Persians turn back to Zoroaster’s religion and have this word removed from their language, after all they have still preserved Zoroaster’s works in his language. The kanji script does not employ alphabets but it uses symbols. Once these are borrowed in a language they became a permanent part of that language as they may not refer to sounds but give a complete word or ‘an idea’ which has to be dealt with in its complete form. I would like to make it clear here that these characters contain Phonetic (dictionary again) parts but not all of them so that phonology could be independent at times.
You may say that the East Asian’s could remove those symbols and then go their own way just like the Persians may do. But we are looking at something different here. Lets get back to Mr. Matthews’ or Mr. Witherspoon’s Navajo. I hope you remember the way in which they regarded a shimá. No matter how much those European scholars tried they could not replace it with mother. Because shimá, just like mother, was not a word but a whole pool of ideas. What would Navajo people do when they lost this word along with the ideas that hung on it and replaced it with mother? It would cause enormous disturbances to the ‘status’ of other words which bore close relationship with it. After all these words have a connection like a web. The situation may become even more intense when we do not have extensive written notes on Navajo language. The Persian, on the other hand, have most of their philosophy preserved in written form; it has been translated into other languages and we very well know the explanations of Zoroaster’s terms. The people of East Asia had written records in Kanji symbols. This means that the more they wrote in that script the more they lost their own culture and the pools of ideas that their words provide. They were, now, looking at the world through different glasses; through Chinese culture. Mr. Shelton writes ‘the use of kanji throughout East Asia created an “empire of ideas”—a powerful glue that bound the region’. The symbols created an empire of ideas and these were held together by a powerful glue. I wrote ‘these words have a connection like a web’. This gives the idea of permanence. And when 30 to 60 percent of vocabulary of these languages consisted of borrowing from Chinese you can estimate the impact they must have had on the languages which borrowed.
Southeast Asia was Indianized by the Buddhist missionaries but as India now proceeds into future, borrowing more and more of Western culture, it is getting distant from Southeast Asia which is partly Islamic. But, it was the culture of humour and intellectual culture (as it was with the Persians) that was affected in the case of Southeast Asian, unlike culture of fathomability (in Japan and other countries), which forms the core of a cultural identity. That was why Japanese and others partly reversed this process when the Chinese influence waned. You should also salute the Linguists and Anthropologists for successfully describing Japanese and others (Korean, Vietnamese) as languages distinct from Sino-Tibetan (to which Chinese belongs). This reasserts the fact ‘it is not the words alone which form identity of a language’. There are many other labels!
Here is an example of the speech of a Persian orator (zakir). ‘The martyrs of Karbala were a misl e gosfandan e qurbani’. He is making a comparison; no doubt, the grief of listeners with their wails and moans is at its peak at this moment. ‘The martyrs of Karbala were an example of the lambs slain on altar for religious rituals.’ If an Urdu or a Siraiki orator draws the same comparison in his ‘majlis’ on 10th of Moharram, Shias will rather slay him misl e gosfand e qurbani despite the fact that his intentions are godly and true, and he belongs to the same intellectual culture. But this is not the way in which they look at things yet this is how the Persians do. This is another such point where the culture of fathomability of each party does not concur.
I would further divide the intellectual culture between religious, philosophical and scientific.
Here is the final summary before we proceed to scientific facts in Quran.
All of us belong to either one language family or another.
A same language changes from time to time.
So do the meanings of words.
And thus the meaning that sentences imply.
Corresponding words may or may not exist in other languages.
Words giving the closest meaning in different language may or may not be looked at through the same glasses (culture of fathomability).
A same language even varies from person to person (as we saw in Shakespeare’s sentence) primarily due to their different ‘internal culture of fathomability’.
Words in a language influence the thoughts of its speaker.
Thus a change in the meaning of words over time also causes a change in the way it influences a thought.
The meaning of these three terms: intellectual culture, culture of fathomability, culture of humour.
They develop over time among the peoples on the earth.
Intellectual culture can be divided further into ‘religious culture’, ‘philosophical culture’ and ‘scientific culture’.
It is only after the anthropologists, linguists etc gain familiarity with the cultures that they begin to understand other (unfamiliar) languages (like those of Americas).
The cultures are not same everywhere.
They, too, change from person to person and time to time.
One aspect of one culture may or may not show mutual consistency with another one among same and different peoples.
Culture of fathomability determines the way in which people in its sphere look at time and space.
Culture of fathomability forms the core of a culture’s identity.
A speaker of a language can construct a correct sentence only as long as he resides in the sphere of culture of fathomability of that language related to that particular context.
Different people may be sharing several aspects of culture of fathomability but may not express them to each other due to absence of ‘tool’ or ‘equipment’; one of which can be the language.
Even if a universal (except mathematics) language is created or any natural language is made the universal language, all the people on the planet may not be expressing same ideas in that language until the three cultures related to that language are enforced upon them as well.
At last, we are done with Social Sciences. They were quite interesting. I hope you have followed me throughout our discussion. If there was any point that you failed to understand, just reread this summary and don’t let it slip out of your mind, this is what we have discussed. For its proof and evidence read everything again from the beginning.
Part III
We are in the ‘Scientific Quran’ section. As a Muslim I believed Zakir Naik’s every word about Quran and Science without ever referring to the Quran. Though being a staunch Shia I resisted his Islamic teachings which were against mine. When I first became atheist I presumed (and was correct) that the apologists distorted the original meaning of Quranic verses to give a scientific outlook. I first read a book claiming a ‘Scientific Quran’ during this work and was astonished to come across several other verses, in the whole process, which were full of discrepancy.
All Islamic schools of thought do not believe that Quran has something to do with science. Though, there are very few people who hold such a belief. But the Muslims overwhelmingly agree that Quran being a literary book is written in rhyme and has poetic discourse. Notice that it is in rhyme. Do you remember this? I wrote this below the Anglo-Saxon poetry. The Quran alone does not have such a nature. Most of the Semitic tradition has a poetic discourse. It is not about Semites alone. Nearly all the peoples of earlier times used to record their histories in rhyme when writing was not yet invented; because it is easier to recall in this form, until they settled somewhere and began to write about their everyday observation, which for us, has become a history; take Greeks, for example. Their scientific and philosophical works are not in rhyme while Homer’s are poetic. Most of Homer’s work was centered on writing down the traditions and myths of Greeks, such as those glorifying their heroic ancestors. All the Muslims believe that Muhammad faced challenges from many Arab orators of his times. But none could beat his eloquence.
The first question that I should ask is why would a faithful have to use science or show compatibility of ‘the Book’ of his faith with science. This did not happen four to five centuries back and is only a recent development. The answer is simple because everybody naturally feels inclined towards science due to the massive, credible evidence that it gives for the ‘laws’ it creates and the availability of the evidence of success it has attained with these laws.
I have the prospect of the works of four writers before me. Although I downloaded many more but sadly all of them were exactly like another. Therefore I chose three or four which were seen to differ from their perspective; on the whole they intended to show that ‘Quran is a Miracle’. In the absence of dates on many works it appeared me as if each had plagiarized the work of the other. One could not understand who had the rights for them. A true Muslim may say ‘Allah’ because they had all commented on his book, ‘the magnificent Quran’ and were his servants. I will not mind that. The authors are Fethullah Gülen, Gary Miller, Maurice Bucaille and, of course your favourite Zakir Naik. The names of these are When Modern Science Agrees With the Qur'an, THE AMAZING Quran, THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE and THE QUR’AAN AND MODERN SCIENCE, COMPATIBLE OR INCOMPATIBLE? But I will not repeat the same fact which one among them has already used.
When you hear Zakir Naik’s speech you never notice that he gives you only one side of the picture and his presentation appears as if all the Quran is homogenized with Science so you are carried away by it and fain to believe his ‘Scientific Quran’. You do not even inquire whether Science believes it. However, as we go through each verse (as translated by these apologists), you will see how the meanings of the words are twisted to make some sense out of a verse which is in its entirety subjective, biased. There will be certain occasions when the apologists (use dictionary) are ready to take those meanings for granted which the words do not even carry. On others they will not give a complete verse and the consequence will be same that occurred when we beheld Shakespeare’s sentence. Once we soundly analyze a verse, you will find that it has either an inherent discrepancy or is impotent in the light of Science and there are some verses which contradict it. What is undeniably true about all our forthcoming discussion is that my approach will be ‘conflicting’ and yours will be ‘concordant’ with ‘a Scientific Quran’. Both of us are biased in our own ways and have a different culture of fathomability (not intellectual culture) because we are fathoming through the two different glasses, which influence our analysis.
The idea of ‘one God’ has been inculcated in the culture of fathomability of Jews, Christians and Muslims. But there are other religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism) that just cannot accept this view, as this is not a part of their culture.
I am sure you are not of those small minds about which Gary Miller has written a very interesting story of his encounter with a minister.
About seven years ago, I had a minister over to my home. In the particular room which we were sitting there was a Quran on the table, face down, and so the minister was not aware of which book it was. In the midst of a discussion, I pointed to the Quran and said, "I have confidence in that book." Looking at the Quran but not knowing which book it was, he replied, "Well, I tell you, if that book is not the Bible, it was written by a man!" In response to his statement, I said, "Let me tell you something about what is in that book." And in just three to four minutes, I related to him a few things contained in the Quran. After just those three or four minutes, he completely changed his position and declared, "You are right. A man did not write that book. The Devil wrote it!"
If you have such an attitude then it would be pointless to go on, but I hope you don’t as you often, yourself, claim to be ‘broad minded’. Therefore I should not expect you to give it all up in the middle with the belief ‘this atheist is possessed by devil’. But I remember there was a time when you used to say, ‘Darwin himself looked like monkey thus he said that human beings were descendants of apes’. That reflects poverty of intellect. A person with such an attitude cannot be called ‘broad-minded’. I know you think the same about me. There was another occasion when you dismissed the facts about ‘Buddha boy’ saying that I can’t believe in any such thing until I hear a ‘Muslim boy’ doing such astonishing practice. When I told you about Marxism you, your first question instead of being something like ‘who was Marx?’ was ‘what does Islam say regarding this’? This attitude is not much different from the Minister who said, ‘Well, I tell you, if that book is not the Bible, it was written by a man!’ And ‘You are right. A man did not write that book. The Devil wrote it!’ Please don’t mind it.
This is all that Fethullah Gülen has to say.
We refer to many branches of science and scientific facts today and use them to analyze various things and events—even religious matters. We refer to them, either one at a time or in groups, to provide evidence of God's Existence and Oneness to those who need such evidence.
Similarly, when looking at science in the light of the Qur'an, we point out that it contains information about the nature of things that agrees with modern scientific findings. Consider medicine. I once read a book called Medicine is the Niche of the Faith. It really is so, and we must acknowledge God when studying our bodily existence and development. For instance, the Qur'anic description of the embryo corresponds exactly to what we know today. Furthermore, the Qur'an does not contain a single statement on this matter that modern science can criticize. How could an unlettered desert Arab living more than 1,400 years ago know such facts, which were discovered recently by X-rays and other sophisticated equipment only after many centuries of intensive scientific research? We use such Qur'anic statements to argue for the Qur'an's Divine origin. This, in turn, corroborates the truth of Muhammad's Prophethood.
We refer to science and scientific facts when explaining Islam because some people are determined to reject anything that is not "scientific." Materialists and those opposed (or indifferent) to religion have sought to exploit science to defy religion and use its prestige to spread their thinking. Many people have followed their lead, which means that we have to use the same tools of science and technology to show that they do not contradict Islam and to lead people to the right path.
I agree with such an argument. Muslims should be well-versed in scientific facts to refute the claims of materialists and atheists. Many Qur'anic verses urge us to reflect and study, to observe the stars and galaxies. They impress upon us the Creator's magnificence, and exhort us to travel and observe the miraculousness of our organs and creation. The Qur'an's verses place all of creation before our eyes. Touching upon a multitude of facts, it tells us that those who truly fear God, among His servants, are those who have knowledge (35:28), and so encourages us to seek knowledge, * to reflect and research. However, remember that the first condition for all such activities is that they comply with the spirit of the Qur'an, lest we begin departing from it.
Our knowledge of science and its facts can and should be used to expound Islamic facts, not to impress others or silence their arguments. Our primary aim must be to win the pleasure of God and make sure that our audience understands the points we are making.
It is wrong to regard science as superior to religion and to seek to justify substantial Islamic issues and Islam as a whole through modern scientific facts. Such attempts show that we have doubts about Islam and thus need science to reinforce our own belief. It is also wrong to accept science or scientific facts as absolute, for such things are subject to change. At best, they only support what the Qur'an says. In no way can the unchangeable and eternal Qur'an be confirmed by that which is changeable and temporary. Given this, Muslims should use science only as a tool to awaken sleeping or confused minds.
Science and scientific facts are true only as long as they agree with the Qur'an and hadith. Even definitely established scientific facts cannot uphold the truths of faith; they can be only instruments to give us ideas or to trigger us to reflect. God, not science, establishes the truths of faith in our conscience, for faith comes only by Divine guidance. Those who seek to acquire faith from science may never feel the existence of God within their own consciousness. In reality, they will be nature worshippers, not worshippers of God.
We are believers because of the faith in our hearts, not the knowledge in our heads. Objective and subjective evidence can take us only so far. After that, we must drop all such things in order to make any spiritual progress at all. When we follow our heart and conscience within the Qur'an's light and guidance, God may guide us to the enlightenment for which we are looking. As the German philosopher Kant said: "I felt the need to leave behind all the books I read in order to believe in God."
* In Islamic terms, knowledge is not restricted to religious knowledge, but includes all types of knowledge beneficial to humanity. For us, this certainly includes scientific knowledge.
The approach of author is like all the other apologists except that not a single fact is quoted through Quran in this text. You will see sentences of this type now and then. They are a like a tool which helps to convince others. ‘How could an unlettered desert Arab living more than 1,400 years ago know such facts, which were discovered recently by X-rays and other sophisticated equipment only after many centuries of intensive scientific research?’
Where I most strongly disagree with the text is when the author regards religion above science and says this it is God who establishes laws. If that is the case then why did not Islamic scholars propose anything about relativity? Why did not they preach such simple scientific concepts as Newtonian mechanics instead of hundreds of ways of ‘Ablution’. The writer also states that scientific laws are subject to change, then how can the Muslims determine whether or not ‘today’s laws’ of Science will remain the same tomorrow. And if they are quoting something from the Quran today saying that it is a scientific fact, what are they going to do when tomorrow another Scientist dismisses that fact as unscientific. This has happened several times, especially in Embryology, as you will later see. Should not that Muslim be punished for giving a wrong interpretation of Quran only to make it appear scientific for that particular time? After all Gülen has already said that only God makes laws. Presupposing this belief, will it not be morally wrong for theologians to look towards science to prove or confirm the existence of that God, divine authorship of his book and truth of his Prophet. The author is making self-contradictory statements. The extract ends with a saying of Immanuel Kant. I should like to remind you that Kant did not believe in any of the organized religions. He was a theist (opposite to atheist) but believed in a sort of philosophical God. Not the One who sent revelations on Prophets through angels and related scientific facts through them.
I should correct myself here that the term ‘scientific facts’ is not a clear expression. There are scientific theories, concepts, hypotheses, phenomena and laws etc. For convenience I will use the term scientific facts.
If Quran really had a scientific purpose then Allah would give signs before or after every verse containing a scientific fact. For example it could say, ‘do the unbelievers not see, will they not believe, we have left signs therein’ etc. And the Quran does contain such statements. But they do not necessarily point towards science and at occasions are against science. Most of the ‘religio-scientific’ commentators bring forth all types of verses, change their meanings and claim them to concur with science. In this way anyone can bring one or half a verse randomly and make them appear scientific. Moreover if Quran really speaks science then ‘religio-scientific’ commentators should bring such scientific verses whose discovery has not been done by science so that we can establish them as scientific. I am sure they will fail. It would be impossible for them to discover what is scientific until science itself leads the way first. Hitherto that has happened only once, in the field of embryology. But once we set to study it in detail, you will come across the errors.
I would like to give you say a few words about science here. A scientific fact should always be supported with evidences and capable of being proved through experiments, which can then be repeated by other scientists. They are never discovered through divine, poetic books which keep facts hidden like treasure-chest for believers to unearth and explore. Scientific discoveries are a gradual development, one after the other. They should be proposed in a clear language. Consider the following.
Water is a liquid which, when it has a density of 1g/cm(cube), boils at 100 degree centigrade.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Mutation is a sudden and spontaneous change in genetic structure
This is another ground on which I dismiss the term a ‘scientific Quran’. None of the verse proposed as scientific is stated with so much clarity in Quran. Most of the scientific and sometimes even pseudo-scientific theories are supported with equations from arithmetic, algebra, geometry, set theory. Again we do not have any support of the sort for ‘Quranic science’. The Quran does not even give us any diagrams or calculations to support the science it contains.
Science is always dynamic, on a course of continuous amelioration. What is Quran going to do if any of its verse is against modern science? The apologists have worked out an excellent solution. They incessantly change the meanings of the words to update the Quran. Nevertheless we will go on so that I can prove that the Quranic verses do not even ‘imply’ anything scientific.
Another thing that I would like to remind you at this critical stage is historical. The origins of science and mathematics can be traced back to Egyptians and Greeks who transferred it to Persians before the rise of Romans. The Romans did not make significant contributions like most others when their own civilization was at its pinnacle but they helped to filter later Egyptian and Greek discoveries and those which were not transferred earlier to Persians. Persians also received much knowledge from Indians and Chinese. Together Persian and Arab scholars or as Muslims prefer Islamic scholars made several contributions to it and sent it back to Europe. This was how science evolved in earlier stages. Though Sumerians (an extinct Elamo-Drividian people), Mayans and Aztecs (both in Americas) made separate scientific discoveries but these could not reach us. Those of Mayans and Incas could not reach us because they were in Americas while those of Sumerians, because they were diluted among the Semites along with their culture and became extinct. Archaeologists unearthed the discoveries of Americans, and Sumerians in modern times among the tablets of Sumerian inscriptions found in Mesopotamia. The sphere of knowledge did not anchor only science and mathematics, but also social sciences (pseudo-science). Greeks and Romans were the most notable in this field, and to some extent Chinese, Persians and Indians.
My personal belief is that Muhammad wrote Quran as a book of his own tradition. The Quran did not have a scientific purpose. He himself would be surprised today if he came amidst us and found how some people had made so much (that was not intended) out of it.
From Zakir Naik’s book, page 7. (The earlier pages do not carry anything worth stating)
Muslims as well as non-Muslims agree that Al-Qur’aan is Arabic literature par excellence - that it is the best Arabic literature on the face of the earth.
The Qur’aan, challenges mankind in the following verses: “And if ye are in doubt As to what We have revealed From time to time to Our Servant, then produce a Soorah Like thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, If your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot –And of a surety you cannot. Then fear the Fire Whose fuel is Men and Stones – Which is prepared for those Who reject Faith.” [Al-Qur’aan 2:23-24]
He too, agrees that Quran is the best Arabic literature. There were many who accepted this challenge at the time of ‘Apostasy Movement’ after Muhammad’s death and all of them were forced to abandon their work. Those who did not were put to death on the orders of the Caliphs. This culture of suppressing the opposition continued throughout Islamic history. I will say more about it in the fourth part.
This is what Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi (865-925 BCE), the great chemist, biologist, or scientist said about this challenge:
You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?!
Zakir Naik, page 8
The Qur’aan is not a book of science but a book of ‘signs’, i.e. ayats. There are more than six thousand ‘signs’ in the Qur’aan of which more than a thousand deal with science.
He succumbs at the beginning when he admits that Quran is a book of signs, not science. Still, he will continue to prove its divine authorship.
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE: ‘THE BIG BANG’
Zakir Naik, page 9
According to the ‘Big Bang’, the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a ‘Big Bang’ (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc… The Qur’aan contains the following verse, regarding the origin of the universe: “Do not the Unbelievers see That the heavens and the earth Were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?” [Al-Qur’aan 21:30] The striking congruence between the Qur’aanic verse and the ‘Big Bang’ is inescapable! How could a book, which first appeared in the deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago, contain this profound scientific truth?
As I said earlier, he has used the same way to convince you ‘how could a book … deserts of Arabia 1400 years ago … scientific truth?’
The first problem that I encounter here is how to deal with ‘time’ in this verse. Big Bang was a continuous process. There were no stages in it. Nowhere in the beginning Heaven and Earth were joined togther according to science. Even today Heaven and Earth are not joined together but the Earth is within the Heavens. If Dr. Naik says that this verse is referring to ‘primary nebula’, then you must know that there was no Earth in primary nebula. Primary nebula was not one big mass. He has not understood it correctly. I have written more about it below.
Did the Verse mention anything about stars, planets, sun and moon as Dr. Naik says? I don’t find any such thing. Where does the Quran use a technical term as ‘primary nebula’? It did not consist of ‘heavens (or sky) and earth’. There was no Earth in primary nebula.
Consider the following verse of the Quran used by Dr. Naik.
The first verse tells us that ‘Heaven and Earth’ were one piece together. But the second verse contradicts the first. It says that heaven and earth were brought together. So is a there Big Bang in Quran?
THERE WAS AN INITIAL GASEOUS MASS BEFORE THE
CREATION OF GALAXIES
Zakir Naik, page 9
‘Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word ‘smoke’ is more appropriate than gas. The following Qur’aanic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dhukhan which means smoke.
“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.’” [Al-Qur’aan 41:11]
Again, this fact is a corollary to the ‘Big Bang’ and was not known to the Arabs during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Notice that before every verse he writes a scientific fact. Then he tries to twist the meaning of a verse or extract something which does not even belong to verse and draws the connection with modern science. In the end he says Arabs did not know this at Prophet’s time. These are psychological tactics. You must be aware of it as it is in my knowledge that you are in a habit of studying Psychology all your extra time.
So there was no scientific Big Bang in the Quran! Dr. Naik has attempted to hide the contradiction this ayat has with that he stated above by changing the meaning. The Quran uses the term Summa, which means ‘then’. It can mean ‘furthermore’ but in a sense that something is following the other.
‘He turned to’ is replaced with He Comprehended In His design. Is it what the Quran that you have means? Surely it does not. If Dr. Naik is right then what does the work of those scholars qualify for who have been interpreting and translating Quran for the past twelve centuries (that was first time when the Quran was translated)? Will they burn for the eternity in hell for misguiding the Muslims for most of Islamic history? This is the language of terror that all religious scholars use.
He Comprehended In His design
It can have many meanings. This is how Quranic interpreters would interpret such a phrase especially when Allah is at the center.
He created
He brought into existence
He looked at
He called
He brought into light
He brought His attention
“God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke” Qur’an, 41:11
I obtained this translation from page 9 of Dr. Maurice Bucaille’s book which is also a part of our discussion and holds that Quran contains Scientific facts. This one is very similar to what I proposed. But the author has not written the complete verse as it talks about bringing the heaven and earth together, which has never happened so far.
Dr. Naik is surely playing cheat. He is not only distorting what the verse says when he changes the meaning from ‘then’ to ‘moreover’ but also making the translation equivocal by using the phrase He Comprehended In His design. If the Quran condemns the Biblical authors for changing the text then what should be done to Dr. Naik for deliberately changing the meaning and making Quran appear equivocal? Science does not believe that heaven (I make some concessions and take the meaning ‘space’ but the Quran has not described it as such) and earth have ever contracted back to ‘primary nebula’ and nor are there any indications that it will do so in the near future.
You should also know that it is ‘primary nebula’ which can be remotely referred to as initial gaseous mass because prior to Big Bang there was an object of infinite mass. This mass expanded and spread. While talking about celestial matter Dr. Naik says that smoke is more appropriate. Who told it to him? The word dhukhan has three meanings smoke, fume and reek. We will take the meaning proposed by Dr. Naik, ‘smoke’. What is the ‘smoke’? It includes, as you know being a student of science, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide etc. If you have read about the big bang, I am sure you have because you are a great proponent of this theory, you will find that none of the scientist uses the word, smoke. I read about it in Stephen Hawking, A life in Science by Michael White and John Gribbin. The gaseous matter according to science refers to Hydrogen and Helium. They were formed exactly 3 minutes and 2 seconds after the Big Bang, when the temperature was below 1 billion Kelvin.
The spread of space was brought about with the spread of energy from the expansion of initial mass, followed by plasma; the decrease in its temperature by billions of degree Kelvin brought the gases into existence. The Quran does not know about these stages, and describes the celestial matter as smoke. Is the temperature of smoke so high or does it contain Hydrogen and Helium?
If you read the full passage you will find (in the same sura) two verses back that Allah had already created earth and nourished it with mountains etc. By that time according to Quran the heaven was still a smoke. How can that be? If it was so then how come mountains existed on the earth? The Quran has still not confirmed the temperature of the universe? How did the earth itself exist? Does science believe earth had already sprung into existence while universe was still ‘a smoke’ or Primary nebula’? CONTRADICTION, CONTRADICTION and CONTRADICTION!
‘He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).’ 41 : 10
‘God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."’ 41 : 11
According to the theory of Big Bang an inifite mass expanded with the spread of energy bringing about space and time. This formed into plasma which with the decrease of temperature brought about Hydrogen and Helium (this can be primary nebula). A further (massive) decrease in temperature resulted in objects like gaseous masses. It was about ten billion years after the Big Bang that earth came into existence.
There are people who, when you question them about these things, say that this is not for you and me to decide what a verse means. There is a higher authority sitting in Saudi Arabia which retains the best commentary on these highly complicated verses of Quran. If he happens to be a Shia, he will say Iran instead of Saudi Arabia; but he will retreat to Iraq once you remind him with some weak reason that Iran is not an Arab country. He is, after all, at no loss in Iraq. It is an Arab country with a Shia majority. About other verses they say that being omniscient it is only Allah who can understand them because knowledge of mankind is limited. Then why did Allah say that Quran is given in easy language?
Allah said in Quran. ‘Verily, We have made This Quran easy in the tongue, in order that they may give heed.’ 44 : 58
‘A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur'an in Arabic, for people who understand;’ 41 : 3
I know this may not much effect on you mind because your beliefs are far from being scratched. If you really believe in Big Bang then why don’t you believe in evolution? Evolution follows Big Bang. It was the theory of Big Bang that gave the evolutionary biologists a breakthrough as to how the life could have evolved! Evolution and Big Bang are consistent and mutually support each other.
THE SPHERICAL SHAPE OF THE EARTH
Zakir Naik, page 10
In early times, people believed that the earth is flat... Sir Francis Drake was the first person who proved that the earth is spherical when he sailed around it in 1597. Consider the following Qur’aanic verse regarding the alternation of day and night: “Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [Al-Qur’aan 31:29]
What does he mean by ‘early times’? That is not my concern. The Sumerians (earliest Elamo-Dravidian peoples) had discovered this most probably in the second millennium BCE or even before. In the Sumerian tablets discovered in Mesopotamia an image was found depicting sky which shows a sun surrounded by other planets. But this is not attested because written comments are not to be found. Babylonian (the descendants of Akkadians) and Egyptian astronomy was quite strong after centuries of astronomical observations. Pythagoras studied Babylonian and Egyptian discoveries and developed them, Philolaus, Aristarchus (although parallax measurements did not support his measurements), Eratosthenes and other Greek astronomers gradually developed the idea of a spherical earth, measured its circumference, a heliocentric model, measured circumference of earth, dimensions and of distances of earth and other planets with best accuracy. Pythagoras apart from developing the idea of a spherical earth recognized the dominance of latitude in explaining climate variation. Aristotle went further to introduce five climatic zones. The works of these Greeks, which were done from about 6th to 2nd century BCE, are available today. Chinese, Indians, Sumerians and Native Americans too made several discoveries in astronomy. Most of these civilizations had the concept of round earth. You can visit the website Hellenica and also confirm this from Wikipedia.
But Dr. Naik began with Sir Francis Drake. It was actually Ferdinand Magellan who traveled or rather sailed around the earth first (1519). Although Magellan died in a war with native tribes off the islands of Philippines but his crew reached Portugal in 1921. Bofore him Chinese had discovered South American in about 8th century and Viking sailors had been to North America in 9th century. You will be amazed to know that Sir Francis Drake was dead a year before the date that Dr. Naik has written, 1596.
This is how the same page continues.
Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night. The following verse also alludes to the spherical shape of the earth: “He created the heavens And the earth In true (proportions): He makes the Night Overlap the Day, and the Day Overlap the Night.” [Al-Qur’aan 39:5]
The Arabic word used here is Kawwara meaning ‘to overlap’ or ‘to coil’– the way a turban is wound around the head. The overlapping or coiling of the day and night can only take place if the earth is spherical.
Merging does not particularly mean a gradual change. The Quran has not offered a ‘rapid’, ‘gradual’ or ‘reluctant’ change. Besides everybody knows that night gradually changes into day and vice versa. We don’t need Science for this. Our daily observation proves that such a gradual change occurs. This observation is not unique to the people of the twenty first century. Even a proto-Afroasiatic could tell this. In fact the gradual change has told us of the passage of time for thousands of years. But does that same observation tell us that earth is round. NO it doest NOT. Has it told us anywhere in history. NO it has NOT. Have any of the Muslim scholars in the centuries that passed said merging means gradual change and thus earth is spherical. NO they have NOT.
The Quran has not established the fact which Dr. Naik goes on to say ‘this phenomenon can only take place if earth is spherical’. If that is the case then why is not there any Sahih Hadith to reflect upon and support this claim?
The second ayat may help to some extent but it is contradictory to Science. The first part is worth commenting on but the latter is giving some meaning. Allah is talking in a way as if he believes in the geocentric model. Turban is wound round the head. What does a turban being coiled refer to here? The overlapping of day and night. The head can be taken as the earth around which turban is coiled. If day and night overlap each other by being coiled like a turban, the light of the sun is the light of the day, would not that mean the earth is in the center. Think about it for a moment. Now here is the wrong notion of the Glorious Quran, Geocentrism.
“It is not for Sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.” 36 : 40
‘He created the heavens and the earth (in true proportions); He makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night; He has subjected The Sun and Moon (to his law); each one follows a course for a time appointed.’ 39 : 5
‘Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day and He merges Day into Night; That He has subjected the sun and moon (to His law), each running its course for a term (time) appointed.’ 31 : 29
What surprises me all the while is why does the Quran mention ‘night and day’ with ‘sun and moon’. It is as if the Quran believes the sun and moon cause day and night. One repeatedly feels that the Quran believes in a sun changing position; revolving around the earth. We discussed a part of it earlier. Standing in the desert it was not extraordinary for Muhammad to see the sun moving from east to west (throughout the day) and the night being dominated with the moon so he ended up believing that they have something to do with day and night. Again, science tells us it is due to the movement of earth. The Quran does not mention anything about ‘a moving earth’! Thus the geocentric view is maintained. The Quran has nothing to say about other planets such as Mercury, Venus, and Mars; the Greeks had discovered most of them a long time ago, including distant stars which helped them for navigation. Nevertheless the Quran frequently mentions Sun, Moon, Stars, heavens (Sky) and earth. Here one begins to question the omniscience of Allah.
Does Science believe that the day and night are caused by something moving around the earth or being coiled around it? No. It is the rotation of earth on its own axis which brings about day and night.
Dr. Naik, page 11
“And the earth, moreover, Hath He made egg shaped.” [Al-Qur’aan 79:30]
The Arabic word for egg here is dahaha, which means an ostrich-egg. The shape of an ostrich-egg resembles the geo-spherical shape of the earth. Thus the Qur’aan correctly describes the shape of the earth, though the prevalent notion when the Qur’aan was revealed was that the earth is flat. (The Arabic word dahaha has been translated by A. Yusuf Ali as “vast expanse”, which also is correct. The word dahaha also means an ostrich-egg.)
This is how he finally attempts to establish that according to Quran the earth is spherical. I don’t panic if the Quran states that the earth is spherical. The Quran has already spoken in support of geocentric model which is scientifically wrong. He uses the same technique of replacing ‘then’ or ‘after that’ with ‘moreover’. Moreover the passage is in a continuous tone, it does not stop all of a sudden and say ‘moreover’.
Here is the correct translation.
‘And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth.’ 79 : 30
Dr. Naik’ position is conflicting with that of other scholars. If he prefers to use the meanings, which suit his purpose, and deems them more accurate why does not he translate the whole of Quran with his own interpretations? He knows it is easier to temporarily change the meanings of individual ayat but it will become an enormous burden to change the meanings of all the (same) words used anywhere in Quran.
The meaning of dahaha is ‘spread (flatten)’. It does not mean ostrich-egg. Does the shape of earth match with an ostrich-egg? I have reproduced the images without any change from the Internet; I don’t think it does. You can search them yourself. If you do find earth’s shape like the ostrich-egg then one has to willingly believe those Shias who find Muhammad or Ali’s face in the moon. Earth is spherical in shape.
Eratosthenes (274-196 BCE) measured the circumference of earth within 2% accuracy. If the Muhammad was a scientist why didn’t he make any such calculations which are essential for every discovery of Physics. Erastothenes’ measurement of earth’s circumference was closer to what it actually is than the circumference of an ostrich egg.
(I am making some addition here after improving my information. I saw a speech by Dr. Naik. It was aimed against the atheists, and dubbed ‘Does God exist?’ At 4 minutes 30 seconds he says that the word dahaha is derived from duhya, which means an ostrich egg. You should see the video. I don’t know what root-pattern he is following here. I asked my aunt who admits faith in Islam. She has done masters in Quranic Arabic but she could not think of any such derivation. You will be surprised to know that dahaha is actually a verb while duhya is a noun. And they have no relation.)
The correct translation shows that according to Quran the earth is flat. Allah says that he spread (flattened) the earth. Now suppose a flat earth. It is not difficult to imagine that sun and moon can rotate (as if they coil) around it when it is flat. Is it?
This is how it reads when we take the passage.
‘Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built?’ 79 : 27
‘He raised the height thereof and ordered it;’ 79 : 28
‘And He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof.’ 79 : 29
‘And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth.’ 79 : 30
When we take the following verse you will come across yet another discrepancy.
‘It is He who hath created for you all things that are on Earth; Then He turned to the Heaven and made them into seven firmaments (Skies); and of all things He hath perfect knowledge.’ 2 : 29
Do you find anything scientific in them? You may have noticed how the first part contradicts the second. What was the process of the creation of Earth and Heaven? Which one was created first Heaven or Earth? He hath a lot of perfect knowledge. Again the Quran does not seem to consider the space as continuous. It has divided it into seven firmaments. Is it scientific?
‘He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see…’ 31 : 10
Muhammad believed that heaven must have been somehow upon the earth first. They must have been together without specifically a definite shape. Allah gave an order to Earth then he raised the Heavens and made them into seven firmaments. In order to hold them up and maintain their shape he made pillars which we cannot see. That’s the imagination of a nomad.
Here are other wrong notions of Quran about space.
‘Who has made the earth your couch, and the heavens your canopy; and sent down rain from the heavens…’ 2 : 22
‘And We have made the heavens as a canopy well guarded: yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to)!’ 21 : 32
Is the sky really a roof on earth? No it is not. We know the space is continuous. This verse reinforces the concept of heavens above the earth which is utterly wrong. We know earth is within the heavens. So there is no need for invisible pillars.
Here is a verse about judgment day.
‘And the sky will be rent asunder, for it will that Day be flimsy,’ 69 : 16
How will the sky be rent asunder when it is only space? It is not solid like glass or marble. The Prophet believed Allah would break down the Heavens standing above the earth, at the day of judgement down and they will crash down upon the earth.
The Peninsular Arabs were ignorant in nearly all the fields of science. The later Arabian speakers in Syria and Mesopotamia, and Iranians helped in the development of scientific knowledge. Why did not the Peninsulars do so? They too had the same ‘Holy Quran’. If the Quran really knew any such thing as Big Bang; and if it was written in Quran for the benefit and advancement of Muslims then why could not the Muslims ever gain knowledge from it of this Big Bang. It is a wrong idea that the Quran helped eastern astronomers make all the advancement; they were the discoveries of other civilizations. How can a book of Poetry, which maintains the geocentric view and all this stuff, propagate astronomy?
THE SUN ROTATES
Dr. Naik, page 12
For a long time European philosophers and scientists believed that the earth stood still in the center of the universe and every other body including the sun moved around it. In the West, this geocentric concept of the universe was prevalent right from the time of Ptolemy in the second century B.C. In 1512, Nicholas Copernicus put forward his Heliocentric Theory of Planetary Motion, which asserted that the sun is motionless at the centre of the solar system with the planets revolving around it. In 1609, the German scientist Yohannus Keppler published the ‘Astronomia Nova’. In this he concluded that not only do the planets move in elliptical orbits around the sun, they also rotate upon their axes at irregular speeds. With this knowledge it became possible for European scientists to explain correctly many of the mechanisms of the solar system including the sequence of night and day.
He has given the wrong information again. If you had the occasion of visiting the site that I told you or any other you want to, you will find that he is misleading. Though Ptolemy held the geocentric view but he was an able astronomer. We have also seen that it is the Quran in fact which believes in the Geocentric model otherwise it would never say that we cause day and night to overlap or coil. In history they were the theologians who always believed in the geocentric model.
The passage continues.
Consider the following Qur’aanic verse: “It is He Who created The Night and the Day, And the sun and the moon: All (the celestial bodies) Swim along, each in its Rounded course.” [Al-Qur’aan 21:33]
How can something ‘swim’ in a rounded course? The ayat does not say ‘rounded course’. What it says is ‘each in its own course’. Is there anything like daora in the ayat? No there isn’t. This is closer to ‘rounded course’. Perhaps daoraan would be better because it means ‘rotation’. You can consult anyone who knows Arabic. The term used in Quran is yasbahûn. It is derived from sabaha (Dr. Naik has mentioned this). I could find four meanings:
To swim
To float
To bathe
To paddle
It is not possible to use the last two meanings because they belong to ‘modern Arabics’. So we can take only the first two. But lets see what Dr. Naik says about it.
Continues on page 13
The Arabic word used in the above verse is yasbahûn . The word yasbahûn is derived from the word sabaha. It carries with it the idea of motion that comes from any moving body. If you use the word for a man on the ground, it would not mean that he is rolling but would mean he is walking or running. If you use the word for a man in water it would not mean that he is floating but would mean that he is swimming. Similarly, if you use the word yasbah for a celestial body such as the sun it would not mean that it is only flying through space but would mean that it is also rotating as it goes through space…
If yasbahûn does mean ‘rotate’ why doesn’t he write it such in the translation? Why does he go on to make additions? Does he feel conviction for deliberately changing the meaning of the ayat? Allah is going to punish him if He keeps to His words regardless of Dr. Naik’s intention, which is leaning in the favor of Quran here. Allah is Just after all and can see every deceitful action of human beings.
This word does not have any such use. How can you ascribe those meanings to words which they do not have. Notice how he is being tricky. Instead of simply giving the meanings of the word, he says ‘If you use the word for a man on the ground, it would not mean that he is rolling but would mean he is walking or running. If you use the word for a man in water it would not mean that he is floating but would mean that he is swimming’. Is he that smart? He should simply give us the meanings of the words so that we can know what fits most for the ayat. The following meanings can be taken out from his statement.
To walk
To run
To roll
To swim
To float
He deliberately gave the correct meanings at the end (the last two). He even began by saying ‘if you use the word for a man on the ground it would not mean that he is rolling’; thus he establishes in advance the meaning ‘rolling’.
Coming to the second paragraph now. Did the Quran say rotating? What logic is being applied here I cannot understand. For Dr. Naik it would not be wrong to say that a cow gives petrol instead of milk. Below I illustrate what he is doing.
Suppose there is a ‘set A’. Its elements are 0,2,3,7.
You are given an equation and have to complete the blank by using anyone of the elements in the given set.
1 + 8 + 5 + 6 + __ = 25
What is the answer? There is no solution. But Dr. Naik being very smart indeed, will say since all the other elements are prime numbers (he will overlook 0) so I can use the prime number 5 and complete this. He is still quite distant. In order to draw parallels of ‘prime numbers’ he should include the meanings like glide, buoy etc; but not roll or rotate.
If yasbahûn is really associated with motion then can one say that Snake, which actually wriggles, yasbahûns as well. Or a crawling Komodo Dragon yasbahûns too. Dr. Naik should ask this from an Arab and he will receive a slap in the face. He has distorted the meaning just as he has been throughout his book.
(I am making some addition here. I saw a speech by Dr. Naik. It was aimed against the atheists, and dubbed ‘Does God exist?’ At 5 minutes 40 seconds he used the same verse but translated it, ‘It is Allah who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon each one travelling in orbit of its own motion’. Why is not ‘travel’ replaced with ‘rotate’? You should see the video. I wonder what is the difference between ‘the people of the book’ who add verses to their books and the Muslims who change the meanings, add new meanings by writing new translations.)
Dr. Naik, page 13
“It is not permitted To the Sun to catch up The Moon, nor can The Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along In (its own) orbit (According to Law).” [Al-Qur’aan 36:40]
This verse mentions an essential fact discovered by modern astronomy, i.e. the existence of the individual orbits of the Sun and the Moon, and their journey through space with their own motion. The ‘fixed place’ towards, which the sun travels, carrying with it the solar system, has been located exactly by modern astronomy. It has been given a name, the Solar Apex… The moon rotates around its axis in the same duration that it takes to revolve around the earth. It takes approximately 29½ days to complete one rotation…
“It is not for Sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.” 36 : 40
‘Catch up’ can also mean to ‘overtake’ but what sense both of these meanings give. Is there a race between sun and moon that one cannot catch up or overtake the other?
Why has the rounded course disappeared here? The same word is being used here, yasbahûn. Why is he translating it differently this time? The latter part of the verse is same as that of the previous one while the translation is different; how can that be? I can not exactly make out what science is involved here. If it is about different motions of the sun and moon, I don’t understand how can in the same verse moon can be said to revolve around the earth and rotate on its own axis but the sun as only rotating when the same word is being used for both. If Dr. Naik means that the speed of moon is same for both types of motion so we should not take motions separately, then all I want to know is where does the Quran refer to the speed of both objects. What the Quran means is a moving sun, which was believed by the Arabs of the deserts since time immemorial. It is ridiculous to see Dr. Naik taking that out of the verse which is not even mentioned. It is still not clear how can he make the both meanings ‘rotate’ and ‘revolve’ from yasbahûn in two ayats.
What Allah actually wants to tell us here is that the darkness of night is followed by light of sun and vice versa. One does not need divinity or science to determine this. The Quran does not even mention the position of the earth relative to other astronomical objects (I will discuss this below as well). The verses reveal poetic discourse. I appreciate with all my sincerity the way Muhammad describes the sun as swimming (or floating) in the sky.
Dr. Bucaille, page 11
The Solar Apex
The notion of a settled place for the sun is vividly described in chapter Yaa Seen of the Qur’an:
"The sun runs its course to a settled place That is the decree of the Almighty, the All Knowing.” Qur’an, 36:38
“Settled place” is the translation of the word mustaqarr which indicates an exact appointed place and time. Modern astronomy confirms that the solar system is indeed moving in space at a rate of 12 miles per second towards a point situated in the constellation of Hercules ( alpha lyrae ) whose exact location has been precisely calculated. Astronomers have even given it a name, the solar apex.
Take the verse in the passage (We have discussed it above).
‘And the sun runs on his course for a period determined for him; that is the decree of (Him). That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.’ 36 : 38
‘And for the moon We have appointed mansions till she return like an old shriveled palm leaf.’ 36 : 39
‘It is not for Sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.’ 36 : 40
This shows that Muhammad believed sun and moon travel through space or sky. According to him they both travel their path in a time determined. We cannot say this is referring to the Solar Apex.
According to Maulana Yousif Ali, the word mustaqarr can have three meanings:
A period determined
A resting place
A dwelling place
Does it all show any science? I can’t find it. You cannot quote one or half a verse from the Quran, distort its meaning and claim it to be scientific. Instead of saying the ‘setting-place’ or ‘resting-place’, Dr. Bucaille says ‘a settled place’. It is in the Hadith tradition that after setting the sun rests under the throne of Allah. Prophet Muhammad also said ‘a day will come when it will rise no more’. I am not sure whether science agrees with this.
THE SUN WILL EXTINGUISH AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD
Dr. Naik, page 15
The light of the sun is due to a chemical process on its surface that has been taking place continuously for the past five billion years. It will come to an end at some point of time in the future when the sun will be totally extinguished…
Regarding the impermanence of the sun’s existence the Qur’aan says: “And the Sun Runs its course For a period determined For it; that is The decree of (Him) The exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.” [Al-Qur’aan 36:38]
The Arabic word used here is mustaqarr, which means a place or time that is determined. Thus the Qur’aan says that the sun runs towards a determined place, and will do so only up to a pre-determined period of time – meaning that it will end or extinguish.
Do you still think that Quran is speaking science? For the same verse two persons have extracted two different scientific facts. That’s quite ironical. Dr. Naik is more remote from a scientific fact than Dr. Bucaille, though the latter changed the meaning. Does ‘running the course’ mean ‘giving out light’? I was about to appreciate him for not changing the meaning but he has changed the angle through which we were supposed to look at the situation. Only Dr. Naik and Dr. Bucaille can wonder that this verse contains a lot of science. Muhammad said ‘a period determined’ which means the sun would not rise any more.
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
Dr. Bucaille, Page 9
In fact, the notion derived from the Qur’an is one of a parallelism in the celestial and terrestrial evolutions. There are also basic pieces of information concerning the existence of an initial gaseous mass ( dukhaan ) which are unique to the Qur’an. As well as descriptions of the elements which, although at first were fused together ( ratq ), they subsequently became separated (fatq). These ideas are expressed in chapters Fussilat and al-Anbiyaa:
“God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke” Qur’an, 41:11
“Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart?” Qur’an, 21:30
According to modern science, the separation process resulted in the formation of multiple worlds, a concept which appears dozens of times in the Qur’an. For example, look at the first chapter of the Qur’an, al-Faatihah:( “Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an, 1:1 ). These Qur’anic references are a11 in perfect agreement with modern ideas on the existence of primary nebula (galactic dust), followed by the separation of the elements which resulted in the formation of galaxies and then stars from which the planets were born.
The Quran does not say anywhere that the splitting of heaven and earth resulted in the ‘worlds’. Lord of the worlds could also mean our world, the world of Jinns, the paradise, or each of the seven heavens as Quran sees them separate, etc. Some Greeks Anaxarchus, for example, also believed that there were an infinite number of worlds, as galaxies. His assumptions had much substance because they had more astronomical data.
THE LIGHT OF THE MOON IS REFLECTED LIGHT
Dr. Naik, page 11
It was believed by earlier civilizations that the moon emanates its own light. Science now tells us that the light of the moon is reflected light. However this fact was mentioned in the Qur’aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse:.
“Blessed is He Who made Constellations in the skies, And placed therein a Lamp And a Moon giving light.” [Al-Qur’aan 25:61]
The Arabic word for the sun in the Qur’aan, is shams. It is referred to as siraaj, which means a ‘torch’ or as wahhaaj which means ‘a blazing lamp’ or as diya which means ‘shining glory’. All three descriptions are appropriate to the sun, since it generates intense heat and light by its internal combustion. The Arabic word for the moon is qamar and it is described in the Qur’aan as
muneer, which is a body that gives nur i.e. light… Not once in the Qur’aan, is the moon mentioned as siraaj, wahhaaj or diya or the sun as nur or muneer. This implies that the Qur’aan recognizes the difference between the nature of sunlight and moonlight.
Consider the following verses related to the nature of light from the sun and the moon: “It is He who made the sun To be a shining glory And the moon to be a light (Of beauty).” [Al-Qur’aan 10:5]
“See ye not How Allah has created The seven heavens One above another, “And made the moon A light in their midst, and made the sun As a (Glorious) Lamp?” [Al-Qur’aan 71:15-16]
I did not write this part earlier because I wanted to deal with those verses, which according to the apologists’ claim were related to the motion of celestial objects, separately.
Why does not he write it in the verse, ‘a moon reflecting light’ instead of ‘giving light’. This shows that moon has its own light. He is again changing the meaning.
Here again Dr. Naik jumps over the Greeks. Aristarchus had already suggested during his time (around 310-230 BCE) that the moon received its light from the sun. He had also established that the distance between sun and earth was greater than that of earth and moon, the sun was larger than moon and stars were infinitely far away. Although he could not get precise mathematical answers but what he proposed is true. Even the Quran does not suggest any mathematical measurement.
The word nur has other meanings as well such as the knowledge or enlightenment. We know that many a time the Quran shares evil with darkness and light (or nur) as a protection from it. I have no problem with the Quran describing sun as a lamp. Several ancient civilizations including Sumerians and Greeks have described it as a fire. Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE) drew the wrath of fellow Greeks for believing sun to be fire. The sun is a lamp but nur is not a ‘reflected light’. If we take the same meaning for nur, it would amount to a theological crisis. The Quran frequently says ‘Allah ho nur us samawatay wal arzay’, Allah is the nur of the earth and heavens. Does that mean Allah is only a reflected light on the earth and in heavens? Who is the real God? Read the following verse. This clearly shows Allah calls himself a ‘light’, knowledge, wisdom; for the guidance of human beings.
‘Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.’ 24 : 35
One can question why does not Allah guide all the human beings if he really cares for his creation. Considering from a poetic culture, one finds the Quran describing the sun as a lamp giving bright light and the moon giving light (as a guidance in night), which may not be as bright as that of sun. Whether I take Dr. Naik’s meanings or the correct ones, a bigger problem persists whatever.
‘He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of ((Allah)) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?’ 67 : 3
‘Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.’ 67 : 4
‘And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.’ 67 : 5
This can test whether ‘Allah doth know all things’. Allah has made seven heavens and adorned the lowest heaven with lamps while the moon was place in their midst (as we read 71 : 16). So the distance between the sun and the earth is lesser than that of the earth and the moon? Aristarchus’ conclusions were better than these. He took guide from mathematics instead of Allah’s omniscience and got it right. Again the Quran does not believe in a continuous space. Moreover Aristarchus did not believe that shooting stars were used to drive away the evils! The hypothesis of Anaxagoras is more interesting. He observed that the meteors were like the earth and thus believed that the rapid rotation of earth threw off such chunks. Nevertheless he had an objective approach.
‘We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,’ 37 : 6
‘(For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits,’ 37 : 7
‘(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side,’ 37 : 8
Does science tell us that the stars are closest to earth or meteors are missiles chasing evil spirits or even extraterrestrial? Where does one find the Exalted Assembly of Allah in the space? Isn’t it like a fairy tale that stars are being shot at rebellious spirits who are eavesdropping at the Assembly? There is not only one, the Satan but there are many of them.
THE PRESENCE OF INTERSTELLAR MATTER
Dr. Naik, page 15
Space outside organized astronomical systems was earlier assumed to be a vacuum . Astrophysicists later discovered the presence of bridges of matter in this interstellar space. These bridges of matter are called plasma, and consist of completely ionized gas containing equal number of free electrons and positive ions. Plasma is sometimes called the fourth state of matter…
The Qur’aan mentions the presence of this interstellar material in the following
verse: “He Who created the heavens And the earth and all That is between.” [Al-Qur’aan 25:59]
It would be ridiculous, for anybody to even suggest that the presence of interstellar galactic material was known 1400 years ago.
Did Quran suggest ‘interstellar galactic material’? Or did it even mention ‘interstellar space’. ‘Galactic material’ is actually found ‘in Heavens’ but not ‘between heavens and earth’ as the Quran said. Dr. Naik is making a fool of himself by making such a point.
Spacing aside, lets move on to explore further and find more misinformations of the Quran. Had the Quran used a term related to this anywhere, in any single verse one could say that it is being mentioned here. Even the three widely known states of matter are not discussed in Quran. We discussed on page 41 that the Quran has only stars, earth, sun and moon in its knowledge. It would be ridiculous for Dr. Naik to suggest that the presence of interstellar galactic material was known, to Quran, 1400 years ago. All that Quran knows about objects in heavens are sun, moon, stars, shooting stars but not the earth. According to the Quran heavens are above the earth and it appears separate from it.
The incident of Miraaj shows as if the Prophet visited a different world which is above the earth and the heavens. I have not come across a verse in the Quran which sees earth within the heavens, if you find one you are welcome to prove me wrong.
‘His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).’ 2 : 255
‘He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority): Allah Most Gracious: ask thou, then, about Him of any acquainted (with such things).’ 25 : 59
Thus we cannot take the meaning of ‘all that is between’ to be ‘interstellar galactic matter’ when Quran has not spoken of it anywhere. You need page of a coherent and descriptive language in order to tell one about the galactic material but not four words. Poverty of Allah’s book? Do you understand now what do these apologists do…
Expansion of the Universe
Dr. Bucaille, page12
Chapter ath-Thaariyaat of the Qur’an also seems to allude to one of the most imposing discoveries of modern science, the expansion of the Universe.
“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47
The expansion of the universe was first suggested by the general theory of relativity and is supported by the calculations of astrophysics…
Dr. Naik, page 16
In 1925, an American astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble, provided observational evidence that all galaxies are receding from one another, which implies that the universe is expanding…
This is what Al-Qur’aan says regarding the
nature of the universe: “With the power and skill Did We construct The Firmament: For it is We Who create The vastness of Space.” [Al-Qur’aan 51:47]
The Arabic word mûsi‘ûn is correctly translated as ‘expanding it’, and it refers to the creation of the expanding vastness of the universe. Stephen Hawking, in his book, ‘A Brief History of Time’, says, “The discovery that the universe is expanding was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the 20th century.”
…Some may say that the presence of astronomical facts in the Qur’aan is not surprising since the Arabs were advanced in the field of astronomy. They are correct in acknowledging the advancement of the Arabs in the field of astronomy. However they fail to realize that the Qur’aan was revealed centuries before the Arabs excelled in astronomy. Moreover many of the scientific facts mentioned above regarding astronomy, such as the origin of the universe with a Big Bang, were not known to the Arabs even at the peak of their scientific advancement…
The Arabs advanced in astronomy, because astronomy occupies a place in the Qur’aan.
If Dr. Naik believes that mûsi‘ûn is correctly translated as ‘expanding it’ why doesn’t he (Dr. Naik) write the same in the verse? This really shows he feels the guilt again of changing the meaning. It does not solve the problem. The phrase ‘expanding it’ is not consistent with what the Quran establishes at other times. It has already made heaven into seven firmaments. All that Quran knows about the universe (at present) is that there is an earth, above the earth are heavens, and above the heavens is the throne of Allah. If the Quran really means universe is expanding then it should also say that the canopy is being raised as well because the Heavens are already ordered into seven firmaments. The invisible pillars too should be increased in length so as to meet the height of expanding heavens. Still that is not science.
One cannot even make sure (if space is expanding) in which direction is space expanding. Lets say it is expanding in all directions. But according to the Quran is space expanding or the heavens? The Quran talks about Heavens and not space or entire universe. When heavens are mentioned, the Quran does not intend earth within them so that one could consider the complete universe. The universe is expanding due to the expansion of space; the far parts of it are moving away from it faster than the speed of light.
‘With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.’ 51 : 47
The Smallest Thing
Gary Miller (Amazing Quran), Page 2-3
Many centuries before the onset of Muhammad's prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet; interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Quran (Surah Saba', 34:3) which states:
"He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and
even anything smaller than that..."
Dr. Miller has not written the complete verse here. He has missed a part of it. It gives a very different picture once you read the complete verse.
The word dharrah means a particle; or the smallest. But atom is uncut-down-able. I don’t think whether the concept of atom had reached the Arabs. For them dharrah could be individual particle of sand which constituted the deserts of peninsula. The concept of ‘atom’ (in east) was a late one. To imagine something smaller than a particle of sand is not miraculous.
THE EXISTENCE OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES
Dr. Naik, page 17
In ancient times a well-known theory by the name of ‘Theory of Atomism’ was widely accepted. This theory was originally proposed by the Greeks, in particular by a man called Democritus, who lived about 23 centuries ago…
The Arabs used to believe the same. The Arabic word dharrah most commonly meant an atom. In recent times modern science has discovered that it is possible to split even an atom. That the atom can be split further is a development of the 20th century. Fourteen centuries ago this concept would have appeared unusual even to an Arab. For him the dharrah was the limit beyond which one could not go.
Here is the complete ayat.
‘The Unbelievers say, "Never to us will come the Hour": Say, "Nay! but most surely, by my Lord, it will come upon you;- by Him Who knows the unseen,- from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth: Nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the Record Perspicuous:’ 34 : 3
You can now understand what was missing in the previous verse. Suppose someone believes there is one God, the greatest of all. But then I claim my god is greater than the greatest. Does that mean, there exists such a greater god. If Muhammad really believed or was sure (and referring to it in the verse) that there could be something smaller than a particle or an atom, he would never talk about anything greater. He did not say ‘those things which are lesser and greater than that’. This could give a different, rather affirmative meaning. But ‘anything less than that, or greater’, is something ordinary in daily use of a language without really being sure of what is being referred. ‘Anything’ can refer to those things which are not in our knowledge or may not even exist. It does not give a definite meaning about the existence of a thing and may hardly be used for those which are yet to be discovered.
Subatomic particles are those particles which compose nucleons and atoms. There are elementary particles, those which are not made of other particles and composite particles, which are made up of other particles. According to the standard model, the elementary particles include:
six ‘flavour’ Quarks: up, down, charm etc
six types of Leptons: electron, electron neutrino etc
twelve Gauge Bosons: photons of electromagnetism etc
Composit subatomic particles include protons, neutrons and atomic nuclei. A proton is made up of two up quarks and one down quark. A neutron is composed of two down quarks and one up quark while the atomic nuclei of Helium (as you know) is composed of two neutrons and two protons.
How much of the Quranic description matches this model for subatomic particles? It surely appears insignificant when compared to science.
Conquest of Space
Dr. Bucaille, page 12
Among the achievements of modern science is the “conquest” of space which has resulted in mans journey to the moon. The prediction of this event surely springs to mind when we read the chapter ar-Rahmaan in the Qur’an:
“O assembly of Jinns and men, if you can penetrate the regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them except with authority.” Qur’an,55:33
Authority to travel in space can only come from the Creator of the laws which govern movement and space.
There is no prediction that men will penetrate the heavens one day and land on moon? The purpose of this verse is to show the power of Allah. Yet Dr. Bucaille shows his great ability to discover science in Quran. Besides did NASA need Allah’s authority to penetrate into Heavens? They did it with their own will power. Doesn’t this verse pose a challenge to Allah’s omnipotence?
‘Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?’ 55 : 34
Did Allah do any favour to NASA and help them get on the moon?
THE WATER CYCLE
Dr. Naik, page 18
The water cycle is described by the Qur’aan in the following verses: “Seest thou not that Allah Sends down rain from The sky, and leads it Through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, Therewith, produce of various Colours.” [Al-Qur’aan 39:21]
“He sends down rain From the sky And with it gives life to The earth after it is dead: Verily in that are Signs For those who are wise.” [Al- Qur’aan 30:24]
“And We send down water From the sky according to (Due) measure, and We cause it To soak in the soil; And We certainly are able To drain it off (with ease).” [Al-Qur’aan 23:18]
The first ayat tells us about rain dropping from the sky, passing through spring and going into the earth.
The second ayat states how when rain falls from the sky helps to give life to the earth after it is dead or barren. Allah helps to make the earth fertile after drought etc.
The third says that the water falls from the sky and is soaked into the soil; you must know how much dry is the soil of Arabia so it immediately absorbs the water. Allah is able to do this with ease.
You may not find something magical in this. I believe Muhammad was a man of keen observation. But what is so special about these verses? Every one of us knows that this is what happens. Does this explain a lot about water cycle? Now read the passage of Dr. Naik and see how he makes it special.
In 1580, Bernard Palissy was the first man to describe the present day concept of ‘water cycle’. He described how water evaporates from the oceans and cools to form clouds. The clouds move inland where they rise, condense and fall as rain. This water gathers as lakes and streams and flows back to the ocean in a continuous cycle. In the 7th century B.C., Thales of Miletus believed that surface spray of the oceans was picked up by the wind and carried inland to fall as rain. In earlier times people did not know the source of underground water. They thought the water of the oceans, under the effect of winds, was thrust towards the interior of the continents. They also believed that the water returned by a secret passage, or the Great Abyss…
Till the nineteenth century, Aristotle’s theory was prevalent. According to this theory, water was condensed in cool mountain caverns and formed underground lakes that fed springs. Today, we know that the rainwater that seeps into the cracks of the ground is responsible for this.
Dr. Naik diverts the attention of the reader towards the source of ground water, and says its source was a problem for people few centuries ago. I don’t think that the Quran clearly states the source of ground water. Does the Quran tell us about the first stage of water cycle? The water evaporates from the oceans and seas and cools to form clouds. It does not say anything about vapors condensing to cause rain. It does not complete the water cycle as to the drainage of water through rivers into sea. Dr. Naik has written in the passage that Thales knew the source of rainwater. He did indeed. No doubt, a man of the desert (and so his omniscient God) could not know that the rainwater actually comes from the oceans and seas and frequently drains back in them at the completion of water cycle. Now lets see what the Greeks have to say about it.
According to Xenophanes (570-480 BCE):
‘…the clouds are formed by the sun's vapor [i.e. vapor caused by the heat from the sun's rays] raising and lifting them to the surrounding air’,
‘…things in the heavens occur through the heat of the sun as the initial cause; for when the moisture is drawn up from the sea, the sweet portion, separating because of its fineness and turning into mists, combines into clouds, trickled down in drops of rain due to compression, and vaporizes the winds’,
‘The sea is the source of water and of wind,
For without the great sea, there would be no wind
Nor streams of rivers, nor rainwater from on high
But the great sea is the begetter of clouds, winds, and rivers.’
Compare this with what the Quran says. Which one is more accurate and scientific? Was there any divinity in what the Quran says?
According to Anaxagoras the sun raises water from the sea into the atmosphere, from where it falls as rain; then it is collected underground and feeds the flow of rivers.
Was there anything unknown to Greeks which Dr. Naik has found out of the Quran? Did not the Greeks know the source of ground water! It is the Quran in fact which does not know the source of rainwater. The Quran does not contain any information about meteorological phenomena, hydrostatics, principle of mass conservation in hydrological cycle as against the contribution of Greeks.
WINDS IMPREGNATE THE CLOUDS
Dr. Naik, page 19
“And We send the fecundating winds, Then cause the rain to descend
From the sky, therewith providing You with water (in abundance).” [Al-
Qur’aan 15:22]
The Arabic word used here is lawâqih, which is the plural of laqih from
laqaha, which means to impregnate or fecundate. In this context, impregnate
means that the wind pushes the clouds together increasing the condensation
that causes lightning and thus rain. A similar description is found in the
Qur’aan: “It is Allah Who sends The Winds, and they raise The Clouds:
then does He Spread them in the sky As He wills, and break them Into
fragments, until thou seest Raindrops issue from the midst Thereof: then
when He has Made them reach such Of His servants as He wills, Behold,
they do rejoice!” [Al-Qur’aan 30:48]
The Qur’aanic descriptions are absolutely accurate and agree perfectly with
modern data on hydrology. The water cycle is described in several verses of
the Glorious Qur’aan, including 3:9, 7:57, 13:17, 25:48- 49, 36:34, 50:9-11,
56:68-70, 67:30 and 86:11.
Fecundate does not mean condense. It means to ‘make fruitful’ or ‘fertilize’. Even if we take that meaning, there is no precision of a scientific description again. When the Quran says ‘fecundate’ or ‘impregnate’ it appears that according to Muhammad some winds full of water not particularly coming from sea or ocean fill up the clouds with it and cause rain. Since the people of the desert could not experience chilling wind so it would be impossible for them to even imagine the condensing of vapours. The second verse is a continual repetition without any substance. No matter how longer a verse becomes this does not help it to complete a scientific phenomenon. The Greeks had precise explanations for this phenomenon.
Aristotle (384-323 BC) in his treatise Mereorologica clarifies that water evaporates by the action of sun and forms vapor whose condensation forms clouds. He had the concept of chilling of these vapours which were formed by heating up of oceanic water from sun’s radiation. Epicurus had explanations for rain, lightning, thunder, hail, snow, dew, rainbow, halo, ice; they were not on the whole correct but I wish I could show you through them how an ‘objective outlook’ should be if one wishes to take it as scientific. It would prolong the discussion. The Greeks also knew about the concentration difference of the air which caused winds to flow inland. Muhammad could know nothing about it in the middle of the desert.
Now lets look at the other verses of the Glorious Quran which as Dr. Naik says are so much scientific.
‘"Our Lord! Thou art He that will gather mankind Together against a day about which there is no doubt; for Allah never fails in His promise."’ 3 : 9 (Lots of science?)
‘It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a land that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and produce every kind of harvest therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead: perchance ye may remember.’ 7 : 57
‘He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables.’ 13 : 17
‘And He it is Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy, and We send down pure water from the sky,-‘ 25 : 48
‘That with it We may give life to a dead land, and slake the thirst of things We have created,- cattle and men in great numbers.’ 25 : 49
‘And We produce therein orchard with date-palms and vines, and We cause springs to gush forth therein:’ 36 : 34
‘And We send down from the sky rain charted with blessing, and We produce therewith gardens and Grain for harvests;’ 50 : 9
‘And tall (and stately) palm-trees, with shoots of fruit-stalks, piled one over another;-’ 50 : 11
‘As sustenance for ((Allah)'s) Servants;- and We give (new) life therewith to land that is dead: Thus will be the Resurrection.’ 50 : 12
‘See ye the water which ye drink?’ 56 : 68
‘Do ye bring it down (in rain) from the cloud or do We?’ 56 : 69
‘Were it Our Will, We could make it salt (and unpalatable): then why do ye not give thanks?’ 56 : 70
‘Say: "See ye?- If your stream be some morning lost (in the underground earth), who then can supply you with clear-flowing water?"’ 67 : 30
‘By the Firmament which returns (in its round),’ 86 : 11
Dr. Naik is always infinitely confident when he talks about the water cycle. He boasts for his huge memory by mentioning these verses and tries to show that the Quran has so much to say about water cycle. People clap for him. When you ask Muslims why Quran’s description is not complete about any phenomenon, there are those who have a clever escape by saying it would be inconvenient to include all the information. However I find a fault here. If the Quran had divine source then it would at least complete the water cycle. It has spent nearly 16 verses in saying all which could be expressed in the first 2. Then there was 14 others left in which the divine could not even go forward to complete the water cycle! I am astonished. The Quran lacks the first few steps of water cycle which were known to Greeks long ago. Where is the omniscience of Allah, the Magnificent, and now the Scientist.
MOUNTAINS ARE LIKE PEGS (STAKES)
Dr. Naik, page 20
In Geology, the phenomenon of ‘folding’ is a recently discovered fact. Folding is responsible for the formation of mountain ranges. The earth’s crust, on which we live, is like a solid shell, while the deeper layers are hot and fluid, and thus inhospitable to any form of life. It is also known that the stability of the mountains is linked to the phenomenon of folding, for it was the folds that were to provide foundations for the reliefs that constitute the mountains. Geologists tell us that the radius of the Earth is about 3,750 miles and the crust on which we live is very thin, ranging between 1 to 30 miles. Since the crust is thin, it has a high possibility of shaking. Mountains act like stakes or tent pegs that hold the earth’s crust and give it stability.
The Qur’aan contains exactly such a description in the following verse: “Have We not made The earth as a wide Expanse, And the mountains as pegs?” [Al- Qur’aan 78:6-7]
The word awtad means stakes or pegs (like those used to anchor a tent); they are the deep foundations of geological folds. A book named ‘Earth’ is considered as a basic reference textbook on geology in many universities around the world. One of the authors of this book is Frank Press… According to Dr. Press, the mountains play an important role in stabilizing the crust of
the earth.
The Qur’aan clearly mentions the function of the mountains in preventing the earth from shaking: “And We have set on the earth Mountains standing firm, Lest it should shake with them.” [Al-Qur’aan 21:31]
Whatever scientific phenomenon he has related does not support the Quran. The Quran does not describe the process of mountain formation; nothing about crust or layers or folds. He is doing the same thing, breeding so much meaning out of verse when it does not have that.
If mountains provide support to the earth’s crust then who plays this role in the deserts. Do the deserts shake? It would not be of much worth to prove what Dr. Naik says scientifically wrong. Because the verses are so vague that they hardly draw a face when the apologists complete a new creature. The verse does not contain any information in itself. Apologists add information to it. But is it what happens in reality? We know the earth shakes wherever there are mountain be it Japan, Italy, Pakistan. There are other places without mountains where the land does not shake at all. Do the mountains prevent earth shaking? Why do so many people die every year if that is the purpose of mountains?
‘And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.’ 21 : 31
We know that the mountains result with the collision of tectonic plates. When one collides with the other it pushes the whole mass above and the mountains shake increasing in size. It’s not a simple phenomenon. According to modern geological theory the folds do not play a role in stabilizing the layers of crust but the folds in the crust render it highly unstable. The mountains do not prevent the earth from shaking but they spread the impact over larger area thus helping to increase the scale of disaster and causing greater loss of life and property! That the mountains prevent earth from shaking was a wrong concept of Indian and Iranian philosophy. Still there was nothing thus mentioned in the Quran, Dr. Naik conjured this himself.
If you read the first verse again, now that what Dr. Naik says has been proven wrong, and wonder why Allah placed mountains on the earth so that it does not shake a better explanation of the whole situation erupts. Muhammad saw how landscape changed in the desert as sand dunes shifted to and fro while this was not the case in mountains near Mecca. So he thought that mountains had a purpose in holding the land together. Suppose Hassan goes to a picnic. He lays a sheet on the ground for the party to sit down but the wind blows it away. His father advises him to place ‘bricks as pegs’ on the sheet ‘a wide expanse’. This is what the Quran is trying to say.
MOUNTAINS FIRMLY FIXED
Dr. Naik, Page 21
“And the mountains Hath He firmly fixed.” [Al-Qur’aan 79:32]
Are the mountains firmly fixed? We know that the earth shakes and so do the mountains. The mountains that we have today were at a different place at some other time in the past.
The surface of the earth is broken into many rigid plates that are about 100 km in thickness… Mountain formations occur at the boundary of the plates. The earth’s crust is 5 km thick below oceans, about 35 km thick below flat continental surfaces and almost 80 km thick below great mountain ranges. These are the strong foundations on which mountains stand.
A verse of seven words is giving the explanation with six facts. Yet there is nothing in the verse that is referred to in the passage. Does the verse talk about foundations of mountains? Whenever you will come across a verse about the mountains in Quran you will feel as if mountains did not form out of earth but were placed on it.
‘He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth…’ 41 : 11
‘And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.’ 21 : 31
‘And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads; that ye may guide yourselves;’ 16 : 15
‘And it is He who spread out the earth, and set thereon mountains standing firm and (flowing) rivers…’ 13 : 3
The Quran does not have any concept of the tectonic plates. This reinforces the idea that according to Prophet Muhammad, mountains were placed on the earth as stones on a sheet. So he reiterated that mountains are firmly fixed or standing firm.
Epicurus in his letter to Pythocles identifies a movement in the foundation of earth as the cause for an earthquake. He believed that a pressure of hot air within the earth caused this movement. He was correct at the identification that pressure of air is greater than liquid or solid and that the shaking is caused from a factor within the earth.
BARRIER BETWEEN SWEET AND SALT WATERS
Dr. Naik, page 22
“He has let free the two bodies Of flowing water, Meeting together: Between them is a Barrier Which they do not transgress.” [Al-Qur’aan 55:19-20]
In the Arabic text the word barzakh means a barrier or a partition. This barrier is not a physical partition. The Arabic word maraja literally means ‘they both meet and mix with each other’. Early commentators of the Qur’aan were unable to explain the two opposite meanings for the two bodies of water, i.e. they meet and mix, and at the same time, there is a barrier between them. Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density. Oceanologists are now in a better position to explain this verse. There is a slanted unseen water barrier between the two seas through which water from one sea passes to the other.
Maraja-al-bahrain can have many meanings such as ‘roaring tides of two seas’ or ‘pearls of two seas’ etc according to the structure of a verse. Here the verses only proposes the meeting of water of two seas. The presence of barzakh shows the two waters do not mix together. The waters of these seas meet together but remain separated. Science tells us each mixes with the other.
But when the water from one sea enters the other sea, it loses its distinctive characteristic and becomes homogenized with the other water. In a way this barrier serves as a transitional homogenizing area for the two waters. This scientific phenomenon mentioned in the Qur’aan was also confirmed by Dr. William Hay who is a well-known marine scientist and Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado, U.S.A. The Qur’aan mentions this phenomenon also in the following verse: “And made a separating bar between the two bodies Of flowing water?” [Al-Qur’aan 27:61]
This phenomenon occurs in several places, including the divider between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean at Gibralter.
The verse does not talk about the meeting of water. It says both seas or water of both seas remain separated. They are distant and do not even come together; ‘there is no maraja in this verse’. This verse is quite distant from a scientific phenomenon since the ‘two seas’ do not even come together.
But when the Qur’aan speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. “It is He Who has Let free the two bodies Of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, And the other salty and bitter; Yet has He Made a barrier between them, And a partition that is forbidden To be passed.” [Al-Qur’aan 25:53]
Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and saltwater meet, the situation is somewhat different from that found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.” 8 This partition (zone of separation) has salinity different from both the fresh water and the salt water. 9 This phenomenon occurs in several places, including Egypt, where the river Nile flows into the Mediterranean Sea.
The Arabic verse mentions ‘two seas’, bahrain. Thus the verse would not mean water of river flowing into sea but two seas having salty and bitter or palatable and sweet water. This phenomenon does not occur when two seas meet together but when a river drains into the sea. These waters mix but there is no barrier between them at all. The Quran does not mention river flowing into the sea, it is Dr. Naik who is mentioning this. If you take his meaning then you should know that there is no zone with a marked discontinuity. The composition of water changes continuously. Scientific explanation goes against the Quran whatever. We know the water of sea is salty but not sweet or bitter.
To sum up:
The first two verses tell us about water of two seas which meet together but remain separated; but science says they mix.
The third verse has no such thing since two waters do not even meet.
The fourth verse talks about salty and bitter water (of seas) meeting and mixing together despite a barrier. The phenomenon being related here occurs when river drains into the sea.
The last phenomenon is not a recent scientific discovery. Illiterate people living at sea know it. They know that the density of water changes continuously when water from a river flows into sea.
DARKNESS IN THE DEPTHS OF THE OCEAN
Dr. Naik, page 23-25
Prof. Durga Rao is an expert in the field of Marine Geology and was a professor at King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah. He was asked to comment on the following verse: “Or (the Unbelievers’ state) Is like the depths of darkness In a vast deep ocean, Overwhelmed with billow Topped by billow, Topped by (dark) clouds: Depths of darkness, one Above another: if a man Stretches out his hand, He can hardly see it! For any to whom Allah Giveth not light, there is no light!” [Al-Qur’aan 24:40]
Prof. Rao said that scientists have only now been able to confirm, with the help of modern equipment that there is darkness in the depths of the ocean. Humans are unable to dive unaided underwater for more than 20 to 30 meters, and cannot survive in the deep oceanic regions at a depth of more than 200 meters. This verse does not refer to all seas because not every sea can be described as having accumulated darkness layered one over another. It refers especially to a deep sea or deep ocean, as the Qur’aan says, “darkness in a vast deep ocean”. This layered darkness in a deep ocean is the result of two causes:
A light ray is composed of seven colours. These seven colours are Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red (VIBGYOR). The light ray undergoes refraction when it hits water. The upper 10 to 15 metres of water absorb the red colour. Therefore if a diver is 25 metres under water and gets wounded, he would not be able to see the red colour of his blood, because the red colour does not reach this depth. Similarly orange rays are absorbed at 30 to 50 metres, yellow at 50 to 100 metres, green at 100 to 200 metres, and finally, blue beyond 200 metres and violet and indigo above 200 metres. Due to successive disappearance of colour, one layer after another, the ocean progressively becomes darker, i.e. darkness takes place in layers of light. Below a depth of 1000 meters there is complete darkness.
The sun’s rays are absorbed by clouds, which in turn scatter light rays thus causing a layer of darkness under the clouds. This is the first layer of darkness. When light rays reach the surface of the ocean they are reflected by the wave surface giving it a shiny appearance. Therefore it is the waves which reflect light and cause darkness. The unreflected light penetrates into the depths of the ocean. Therefore the ocean has two parts. The surface characterized by light and warmth and the depth characterized by darkness. The surface is further separated from the deep part of the ocean by waves. The internal waves cover the deep waters of seas and oceans because the deep waters have a higher density than the waters above them. The darkness begins below the internal waves…
The Qur’aan rightly mentions: “Darkness in a vast deep ocean overwhelmed with waves topped by waves”. In other words, above these waves there are more types of waves, i.e. those found on the surface of the ocean. The Qur’aanic verse continues, “topped by (dark) clouds; depths of darkness, one above another.” These clouds as explained are barriers one over the other that further cause darkness by absorption of colours at different levels…
The science in this verse is the description of Quran about the darkness deep inside an ocean if I am not wrong ‘a sea’ for bahr. This verse is not referring to all seas but to some specific sea. Is there anything worth noting in this verse? It would be meaningless first of all to devote a verse to explain the depth of one sea in order to confirm the divine origins of Quran. I don’t think one finds dark clouds at the depth of ocean to stop light from entering water. It is due to the reflection on the surface and internal reflection that light does not penetrate into depths.
The description is quite ambiguous. One cannot understand what exactly is the structure of sea and its depth according to Quran in the given context. The Quran shows it like a mixture of all; everything is on the top of the other be it a wave, cloud or layer of darkness. It does not lay any sequence to the structure; ‘layers of darkness’ are not correctly described. Dr. Naik is depending on ‘choose and pick’ strategy in relation to phrases of verse to suit his meaning. Are there clouds deep inside oceans? The light is reflected by the water.
Apart from confirming to the eloquence of Muhammad the purpose of this verse is only to show what will happen to those whom Allah does not show His Guidance.
Read the following lines from Bible, Jonah 2 : 1.
"From Inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God.
He said,...You hurled me into the deep,
into the very heart of the seas,
and the currents swirled about me;
all your waves and breakers swept over me.
Isn’t this scientific too?
BIOLOGY
Dr. Bucaille, page 14
More than anything else, I was struck by statements in the Qur’an dealing with living things, both in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, especially with regard to reproduction… due to the limited scope of this presentation, I can only give a few examples…There are also other verses whose obvious meanings are easily understood, but which conceal scientific meanings which are startling, to say the least. This is the case of a verse in chapter al-Ambiyaa, a part of which has already been quoted:
“Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I clove them asunder and I made every living thing out of water. Will they still not believe?” Qur’an, 21:30
This is a dramatic affirmation of the modern idea that the origin of life is aquatic.
I must congratulate you that we have found the first verse of the Quran which is so close to modern science. But the irony is that you will find this unacceptable. ‘The life originated out of water’; if that is what the Quran says then you are obliged to consider the theory of evolution as divinely correct. This is not what ‘creationists’ believe. This is what evolutionary biologists believe. There is still something missing here, not all living things were made out of water. Many of them appeared later. The Quran also misses the point of gradual development in the species. There is more to it.
EVERY LIVING THING IS MADE OF WATER
Dr. Naik, page 26
Consider the following Qur’aanic verse: “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one Unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” [Al-Qur’aan 21:30]
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? The
following verse refers to the creation of animals from water: “And Allah has created Every animal from water.” [Al-Qur’aan 24:45]
The following verse refers to the creation of human beings from water: “It is He Who has Created man from water: Then has He established Relationships of lineage And marriage: for thy Lord Has power (over all things).” [Al-Qur’aan 25:54]
The same old story at the peak of enthusiasm; ‘14 centuries ago … deserts of Arabia’. The meaning of this verse is equivocal. It does not discuss cell or even basic unit of life. It does not say the larger part of a living thing is water or any such thing. Thus it does not necessarily talk about cells or general composition of a body. This verse is quite vague.
According to Dr. Bucaille who has translated it ‘… out of water’ this verse seems to be referring to origins of life. But Mr. Naik’s translation is ‘… from water.’ He does not believe in evolution so he wants to take another meaning out of it; body is composed of water. The translations of other scholars vary in the same way.
If we go along with Dr. Bucaille, we do not have much to discuss. I am ready to accept this since this verse follows the creation of universe (which the Quran does not describe correctly). But the scarcity of evidence and meaning do not permit me to go further.
If we agree with what Dr. Naik says, then there are several problems to contend with. Allah has not created man out of water only.
‘Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:’ 96 : 2
‘We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;’ 15 : 26
‘Among His Signs in this, that He created you from dust; and then, behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!’ 30 : 20
So what was man created from? I remember there was a theory proposed by metaphysicians that living things were created from earth, air, fire and water (the four elements); it is prevalent today among metaphysicians of Islamic world. Is this the sign that the Quran wants to give us? Science does not propose man is created from clot of blood, water, dust, and sounding clay. Moreover the Quran does not confirm that other living things are composed of these elements too. We know that the composition of human beings is same as all the other living things.
The Prophet was not the first person to claim all this. Another Greek Thales of Miletus (624-546BCE) was the first person to suggest that life actually originated from water. Furthermore, according to him water constituted the principal of living things. What he says is neither vague nor equivocal. This is what we call science. If not omniscient, the Greeks stand ‘para-scient’ against the peninsular Arabs.
Dr. Naik, page 27
Previously humans did not know that plants too have male and female gender distinctions. Botany states that every plant has a male and female gender. Even the plants that are unisexual have distinct elements of both male and female. “‘And has sent Down water from the sky.’ With it have We produced Diverse pairs of plants Each separate from the others.” [Al- Qur’aan 20:53]
“And fruit Of every kind He made In pairs, two and two.” [Al-Qur’aan 13:3]
Fruit is the end product of reproduction of the superior plants. The stage preceding fruit is the flower, which has male and female organs (stamens and ovules). Once pollen has been carried to the flower, they bear fruit, which in turn matures and frees its seed. All fruits therefore imply the existence of male and female organs; a fact that is mentioned in the Qur’aan.
I find a contradiction at the very heart of it.
‘And it is He who spread out the earth, and set thereon mountains standing firm and (flowing) rivers: and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two…’ 13 : 3
We have happened upon this verse earlier; it helped to put mountains on earth. Now it claims another scientific breakthrough. It is true that there are many plants with pairs but the majority of plants are hermaphrodites. A textbook of biology can tell us this. According to the Quran all fruits are created in pairs not that all have sexual characteristics. One is either a male or a female. There is one fruit which I can recall now and does not have pair of sex, apple. You will find many other fruits without a pair if you search on the Internet.
If you have ever had the occasion of visiting a garden where date is being grown, you will soon learn why Muhammad said that. I remember how I was astonished when my uncle told me three years ago that fruits too have pairs. He took date fruit for example, which was occupying him at that time. It is known ever since the date palm was grown that it has pair so the Prophet guessed ‘fruits of every kind are made in pairs’. Another plant mentioned in Quran is olive. It is of one kind but the fruit is most frequently cross-pollinated by other varieties for improving strains. ‘Verily, in these things there are signs for those who consider’; indeed there are for you…
Empedocles (490-430 BCE) was the first person to deduce that the plants have sexes but it was proven at a very later stage. Therefore this knowledge even though not completely correct, coming from Quran is not special. Another Greek, Theophrastus, classified plants into trees, shrubs, under shrubs, and herbs. In his work on propagation and germination, he described the various ways in which specific plants and trees can grow: from seeds, from roots, from pieces torn off, from a branch or twig, or from a small piece of cleft wood.
EVERYTHING MADE IN PAIRS
Dr. Naik, page 28
“And of everything We have created pairs.” [Al-Qur’aan 51:49]
This refers to things other than humans, animals, plants and fruits. It may also be referring to a phenomenon like electricity in which the atoms consist of negatively – and positively – charged electrons and protons.
“Glory to Allah, Who created In pairs all things that The earth produces, as well as Their own (human) kind And (other) things of which They have no knowledge.” [Al-Qur’aan 36:36]
The Qur’aan here says that everything is created in pairs, including things that the humans do not know at present and may discover later.
There are several living things such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa, which do not have any pair. Is there a ‘repelling’ gravitational force? I don’t think so. One needs science to determine this. Protons and electrons have no relation such that each can be a pair. The latest development in science, particularly in atomic Physics shows that such a claim by Dr. Naik sounds ridiculous.
THE FLIGHT OF BIRDS
Dr. Naik, page 29
Regarding the flight of birds the Qur’aan says: “Do they not look at The birds, held poised In the midst of (the air And) the sky? Nothing Holds them up but (the power Of) Allah. Verily in this Are Signs for those who believe.” [Al-Qur’aan 16:79]
A similar message is repeated in the Qur’aan in the verse: “Do they not observe The birds above them, Spreading their wings And folding them in? None can uphold them Except (Allah) Most Gracious: Truly it is He That watches over all things.” [Al-Qur’aan 67:19]
The Arabic word amsaka literally means, ‘to put one’s hand on, seize, hold, hold someone back,’ which expresses the idea that Allah holds the bird up in His power. These verses stress the extremely close dependence of the birds’ behaviour on Divine order… It is only the existence of a migratory programme in the genetic code of the birds that can explain the long and complicated journey that very young birds, without any prior experience and without any guide, are able to accomplish. They are also able to return to the departure point on a definite date.
Prof. Hamburger in his book ‘Power and Fragility’ gives the example of ‘mutton-bird’ that lives in the Pacific with its journey of over 15,000 miles in the shape of figure ‘8’. It makes this journey over a period of 6 months and comes back to its departure point with a maximum delay of one week. The highly complicated instructions for such a journey have to be contained in the birds’ nervous cells. They are definitely programmed. Should we not reflect on the identity of this ‘Programmer’?
I would like to separate what Dr. Naik says from what the verse says. According to Dr. Naik birds are dependant on Divine order for flying, their migratory patterns are programmed; for some species in genetic code and for others in nervous cells. The verses only remark on birds’ movement in air, of spreading and folding their wings; Allah endows them the power for this. There is again no similarity between the Dr. Naik’s explanation and the verses’. Birds do not need any divine assistance for flying. Nothing holds them back in air. Muhammad could not conceive of the kinetic energy which the wings of birds store so he thought Allah gave them the power to fly. The verse does not talk about migration of birds. But Dr. Naik does.
I remember when you used argument from design (teleological argument) to claim the existence of God. I asked you something at which you smiled. It was Voltaire’s question; ‘was our nose designed in a way it would support glasses?’ Dr. Naik would say hen does not migrate because Allah has not programmed this in its genetic code. Birds were never migrating from the earliest moment. They were never found in this mass diversity. They developed this ability over a long stretch of time as they evolved into different species. Those species, which managed to tame themselves for a single environment, could not develop the genes which determine migration.
THE BEE
Dr. Naik, page 30
“And thy Lord taught the Bee To build its cells in hills, On trees, and in (men’s) habitations; Then to eat of all The produce (of the earth), And find with skill the spacious Paths of its Lord.” [Al-Qur’aan 16:68-69]
Von-Frisch received the Nobel Prize in 1973 for his research on the behaviour and communication of the bees. The bee, after discovering any new garden or flower, goes back and tells its fellow bees the exact direction and map to get there, which is known as ‘bee dance’…
The Qur’aan mentions in the above verse how the bee finds with skill the spacious paths of its Lord. The worker bee or the soldier bee is a female bee. In Soorah Al-Nahl chapter no. 16, verses 68 and 69 the gender used for the bee is the female gender (fa’slukî and kulî), indicating that the bee that leaves its home for gathering food is a female bee…
Though there was not much science in this verse for Quran does not describe the communication of bees but I admit the Prophet has hit it right this time. But it can be an amazing fact instead of a scientific one.
The Quran is given to describe the gender incorrectly. At one occasion (33 : 33) it mistakes the sex of the wives of Muhammad, referring to them as males. What if the Prophet mistakenly used the female gender when he actually intended a male one? In the verse that I have mentioned the highlighted na in these terms refers to female sex; wa qurna, buyuti-qunna, tabarrajna, aa-tainaz. All of a sudden the verse says ankumur instead of kun thus converting the wives of the Prophet into males! This is what makes the Quran amazing for me.
It cannot be an ordinary error as one may expect to come across in a text written in Roman Alphabets. There one may not be surprised at the speech as well as written form if ‘n’ is mistaken with ‘m’ or vice versa. The mistake of ‘noon’ and ‘meem’ is impermissible particularly when the written form is so much distinguishable.
Muslims who are fond of searching scientific miracles in Quran will surely say; ‘this is referring to latest scientific success, one can have his sex changed!’
SPIDER’S WEB / HOME IS FRAGILE
Dr. Naik, page 31
The Qur’aan mentions in Soorah Al-‘Ankabût, “The parable of those who Take protectors other than Allah Is that of the Spider, Who builds (to itself) A house; but truly The flimsiest of houses Is the Spider’s house – If they but knew.” [Al-Qur’aan 29:41]
Besides giving the physical description of the spider’s web as being very flimsy, delicate and weak, the Qur’aan also stresses on the flimsiness of the relationship in the spider’s house, where the female spider many a times kills its mate, the male spider.
This verse only refers to the house of spider as flimsy or delicate and those who will take refuge in it will not be secure; without throwing light on the relationship between those who live inside it. Notice how it begins ‘the parable of those…’ We do not know of any example in which an enemy of Islam was killed by his wife. The occurrence of such events is not much frequent when a female kills a male. The Quran is stressing on the design of the house. Dr. Naik’s statement does not have much determination, ‘many a times kills its mate’. Moreover, spider is the only insect in my knowledge which frequently hunts its prey within its house. Is web really insecure as the Quran claims?
LIFESTYLE AND COMMUNICATION OF ANTS
The same page continues.
Consider the following Qur’aanic verse: “And before Solomon were marshaled His hosts – of Jinns and men And birds, and they were all Kept in order and ranks. “At length, when they came To a (lowly) valley of ants, One of the ants said: ‘O ye ants, get into Your habitations, lest Solomon And his hosts crush you (Under foot) without knowing it.’” [Al- Qur’aan 27:17-18]
In the past, some people would have probably mocked at the Qur’aan, taking it to be a fairy tale book in which ants talk to each other and communicate sophisticated messages. In recent times, research has shown us several facts about the lifestyle of ants, which were not known earlier to humankind. Research has shown that the animals or insects whose lifestyle is closest in resemblance to the lifestyle of human beings are the ants. This can be seen from the following findings regarding ants:
(a) The ants bury their dead in a manner similar to the humans.
(b) They have a sophisticated system of division of labour, whereby they have managers, supervisors, foremen, workers, etc.
(c) Once in a while they meet among themselves to have a ‘chat’.
(d) They have an advanced method of communication among themselves.
(e) They hold regular markets wherein they exchange goods.
(f) They store grains for long periods in winter and if the grain begins to bud, they cut the roots, as if they understand that if they leave it to grow, it will rot…
I can’t see any science in this verse. He is right when he says ‘people would have probably mocked at the Quran’. People did mock it and they continue to call it a fairy tale book. The verse does not compare similarities between life style of ants and human beings. It would be like cheating again to write what the verse does not speak about.
Does this appear realistic to you. To me it doesn’t. How can the ants differentiate between Solomon and his hosts? How can they know the name of Solomon? Do they have any idea of being crushed? Ants never run away when you are about to crush them under your feet without knowing it. They do not think like ‘oh! Hassan has crushed me under his foot but I will be careful and run into my habitation when he is around next time’. Quranic description of the method of communication of ants is incorrect. They do not spell out sentences with nouns, verbs and prepositions like this verse and 27 : 18 say. Their communication is in the form of signals; they produce chemicals in the form of smell or produce sounds by different methods such as bodily movements. In reality such signals do not involve warnings to run away into habitations.
HONEY HAS HEALING PROPERTIES
Dr. Naik, Page 33
The bee assimilates juices of various kinds of flowers and fruit and forms within its body the honey, which it stores in its cells of wax. Only a couple of centuries ago man came to know that honey comes from the belly of the bee. This fact was mentioned in the Qur’aan 1,400 years ago in the following verse: “There issues From within their bodies A drink of varying colours, Wherein is healing for men.” [Al-Qur’aan 16:69]
We are now aware that honey has a healing property and also a mild antiseptic property. The Russians used honey to cover their wounds in World War II. The wound would retain moisture and would leave very little scar tissue. Due to the density of honey, no fungus or bacteria would grow in the wound. A person suffering from an allergy of a particular plant may be given honey from that plant so that the person develops resistance to that allergy. Honey is rich in fructose and vitamin K.
The Quran too is not sure from where does honey exactly issue. It only satisfies with ‘body’ as the source but not ‘the belly’. Everybody knows it comes out of bee’s body. The word ‘shifa’ has many meanings. In Quran it does not seem to refer to healing of wounds. It’s meaning can be like ‘recovering’; recovering from a disease. The Quran does not advise us to use honey for the wounds. If that is what the Quran intends then the injured of Islamic wars (fought at least in Muhammad’s time) would have been treated with honey.
Honey has been used for a long time and continues to be used for all sorts of diseases though it does not cure any. Rural people have developed a kind of superstition with it. They accelerate honey consumption in case of any disease. This can have psychological benefits.
Physiology
Dr. Bucaille, page 15
In the field of physiology, there is one verse which appears extremely significant to me. One thousand years before the discovery of the blood circulatory system, and roughly thirteen centuries before it was determined that the internal organs were nourished by the process of digestive , a verse in the Qur’an described the source of the constituents of milk, in conformity with scientific facts… This biological process must be basically understood, if we are to understand a verse in the Qur’an which has for many centuries given rise to commentaries that
were totally incomprehensible.
Today it is not difficult to see why! This verse is taken from the chapter an-Nahl:
“Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for yon. I give you drink from their insides, coming from a conjunction between the digested contents ( of the intestines ) and the blood, milk pure and
pleasant for those who drink it.” Qur’an, 16:66
The constituents of milk are secreted by the mammary glands which are nourished by the product of food digestion brought to them by the bloodstream. The initial event which sets the whole process in motion is the conjunction of the contents of the intestine and blood at the level of the intestinal wall itself.
This is the only verse about physiology which an apologist can use. The verse has nothing to do with circulatory system of body. It has nothing to teach about circulation, which is a complicated process. There is not a single verse in Quran which affirms heart as the center of circulation despite the fact that heart is mentioned more than a hundred times in Quran. Dr. Bucaille has changed the translation here.
BLOOD CIRCULATION AND THE PRODUCTION OF MILK
Dr. Naik, Page 34-35
… To understand the Qur’aanic verse concerning the above concepts, it is important to know that chemical reactions occur in the intestines and that, from there, substances extracted from food pass into the blood stream via a complex system; sometimes by way of the liver, depending on their chemical nature. The blood transports them to all the organs of the body, among which are the milk-producing mammary glands. In simple terms, certain substances from the contents of the intestines enter into the vessels of the intestinal wall itself, and these substances are transported by the blood stream to the various organs.
This concept must be fully appreciated if we wish to understand the following verse in the Qur’aan: “And verily in cattle there is A lesson for you. We give you to drink Of what is inside their bodies, Coming from a conjunction Between the contents of the Intestine and the blood, A milk pure and pleasant for Those who drink it.” [Al-Qur’aan 16:66] 11
“And in cattle (too) ye Have an instructive example: From within their bodies We produce (milk) for you To drink; there are, in them, (Besides), numerous (other) Benefits for you; And of their (meat) ye eat.” [Al- Qur’aan 23:21]
Dr. Naik cites at the end of the page that he has taken Dr. Bucaille’s translation for 16 : 66. Whatever the Quran tells is not strikingly similar to science. I find it near to ludicrous that Allah would use cattle to explain blood circulatory system, and in only one verse! In the second verse we are told what a small child can tell us. The milk comes out of the body of cattle.
The meaning of first verse has been modified over a large period of time to give it a scientific outlook. The verse does not mention contents of intestine.
Read the following translation which is completely justifiable with original Arabic text.
‘Surely there is a lesson for you in cattle. We give you to drink of what is in their bellies, between bowels and blood - pure milk - pleasant for those who drink it.’ 16 : 66
Over time it was changed to this:
‘And verily in cattle (too) will ye find an instructive sign. From what is within their bodies between excretions and blood, We produce, for your drink, milk, pure and agreeable to those who drink it.’ (16 : 66)
‘Excretions’ was formed out of ‘bowels’. Belly becomes ‘within their bodies’. And now Dr. Bucaille has completed the monument of blood circulation by replacing ‘excretions’ with ‘between the contents of the intestine’.
If you read the first translation you will find what is actually meant. There is nothing specifically scientific. Consider the outer body of any animal, belly inside, between bowels and blood (I don’t know what role it has here) and milk comes rushing out of udder. Was there anything about blood circulatory system?
There is no improvement in anything if we take the meaning ‘intestines’ for bowels because the Quran does not distinguish between small intestines involved in assimilation, and large intestines which (apart from absorbing salts and water) serve as a route for the expulsion of waste. No matter what translation we take it is not physiologically correct. There is no such connection as stated by Dr. Bucaille and Dr. Naik.
ANIMALS AND BIRDS LIVE IN COMMUNITIES
Dr. Naik, page 29
“There is not an animal (That lives) on the earth, Nor a being that flies On its wings, but (forms Part of) communities like you.” [Al-Qur’aan 6:38]
Research has shown that animals and birds live in communities, i.e. they organize, and live and work together.
This verse does not qualify much for science because like all the other verses it lacks clear expression. What sort of community is being discussed; the community of bees, birds, ants, spiders or cattle etc. We all may be living in communities but there are many differences in our lifestyle. We do not go around gardens sucking nectar of flowers and making honey from it, which the bees steal away to heal their wounds. Birds do not hunt and cook human beings for their special guests. Ants do not graze aphids as we graze our cattle. Females of our species do not kill their males immediately after reproduction. Our females do not graze all the day and give milk at the end that is then sold in the market for goats and cows.
Aristotle, Empedocles, Theophrastos and several other Greek philosophers had several works in this field. Aristotle and Theophrastos mentioned or described thousands of different species of plants and animals. Aristotle studied behavior and habitat of birds, seasonal influence on reproduction, animal geography, hibernation and migration, colour change, feeding habits, and symbiosis. He favoured the idea of ‘prestabilized harmony’; this is equivalent of ‘an intelligent design’. Empedocles, on the other hand, who also studied several animal and plant species was the first to advance the theory of natural selection in this saying, ‘there is no need to invoke deliberate design to account for the origin of plants and animals, we may think of them as having come into being by a process similar to that which we can still see taking place all around us at present time; the progressive elimination of the unfit by “Natural Selection”’.
Before I proceed to embryology I will consider the rest of Dr. Naik and Bucaille’s books as well as Dr. Gary Miller’s.
FINGERPRINTS
Dr. Naik, page 45
“Does man think that We Cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put Together in perfect order The very tips of his fingers.” [Al-Qur’aan 75:3-4]
Unbelievers argue regarding resurrection taking place after bones of dead people have disintegrated in the earth and how each individual would be identified on the Day of Judgement. Almighty Allah answers that He can not only assemble our bones but can also reconstruct perfectly our very fingertips.
If Dr. Naik only knew that fingerprinting is not the most effective way of identifying a person. Criminals can easily evade ‘fingerprinting machines’ by rubbing their tips with any pointed object. This may cause confusion for Allah at the judgment day. ‘Human Genome Project’ initiated several years back is not collecting fingerprints but ‘genetic code’ for the identification of human beings. Sadly the Quran does not have anything about genetic code.
PAIN RECEPTORS PRESENT IN THE SKIN
Dr. Naik, page 46
“Those who reject Our signs, We shall soon Cast into the Fire; As often as their skins Are roasted through, We shall change them For fresh skins, That they may taste The Penalty: for Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise.” [Al- Qur’aan 4:56]
When a doctor examines a patient suffering from burn injuries, he verifies the degree of burns by a pinprick. If the patient feels pain, the doctor is happy, because it indicates that the burns are superficial and the pain receptors are intact. On the other hand if the patient does not feel any pain, it indicates that it is a deep burn and the pain receptors have been destroyed.
It is a common use of language to show special care for one’s skin in case of any damage. For example, one says ‘I care for my skin’ if insisted on undertaking a dangerous task. Even those who have not studied biology make similar statements. Moreover it would be useless for Allah to make a new skin once the complete human has burnt in the fire.
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
Dr. Bucaille, Page 8
When talking about creation, there is a strong tendency in the West to claim that Muhammad copied the general outlines mentioned in the Qur’an from the Bible. Certainly it is possible to compare the six days of creation as described in the Bible, plus an extra day for rest on God’s Sabbath, with this verse from chapter al-A‘raaf.
“Your Lord is God who created the heavens and the earth in six days.” Qur’an, 7:54
However, it must be pointed out that modern commentators stress the interpretation of the Arabic word ayyaam, (one translation of which is ‘days’), as meaning ‘long periods’ or ‘ages’ rather than periods of twenty-four hours. What appears to be of fundamental importance to me is that, in contrast to the narration contained in the Bible, the Qur’an does not lay down a sequence for creation of the earth and heavens. It refers both to the heavens before the earth and the earth before the heavens, when it talks of creation in general…
There is indeed a strong tendency in the West to claim that Prophet copied outlines from the Bible just like the verse stated above. There are several other verses forward not only by Christian Biblical commentators but also Rationalists. The commentators of Bible too say the same, the Hebrew word yaum can also refer to a ‘period’. But how long a period does Allah mean here by one day? There are some verses in Quran which mention how long could the period of a day be.
‘He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.’ 32 : 5
When I came across this verse first I thought Muhammad too believed the age of earth to be six thousand years like his fellow Semites until I came across another verse which refuted this one.
‘The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years:’ 70 : 4
For me it was a discrepancy but my uncle told me that these verses are referring to different parts of the judgment day such as ‘end of the world’ and ‘ascension of spirits’. But it is still vague that one part of judgment day should be longer than another one. Does the complete day of judgment equal to fifty-one thousand years of our reckoning? How do we know that these parts are different? This also refutes your claim about God’s world having no clock.
Dr. Bucaille is missing something when he says the Quran does not lay down any sequence to the days of creation. It does.
‘Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.’ 41 : 9
‘He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).’ 41 : 10
‘Then He rose towards heaven, 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."’ 41 : 11
‘So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.’ 41 : 12
The verses are in a sequence. Did not Allah create Heavens and Earth in Six days. How much do these equal?
Two days for creation of earth, another four for mountains and nourishment and two more for making Heavens into seven firmaments. It equals eight days! That has hit you hard. Can these be Divine words? We have come across a numerical contradiction!
Will you then deny that this book is from anyother but not God? Of all the things he has perfect knowledge. But he makes a numerical mistake in his own book. Should not the unbelievers ask then who is the writer of this book? Those of them who will, will be burnt in fire and the believers will cast terror in their hearts.
Allah is all-knowing and perhaps these verses were for those who are bad at arithmetic.
We are told so often that the text of Quran was confirmed twice with angel at its completion, perhaps these verses were missed out. There are other hundreds of errors in Quran related to science, history; some verses refuting each other, many others posing ethical problems while some are meaningless. If I sit down to recount all you will be scared out of reading further. But please come on for Dr. Miller and embryology are still to be discussed.
This work is increasing tremendously so I have decided to decrease the length of what I quote from Dr. Miller’s book. I will include only important topics.
In the introduction he describes how people hate Quran but still call it amazing. They expect this book from desert to contain nothing but are all consternation at whatever it talks about.
Merchant Marine
Some years ago, the story came to us in Toronto about a man who was in the merchant
marine and made his living on the sea. A Muslim gave him a translation of the Quran to read. The merchant marine knew nothing about the history of Islam but was interested in reading the Quran. When he finished reading it, he brought it back to the Muslim and asked, "This Muhammad, was he a sailor?" He was impressed at how accurately the Quran describes a storm on a sea. When he was told, "No as a matter of fact, Muhammad lived in the desert," that was enough for him. He embraced Islam on the spot.
He was so impressed with the Quran's description because he had been in a storm on the sea, and he knew that whoever had written that description had also been in a storm on the sea… (Surah Nur, 24:40) …This is one example of how the Quran is not tied to certain place and time.
The verses which he relates are the same which Dr. Naik uses to describe the depth of oceans or seas. They are not about a storm at sea. The verses about storm at sea appear as if the Muhammad had never seen one. They expose how Quran is tied to a particular space and time.
‘So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!"’ 11 : 42
‘The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water." Noah said: "This day nothing can save, from the command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy! "And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood.’ 11 : 43
You should watch programs like ‘sea-catch’ or some similar ones sometimes. You will understand why they use loud speakers to give instructions to crew of ship in case a storm erupts. That is because communication is not possible otherwise. Even through this method the instructions being given are not completely audible. But we have a bigger problem here. Noah was on ark, his son on land and the storm had already ensued with mighty waves. So how could they talk to each other?
Surely this could not slip out of the mind of sailor at Merchant Marine!
Next is the section, ‘Ask those who have knowledge’. According to Dr. Miller the Quran invites reader to discuss with scientists the knowledge contained in it. He specifies embryology. How did Prophet explain these verses to his followers. Did they seek scientists? It must be Muhammad who explained them the Quran. Then how come Muslims never knew the science contained in it or at least had the idea that these verses are important or contains scientific fact and phenomenon?
You Did Not Know This Before!
… For example, when the Bible discusses ancient history, it states that this king lived here, this one fought in a certain battle, another one had so may sons, etc. Yet it always stipulates that if you want more information, then you should read the book of so and so because that is where the information came from. In contrast to this concept, the Quran provides the reader with information and states that this information is something new.
…In concurrence with the advice given in the Quran to research information (even if it is new), when 'Umar was caliph, he chose a group of men and sent them to find the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn. Before the Quranic revelation, the Arabs had never heard of such a wall, but because the Quran described it, they were able to discover it. As a matter of fact, it is now located in what is called Durbend…
The city of Derbend (Durbend, Derbent, Derband) is located in Daghestan on the West coast of the Caspian sea, about 150 miles south-east of Grozny, Chechnia and about 140 miles north north- Azerbaijan. Derband was also known as Bab al-Abwab in early Muslim history. Al-Tabari mentions it in his famous work 'Tarikh al-rusul wa'l Muluk' when discussing the events of 14 A.H. (646 C.E.), during the reign of the second rightly guided Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra). The city is also mentioned by Yaqut in Mu'jam al-Buldan. It had fortifications meant to repel invasions from the north of Caucasus, and where once powerful Kingdom of Khazar ruled. The history of Khazars has been well documented since the middle of the first millennium C.E., and their kingdom disintegrated in 966 C.E. Derbend was used as the main point of entry from the north of Caucasus to the south into Persian territory… The famous historian Ibn Kathir mentions that Dhul-Qarnayn was a pious king, who lived during the time of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham, pbuh) and he performed the Tawaaf around the Ka'bah with Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) when he built it.
According to Islamic scholars Zul-Qarnain was a Muslim or at least a monotheist. But we know there were no monotheists most precisely before Zoroaster. According to Islamic tradition Zul-Qarnain should be a great ruler; he should have people of several ethnicities in his kingdom. There is no recorded history to prove the contemporary of Abraham to be Zul-Qarnain. Other Muslim scholars propose Cyrus the Great, a Persian king to be Zul-Qarnain because he built a wall and was a monotheist. Now Cyrus and his wall were not a mystery at Muhammad’s time. He was well known to the peoples of Middle East. He built the first multinational empire. The wall that Cyrus built was not to keep off monstrous creatures like ‘Gog Magog’ as Quranic commentators suggest but against fellow Iranians who were very similar to himself but barbarous, the Scythians.
There is one more thing mentioned in Quran which makes the matter more ambiguous.
‘Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."’ 18 : 86
‘Until, when he (Zul-qarnain) came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun.’ 18 : 90
The first fault that I find here is the reinforcement of the concept of a flat earth since an extreme East and an extreme West are being mentioned. Sun can rise anywhere on a round earth. You do not have to go to an extreme East to witness a sunrise. The second regards the setting of sun; the sun does not set in a spring of murky water as Zul-Qarnain found. This is not consistent with modern science. When Allah’s omniscience is applied to this verse it is impossible for Cyrus to tread the circumference of earth in his life from Hawai to Japan. No matter in what age he lived, Zul-Qarnain could not have traveled so long.
Next, he includes some scientific facts which we have already discussed such as Big Bang, Origins of life, Motion of Sun, Honey. In his mathematical approach he uses three facts, sex of bee, motion of sun and time zones. While referring to the latter he does not give the verse. But this too was not unknown to other civilizations.
In an interesting verse it states that when history comes to an end and the Day of Judgement arrives, it will all occur in an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the daytime and some people at night.
‘Say: "Do ye see, if His punishment should come to you by night or by day, what portion of it would the sinners wish to hasten?’ 10 : 50
‘Say: "Who can keep you safe by night and by day from (the Wrath of) ((Allah)) Most Gracious?" Yet they turn away from the mention of their Lord.’ 21 : 42
I am not sure which of the verses did he mean but this is all that I could find. The first does not lay any stress on when the world will end. It can be day or it can be night. The second one stands more to qualify for it but one cannot confirm from it ‘some people will face it in night and some people will face it in day’ as claimed by Dr. Miller.
An interesting example of the latter type of falsification tests contained in the Quran is the verse which mentions the relationship between the Muslims and the Jews. The verse is careful not to narrow its scope to the relationship between individual members of each religion, but rather, it summarizes the relationship between the two groups of people as a whole. In essence, the
Quran states that the Christians will always treat the Muslims better than the Jews will treat the Muslims. Indeed, the full impact of such a statement can only be felt after careful consideration of the real meaning of such a verse. It is true that many Christians and many Jews have become Muslims, but as a whole, the Jewish community is to be viewed as an avid enemy of Islam. Additionally, very few people realize what such an open declaration in the Quran invites. In essence, it is an easy chance for the Jews to prove that the Quran is false - that it is not a divine revelation. All they have to do is organize themselves, treat the Muslims nicely for a few years and then say, "Now what does your holy book say about who are your best friends in the world - the Jews or the Christians? Look what we Jews have done for you!" That is all they have to do to disprove the Quran's authenticity, yet they have not done it in 1400 years. But, as always, the offer still stands open!
You do not exterminate the adult males of an entire tribe, make their women and children slaves, divide their property amongst yourself, drive their fellow tribes from lands which have hosted a large part of their past and expect their other relatives to come and shake hands of friendship in the future. You do not. That is what happened to Banu Quraiza, Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nazir.
Here are the words of Glorious Quran or rather Allah the Merciful about Banu Quraiza.
‘And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.’ 33 : 26
‘And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.’ 33 : 27
Still is the Quran correct in this prediction. During his reign, after Omar conquered the city of Jerusalem, he went there to sign treaties with Jews and Christians. For the time that followed Jews were on good terms with Muslims. They were Christian crusaders against whom Muslims have fought in most of their history and not Jews. The Jews lived freely among Muslims in Islamic kingdoms of Israel, Andalusia etc throughout history. Muslims have never had such good relationships with Christians. In 1492 when Europe was finally freed from Muslim rule, 60000 Jews fled alongside Muslims to move to the Muslim territory. It was only after the emergence of states in Europe from 17th and 18th century that Jews were allowed to live freely in Europe but still in some states of Germany and Eastern Europe many lived in closed ghettos. Though in Ottoman Empire too, Jews lived in ghettos but their conditions were better than those in Europe. Friendly relations between Jews and Christians were only witnessed after the Second World War. The latter have not treated Muslims any better since then. Surprisingly in parts of USA Jews are more comfortable with Muslims as compared to Christians.
Addendum 1
An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had read something on it, conducted research and wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings goes up and down at places, but it reaches the highest point at the variable of two. The findings: people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Quran (Surah Saba 34:46):
"Say, 'I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos and singly, and then reflect...'"
This is the complete translation.
‘Say: "I do admonish you on one point: that ye do stand up before Allah, (It may be) in pairs, or (it may be) singly, and reflect (within yourselves): your Companion is not possessed: he is no less than a Warner to you, in face of a terrible Penalty."’
It has nothing to do with Psychology. Again half a verse was used to make the Quran amazing. The findings may have been as Dr. Miller suggests but reality is never as such. Changes in such findings can be rendered even by topic of discussion. Lets try to apply this hypothesis of the Quran to a real situation. Take Nazi Germany for example. When Hitler allowed his best strategists Karl Doenitz, Manstein, Erwin Rommel, Falkenhorst, Heinz Guderian to design plans for war Germany was at its peak in war, controlling a territory stretching from France to Poland but when he himself took charge of the situation and overlooked the suggestions of these strategists Germany was quickly defeated.
I have not seen anything won in deliberating in ones and twos. More people have more information at their disposal. I hope you are familiar with the notion of ‘brainstorming’. It is a method of solving problems in which several members of a group suggest ideas and then discuss them. There aren’t any ones or twos.
Addendum 2: 'Iram
Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Quran (Surah al-Fajr 89:7) mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was nonexistent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe it or not, there on the list was the name of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram!
The city of Iram was a part of Arab tradition. It is estimated that it lasted from about 3000 BCE to the first century CE. According to legends, it became fabulously wealthy from trade between the coastal regions and the population centers of the Middle-East and Europe. Arabs believed that tribe of Aad, people of Iram were great grandchildren of Noah. The story of Iram is also present in The Book of One and thousand Nights whose tales predate Islam. Iram became known to Western literature not through Quran but through The Book of one and thousand Nights.
In the 2nd century CE Ptolemy made a map that labeled the region with the name "Iobaritae", meaning that it belonged to the Ubarites. Later legends referred to the fabulous wealth of the lost city and used the region name "Ubar" to designate it.
Since the people of Middle East always knew it so it is not miraculous that the Quran mentions it.
EMBRYOLOGY
Now we come to embryology, something for which Quran is so famous. I have very little of my own thinking for this topic. I obtained most of the information on this topic given by Dr. Lactantius on the Internet since I am quite ignorant of the subject.
A few years ago a group of Arabs collected all information concerning embryology from the Qur’aan… All the information from the Qur’aan so gathered, was translated into English and presented to Prof. (Dr.) Keith Moore, who was the Professor of Embryology and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto, in Canada. At present he is one of the highest authorities in the field of Embryology. He was asked to give his opinion regarding the information present in the Qur’aan concerning the field of embryology. After carefully examining the translation of the Qur’aanic verses presented to him, Dr. Moore said that most of the information concerning embryology mentioned in the Qur’aan is in perfect conformity with modern discoveries in the field of embryology and does not conflict with them in any way.
MAN CREATED FROM A DROP EMITTED FROM BETWEEN THE BACK BONE AND THE RIBS
Page 38
“Now let man but think From what he is created! He is created from A drop emitted – Proceeding from between The back bone and the ribs.” [Al-Qur’aan 86:5-7]
In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads (ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads (testicles) continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal
canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the backbone (spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.
There are no complications which Dr. Naik tries to enforce. It does not talk about male and female organs nor the nerve and blood supply of reproductive organs. According to the verse, it is the drop of semen which proceeds from between the backbone and the ribs. Semen actually proceeds from testicles.
HUMAN BEINGS CREATED FROM NUTFAH
Page 38
The Glorious Qur’aan mentions no less than eleven times that the human being is created from nutfah, which means a minute quantity of liquid or a trickle of liquid which remains after emptying a cup. This is mentioned in several verses of the Qur’aan including 22:5 and 23:13.
Science has confirmed in recent times that only one out of an average of three million sperms is required for fertilising the ovum. This means that only a 1/three millionth part or 0.00003% of the quantity of sperms that are emitted is required for fertilisation.
‘…We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot…’ 22 : 5
‘Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;’ 23 : 13
The term nutfah means ‘semen’, not ‘trickle of semen’. Dr. Naik is being tricky by introducing other meanings such as ‘trickle of liquid’. If we take this meaning then the term loses its significance as ‘the semen’; which ‘trickle of liquid’ fertilizes an ovum?
HUMAN BEINGS CREATED FROM SULALAH
Page 39
“And made his progeny From a quintessence Of the nature of A fluid despised.” [Al-Qur’aan 32:8]
The Arabic word sulâlah means quintessence or the best part of a whole. We have come to know now that only one single spermatozoon that penetrates the ovum is required for fertilization, out of the several millions produced by man. That one spermatozoon out of several millions, is referred to in the Qur’aan as sulâlah. Sulâlah also means gentle extraction from a fluid. The fluid refers to both male and female germinal fluids containing gametes. Both ovum and sperm are gently extracted from their environments in the process of fertilization.
The Quran does not mention ‘sperm cell’. Quintessence would not mean ‘one which is same as all other three million’. It means the basic part of something. All the sperms are same as others. One sperm that fertilizes the ovum is not marked special.
MAN CREATED FROM NUTFATUN AMSHAAJ
Page 39
Consider the following Qur’aanic verse: “Verily We created Man from a drop Of mingled sperm.” [Al-Qur’aan 76:2]
The Arabic word nutfatin amshaajin means mingled liquids. According to some commentators of the Qur’aan, mingled liquids refers to the male or female agents or liquids. After mixture of male and female gamete, the zygote still remains nutfah. Mingled liquids can also refer to spermatic fluid that is formed of various secretions that come from various glands. Therefore nutfatin amsaj, i.e. a minute quantity of mingled fluids refers to the male and female gametes (germinal fluids or cells) and part of the surrounding fluids.
The Quran uses the same word nutfah in this verse. As mentioned above, it means semen. There is no separate emphasis on male and female sex cells anywhere in Quran. Semen is a scientific term while sperm is common to everyday language. The Quran is referring nutfah to what we call in scientific language as semen but sperm in daily language.
Dr. Lactantius:
In a number of places we are informed that man is created from a drop of fluid (semen, seed or sperm):
16:4 He created man from a drop of fluid (Pickthall)
16:4 He has created man from a sperm-drop
32:8 He made his seed from a quintessence of despised fluid
35:11 ... then from a little fluid (Pickthall)
53:46 (he created) from a drop of seed when it is poured forth (Pickthall)
53:46 From a sperm-drop when lodged (in its place)
56:58 Have ye seen that which ye emit (Pickthall)
56:58 Do you then see? The (human Seed) that ye emit
75:37 Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth (Pickthall)
75:37 Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (in lowly form)?
76:2 We create man from a drop of thickened fluid (Pickthall)
76:2 We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm
77:20 Did We not create you from a worthless water (semen, etc.)? (Al-Hilali & Khan)
80:19 From a sperm-drop He hath created him
86:6-7 He is created from a drop emitted - proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.
(All the translations are from Maulana Yousif except where mentioned)
Could any of this have been known to sixth-century Muslims at the time of Muhammed? Surely that procreation involves the emission of a drop of fluid has been well known from the earliest days of civilization. In Genesis 38:9 the Bible tells us that Onan "spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother". The verses which describe the origin of life as a drop of emitted fluid are therefore no more than a direct observation as to what is released during the act of sexual intercourse. We hardly need to rely upon divine inspiration to inform us of this fact.
In the verses listed above nutfah is used when describing the fluid which gushes out during sexual intercourse and clearly this can only refer to semen. However, Prof. Moore is keen to translate nutfah in sura 76:2 as "mingled fluid" and explains that this Arabic term refers to the male and female fluids which contain the gametes (male sperm and female egg). While it is true that the ancient Greeks would not have been able to see individual sperm or eggs, these only being visible through the microscope, the Qur'an emphatically does not mention sperm or eggs; it simply says nutfah. This can reasonably be translated semen, or at a push, germinal fluid - which was a term used as early as Hippocrates* who spoke of male and female reproductive fluids (but obviously could not have been aware of the cells contained in the fluids). If Moore wishes to translate nutfah as germinal fluid, he inadvertently reinforces that the Qur'an is borrowing this term from the Greeks.
* Hippocratic Writings (Penguin Classics, 1983)
Sura 86:6 is interesting since it claims that during the act of sexual intercourse before which a man is created, the "gushing fluid" or semen issues from between the loins and ribs. Semen is apparently coming out of the area around the kidneys and back, which is a real problem for we know that the testicles are the sites of sperm production (although the ancient Greeks were not so convinced. Aristotle for example amusingly believed that they functioned as weights to keep the seminal passages open during sexual intercourse).
The explanation offered by Muslims for the strange statement in this sura relates to the fact that the testicles originally develop from tissue in the area of the kidneys, when the man from whom sperm is gushing forth was himself an embryo. In other words, in a very convoluted fashion the sperm originates from the area between the loins and ribs because that is where the testicles which are producing the sperm originally form.
There is a rather less complicated explanation for this verse however. The Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers taught in the fifth century BC that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis. Clearly according to this view sperm originates from the region of the kidneys, and although there is obviously no substance to this teaching today, it was well-known in Muhammed's day, and shows how the Qur'an could contain such an erroneous statement.
Of course it could be argued against all this that the reference to coming from the loins is merely a metaphorical figure of speech. We can find examples of this in sura 7:172 "when thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants" or 4:23 "prohibited to you (for marriage) are ... wives of your sons proceeding from your loins". But if so then it has to be accepted that this is a common usage for Middle Eastern cultures; in the Torah God promises Jacob that "kings shall come out of your loins (chalatzecha)" (Gen 35:11). Later in the Bible a promise is made to David's "son that shall come forth out of your loins" (I Kings 8:19) and in the New Testament Peter refers to the same person as "one from the fruit of his loins" (Greek osphus). However, these are examples of a metaphorical use of the word "loins" (Arabic sulb). Sura 86:6 is clearly talking about the physical act of intercourse; gushing fluid and ribs (tar a'ib) are both very physical and in the context of this verse they clearly refer to the site of semen production as wrongly taught by Hippocrates. So we have found the first example of an incorrect ancient Greek idea re-emerging in the Qur'an.
SEX DETERMINATION
Page 40
The sex of a fetus is determined by the nature of the sperm and not the ovum. The sex of the child, whether female or male, depends on whether the 23rd pair of chromosomes is XX or XY respectively. Primarily sex determination occurs at fertilization and depends upon the type of sex chromosome in the sperm that fertilizes an ovum. If it is an ‘X’ bearing sperm that fertilizes the ovum, the fetus is a female and if it is a ‘Y’ bearing sperm then the fetus is a male. “That He did create In pairs – male and female, From a seed when lodged (In its place).” [Al-Qur’aan 53:45-46]
The Arabic word nutfah means a minute quantity of liquid and tumnâ means ejaculated or planted. Therefore nutfah specifically refers to sperm because it is ejaculated. The Qur’aan says: “Was he not a drop of sperm emitted (In lowly form)? “Then did he become A clinging clot; Then did (Allah) make And fashion (him) In due proportion. “And of him He made Two sexes, male And female.” [Al-Qur’aan 75:37-39]
Here again it is mentioned that a small quantity (drop) of sperm (indicated by the word nutfatan min maniyyin) which comes from the man is responsible for the sex of the fetus.
… Both the Qur’aan and Science hold that it is the male fluid that is responsible for the sex of the child!
This verse and Dr. Naik may appear striking to you. But don’t you think something is missing in these verses. Where is ovum? According to recent religious commentators of Quran embryo becomes ‘clinging clot’ about a month after fertilization. How can only sperm form into a ‘clinging clot’ without fusing with egg first? Furthermore it is not at the ‘clinging clot’ stage when sex is determined. You do know when sex is determined, exactly at the time of fertilization. Right from the moment of fusion of gametes the new being has a sex; it does not remain without sex at the beginning and at ‘clinging clot’ stage is fashioned into a male or female. Not only does the Quran incorrectly describe the time when sex is determined, it does not have any knowledge of ovum, which is of course a scientific discovery!
EMBRYONIC STAGES
Page 41-43
“Man We did create From a quintessence (of clay); Then We placed him As (a drop of) sperm In a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then We made the sperm Into a clot of congealed blood; Then of that clot We made A (foetus) lump; then We Made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bones With flesh; then We developed Out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, The Best to create!” [Al-Qur’aan 23:12-14]
In this verse Allah states that man is created from a small quantity of liquid which is placed in a place of rest, firmly fixed (well established or lodged) for which the Arabic word qarârin makîn is used. The uterus is well protected from the posterior by the spinal column supported firmly by the back muscles. The embryo is further protected by the amniotic sac containing the amniotic fluid. Thus the foetus has a well protected dwelling place.
(The verse does not mention foetus and embryo. It says sperm is firmly fixed. It does not refer to clot of blood or lump as being firmly fixed. Neither does it talk about uterus as firmly fixed.)
This small quantity of fluid is made into alaqah, meaning something which clings. It also means a leech-like substance. Both descriptions are scientifically acceptable as in the very early stages the foetus clings to the wall and also appears to resemble the leech in shape. It also behaves like a leech (blood sucker) and acquires its blood supply from the mother through the placenta. The third meaning of the word alaqah is a blood clot. During this alaqah stage, which spans the third and fourth week of pregnancy, the blood clots within closed vessels. Hence the embryo acquires the appearance of a blood clot in addition to acquiring the appearance of a leech… The alaqah is transformed into mudghah which means ‘something that is chewed (having teeth marks)’ and also something that is tacky and small which can be put in the mouth like gum. Both these explanations are scientifically correct. Prof. Keith Moore took a piece of plaster seal and made it into the size and shape of the early stage of foetus and chewed it between the teeth to make it into a ‘Mudgha’.
(He cannot use plaster seal here because it was not available at the time of Muhammad so how could Muhammad explain the verse to his companion in the absence of plaster seal)
The divisions revealed in the Qur’aan are based on distinct and easily identifiable forms or shapes, which the embryo passes through. These are based on different phases of prenatal development and provide elegant scientific descriptions that are comprehensible and practical. Similar embryological stages of human development have been described in
the following verses: “Was he not a drop Of sperm emitted (In lowly form)? Then did he become a clinging clot; Then did (Allah) make and fashion (him) In due proportion. And of him He made Two sexes, male and female.” [Al-Qur’aan 75:37-39]
“Him Who created thee, fashioned thee in due proportion, And gave thee a just bias; In whatever Form He wills, Does He put thee together.” [Al- Qur’aan 82:7-8]
Dr. Lactantius:
Stages of development - a modern idea?
It has 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 differing stages. However many ancient writers besides Galen (129–200A.D.) taught that humans developed in different stages. For example in the Jewish Talmud we learn that the embryo has six stages of development. Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology*. The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as
golem (formless, rolled-up thing);
shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac);
'ubbar (something carried);
v'alad (child);
v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and
ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).
* J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology
Yet with the benefit of modern science we now know that the formation of a human being is a seamless continuation from conception to birth, hence the reason why there is so much contemporary confusion about abortion and embryo research. For if we develop as a continuous process it is impossible to draw hard-and-fast boundaries about when life starts.
EMBRYO PARTLY FORMED AND PARTLY UNFORMED
Page 43
At the mugdhah stage, if an incision is made in the embryo and the internal organ is dissected, it will be seen that most of them are formed while the others are not yet completely formed. There is no better description of this stage of embryogenesis than the Qur’aanic description, “partly formed and partly unformed”, as in the following verse:
“We created you Out of dust, then out of Sperm, then out of a leech-like Clot, then out of a morsel Of flesh, partly formed And partly unformed.” [Al-Qur’aan 22:5]
Scientifically we know that at this early stage of development there are some cells which are differentiated and there are some cells that are undifferentiated – some organs are formed and yet others unformed.
Dr. Lactantius:
Embryological development in the Qur'an
Sura 22:5 says "We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then from a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed ... and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babes." Sura 23:13-14 repeats this idea by saying God "placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest, firmly fixed; then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood (alaqa); then out of that clot We made a (foetus) lump (mudghah), then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then We developed out of it another creature." 75:38 also says man becomes an alaqa and 96:2 says we came from alaq.
Moore however goes further and incredibly he claims in a later edition of his textbook that the Qur'an "states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning". This really would be amazing if it was true. Actually the Qur'an says nothing of the sort.
We have to ask what the precise meaning of these words is in order to know whether the verses contain important scientific statements that have only recently been discovered, as Moore and others claim. In comparison with the meaning of nutfah, it is rather more difficult to understand what alaqa means. Many different suggestions have been made: clot (Pickthall, Maulana Muhammed Ali, Muhammed Zafrulla Khan, Hamidullah), small lump of blood (Kasimirski), leech-like clot (Yusuf Ali), and "leech, suspended thing or blood clot". Moore suggests that the appearance of an embryo of 24 days' gestation resembles a leech, though this is rather debatable. In side view the developing umbilicus (genetically part of the embryo) is almost as big as the "leech-shaped" part into which a human is formed and the developing placenta (which also consists of tissue that is genetically from the embryo) is much larger than the embryo. It is claimed that the ancient sages would not have been able to see an embryo about 3mm long and describe it as leech-like, but Aristotle* correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, by which the embryo "clings" to the uterus wall in the fourth century B.C. It is impossible to believe the suggestion of Bachir Torki [L'Islam Religion de la Science] that alaq in 96:2 means links, referring to the gene code of DNA, as this makes a nonsense out of other verses where the word is used, such as 22:5 ("we made you from a drop of sperm, then from that a gene code, then from that a little lump of flesh....").
*Aristotle (English trans. A. L. Peck, Heinemann, 1953) Generation of Animals
A 24/25 day embryo at the alaqa stage, approx. 2 mm long
To establish a definition for alaqa we might take a look at the Qamus al-Muheet, one of the most important Arabic dictionaries ever compiled, by Muhammed Ibn-Yaqub al-Firuzabadi (AD 1329-1415) #. He says that alaqa has the same meaning as a clot of blood. In 96:2 the word alaq is used, which is both a collective plural and a verbal noun. The latter form conveys the sense of man being created from clinging material or possibly clay, which is consistent with the creation of Adam in the Bible from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and some of the other Qur'anic verses listed above. However, the translators of the Qur'an have all translated alaq as "clot" as opposed to "clinging" in 96:2 because the use of the singular alaqa elsewhere forces them to use "clot" here too, despite the attraction for the meaning "clinging" or leech-like which is perhaps more scientifically accurate.
# Al Munjid fil Lugha wala'aam (Dar Al Mashreq sarl, Lebanon, 1987)
Another source of information are the early Muslim commentators. Ibn Kathir wrote that when the drop of water (nutfah) settled in the womb it stayed there for forty days and then became a red clot (alaqa), staying there for another forty days before turning to mudghah, a piece of flesh without shape or form. Finally it began to take on a shape and form. Both ar-Razi and as-Suyuti claimed that the dust referred both to Adam's creation and to the man's discharge; nutfah referred to the water from the male and alaqa was a solidified piece of blood clot. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (died about AD 1350) wrote that "the foetus is a living or dead babe animal which is sometimes found in the womb of a slaughtered animal, and its blood is congested". Another great physician, Ibn al-Quff wrote some 13 out of 60 chapters from "On Health Preservation" about embryology and pregnancy. He included a further stage of development one week after conception, the foam stage or raghwah. Up to 16 days the embryo was alaqa (clot) and after 27 to 30 days the clot turns into a lump of meat, mudghah. These dates must be regarded as very approximate but are nevertheless a major improvement on what one of the most reliable Hadiths says about foetal development, as we shall see later.
A 26/27 day embryo, said to resemble a mouthful of flesh, but only 3 mm long
Moving onto the next stage of development, Razi described the mudghah as being a little piece of meat the size of what a man can chew. The idea that mudghah means chewed flesh is a later, and less accurate translation of the word, but the idea has persisted because it is claimed that the somites from which the backbone and other trunk structures develop bear a passing resemblance to teeth marks implanted in plastercine. It must be said that not only is this an imaginative interpretation however, but besides, Moore cannot claim that the mudghah should occur at 26-27 days since at that point the embryo is a mere 4mm long. One would have to wait around 8 weeks before the embryo was the size of chewed flesh (if a mouthful is defined as being 20-30mm wide), which is what mudghah really means. And in the following Hadith, transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim, Muhammed claims that the mudghah stage occurs between days 80 and 120. Yet by this time the foetus is considerably larger than a lump of flesh the size of which a man can chew, and looks very human-like and totally unlike meat.
`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that Allah's Messenger ... said: "Verily your creation is on this wise. The constituents of one of you are collected for forty days in his mother's womb in the form of blood [sperm?], after which it becomes a clot of blood in another period of forty days. Then it becomes a lump of flesh and forty days later Allah sends his angel to it ..."
Thus according to Muhammed, the drop of sperm remains in the womb for 40 days, then becomes a clot for a further 40 days, then a lump of flesh for 40 days*. It has been shown that human sperm can only survive inside a woman's reproductive tract for a maximum of 7 days; at 80 days the embryo has very definitely acquired the shape of a human being and looks nothing like either a clot or a mouthful of flesh.
*al-Bukhari, 8.593; Muslim Kitab an-Nikah
An eleven week foetus, real size 7.5 cm, but according to Muhammed still at the alaqa stage, a clot of blood
The final stage of human development which the Qur'an describes is the creation of bones, and the clothing of bones with flesh. However, according to modern embryologists including Prof. Moore, the tissue from which bone originates, known as mesoderm, is the same tissue as that from which muscle ("flesh") develops. Thus bone and muscles begin to develop simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Whereas however most of the muscle tissue that we have is laid down before birth, bones continue to develop and calcify (strengthen with calcium) right into one's teenage years. So far from bones being clothed with flesh, it would be more accurate if the Qur'an had said that muscles started to develop at the same time as bones, but completed their development earlier. The idea that bones are clothed with flesh is not only scientifically completely false, but is directly copied from the ancient Greek doctor Galen, as we shall see shortly.
Some possible explanations
Aristotle believed that humans originated from the action of male semen upon female menstrual blood which leaves us with something of a dilemma. If we translate alaqa as "clot" it means that the Qur'an is completely wrong about human development, since there is absolutely no stage during which the embryo consists of a clot. The only situation in which an embryo might appear like a clot is during a miscarriage, in which case the clotted blood which is seen to emerge (much of which comes from the mother incidentally) is solidified and by definition no longer alive. So if ever an embryo appeared to look like a clot it would never develop any further into a human; it would be a dead mass of bloody miscarrying flesh… Alternatively it could be hinting at Aristotle's incorrect belief that the embryo originated from the combination of male sperm and female menstrual blood.
Moore avoids this problem by translating alaqa as a leech, since he is well aware that there is no stage in development when the embryo is a clot. As we have seen however, this is only to justify his interpretation that an embryo of 24-25 days is a clinging leech-like alaqa and one at 26-27 days is a mudghah with teeth-marks. A further problem with this view is that if the alaqa is translated "leech" because it appears to be clinging to the uterus wall, does this mean that the foetus only clings to the uterus wall for a few days? Obviously it remains attached for the entire nine months of gestation.
There are other problems with Moore's interpretation too. Not least is the claim of Muhammed that the dates of the alaqa and mudghah were 40-80 days and 80-120 days of gestation respectively, rather than 24-25 days and 26-27 days. It also begs the question as to why, if the Qur'an really is giving us a highly precise scientific account of human development, it only mentions four stages, nutfah, alaqa, mudghah, plus the clothing of bones with flesh. Between fertilization and day 28 for example Moore lists no fewer than 13 stages in his textbook. Why does the Qur'an say nothing about any of these other stages? The reality is that the more ambiguous the meaning of the Arabic terms, and the more meanings that can be attached to certain words, the less convincingly can they be said to be highly precise scientific terms.
However, the most convincing explanation, and the most worrying for those who maintain that the Qur'an is God's eternal Word, untampered with and free from any human interference, is that the Qur'an is merely repeating the teaching of the enormously influential Greek physician Galen (129–200A.D.)…
The account of the different stages in embryology as described by the Qur'an, ar-Razi and al-Quff is identical to that taught by Galen, writing in around AD 150 in Pergamum (Bergama in modern Turkey). Galen taught that the embryo developed in four stages as detailed below.
Galen: De Semine in Greek
English translation:
But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow*.
*Corpus Medicorum Graecorum: Galeni de Semine (Galen: On Semen) (Greek text with English trans. Phillip de Lacy, Akademic Verlag, 1992)
Qur'an: Sura 23:13-14 in Arabic for comparison
English translation:
Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (Alaqa, a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh (Mudghah), then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!
The first stage, geniture, corresponds to [nutfah], the drop of semen; the second stage, a bloody vascularised foetus with unshaped brain, liver and heart ("when it has been filled with blood") corresponds to [alaqa], the blood clot; the third stage "has the form of flesh" and corresponds to [mudghah], the morsel of chewed flesh. The fourth and final stage, puer, was when all the organs were well formed, joints were freely moveable, and the foetus began to move. If the reader is in any doubt about the clear link being described here between the Galenic and the Qur'anic stages, it may be pointed out that it was early Muslim doctors, including Ibn-Qayyim, who first spotted the similarity. Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concludes:
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account ... There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages"
FOETUS PROTECTED BY THREE VEILS OF DARKNESS
Page 41
“He makes you, In the wombs of your mothers, In stages, one after another, In three veils of darkness.” [Al-Qur’aan 39:6]
According to Prof. Keith Moore these three veils of darkness in the Qur’aan refer to:
(i) anterior abdominal wall of the mother
(ii) the uterine wall
(iii) the amnio-chorionic membrane.
Dr. Lactantius:
More examples of borrowing from ancient Greek writers
If we look at what the ancient Greeks taught we can clearly see that all the other references to embryology in the Qur'an and Hadith can also be traced directly back to them. For example there is a Hadith in which Muhammed is questioned about why a group of red camels have a grey camel among them, and it is due to a hidden trait. But Aristotle noticed that babies who were born that looked unlike either of their parents would often take on the appearance of their grandparents, so that the characteristic skipped a generation, being what we now know as recessive. He also tells us of a woman from Elis who took a black husband and although their daughter was not black, their daughter's daughter was black, demonstrating a gene which skipped a generation in exactly the same way as Muhammed described.
Another Hadith says "If a male's fluid prevails upon the female's substance, the child will be a male by Allah's decree, and when the substance of the female prevails upon the substance contributed by the male, a female child is formed". Surely this is not referring to dominant and recessive genes at all, as certain Muslims have claimed, but is simply repeating the incorrect belief of Hippocrates that both men and women produce both male and female sperm. The sex of the resulting child is determined by which sperm overwhelms the other in strength or quantity:
"... both partners alike contain both male and female sperm (the male being stronger than the female must originate from a stronger sperm). Here is a further point: if (a) both partners produce a stronger sperm then a male is the result, whereas if (b) they produce a weak form, then a female is the result. But if (c) one partner produces one kind of sperm, and the other another then the resultant sex is determined by whichever sperm prevails in quantity. For suppose that the weak sperm is much greater in quantity than the stronger sperm: then the stronger sperm is overwhelmed and, being mixed with weak, results in a female. If on the contrary the strong sperm is greater in quantity than the weak, and the weak is overwhelmed, it results in a male".
Earlier in the Hadith, Muhammed says that the reproductive substance of men is white and that of women is yellow. This sounds very much like the content, white and yellow, that is found inside developing chick-eggs, and which Aristotle was known to dissect.
Later in the same Hadith an angel is apparently sent by Allah to shape the embryo and ask what sex it is going to be. Notwithstanding that sex is actually determined at the moment of conception according to whether the fertilised egg has two X chromosomes (female) or an X and Y chromosome (male), and that there is some ambiguity about the age of the embryo when the angel appears (Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported that Muhammed said 40 or perhaps 50 days, not 42, and Abu Tufail maintains that Muhammed said to Hudhaifa b. Usaid that sperm resided in the womb for 40 days), Hippocrates taught that it took 30 days for the male genitals to form and 42 for the female embryo. No wonder the angel has to wait for forty-two days before it learns the child's sex. In reality, prior to 7 weeks of gestation the ovaries and testes appear identical and the external genitalia only start to diverge around 9 weeks.
Sura 39:6 says that God made us in stages in threefold darkness. There have been many interpretations of this verse, including that of as-Suyuti who said that there were three membranes surrounding the foetus, one to carry nutrients to it, another to absorb its urine, and the third to absorb other waste products. Elsewhere it has been suggested that they are the abdominal wall, the uterine wall and the amniotic sac in which the foetus sits. This is entirely observable to the naked eye, as Hippocrates described dissecting pregnant dogs to find puppies sitting in the amniotic sac inside the uterus. A rather macabre practice of Queen Cleopatra was to rip open the wombs of her pregnant slave-girls in order to see their foetuses, according both to Rabbinic traditions and Plinius. Furthermore, the Romans introduced the custom of opening the womb of a pregnant woman if she died before she had delivered her baby; the woman and her baby would be buried side-by-side, thus giving rise to the term "Caesarean section".
It is said by Muslims that sura 80:20 (“Then doth He make His path smooth for him;”) describes how easy Allah has made it for delivery of the infant, but this contradicts sura 46:15 ("his mother beareth him with reluctance and bringeth him forth with reluctance"). In fact 80:19 (“From a sperm-drop: He hath created him, and then mouldeth him in due proportions;”) is talking about man's origins from a drop of sperm, and 80:21 (“Then He causeth him to die, and putteth him in his grave;”) about his death and burial, so it is entirely logical that 80:20 refers not to the process of parturition (giving birth) but to the whole of man's life being made easy for him by God. In the context this makes a lot more sense, does not contradict 46:15 and does not go against the weight of obstetrical evidence that makes giving birth one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her life. (In Mozambique, childbirth is the seventh most common cause of death in women, and worldwide a woman dies in labour every 53 seconds.) The Biblical teaching that women give birth with much pain (Genesis 3:16) is far more realistic.
Sura 46:15 also says, "The duration of pregnancy and separation [weaning] is thirty months" and sura 31:14 informs us that "his separation is at the end of two years". This implies that the duration of a normal pregnancy is six months. Nowadays with advanced neonatal facilities it is just possible for a small proportion of babies born at 24 weeks' gestation to survive, albeit with severe disabilities in many cases. In Muhammed's day no babies could have survived at so premature an age, and the Qur'an is wildly inaccurate about the duration of a normal pregnancy.
Sura 33:4 says that Allah has not put two hearts into any man. Yet duplication of the heart has been admitted, albeit with reluctance by Geoffrey-Saint-Hilaire and celebrated anatomists including Littre, Meckel, Colomb, Panum, Behr, Paullini, Rhodius, Winslow and Zacutus Lusitanus.
In other places the Qur'an contains commands which have been claimed to be fantastically advanced and sensible, when in fact they were known and followed by far more ancient civilizations. In sura 2:222, Allah tells Muhammed that menstruation is an illness and men must not have sexual intercourse with their wives until they are cleansed from their periods. Yet 2000 years earlier Moses received the command not to have sexual intercourse during a woman's period (Torah: Leviticus 18:19) but this was very definitely not for health reasons, but for religious, ceremonial reasons. Having sex during one's period is hardly likely to cause male infertility, endometriosis and fallopian tube damage, as has been claimed by some Muslims with no scientific evidence, even if it might be unpleasant for the couple. But perhaps more importantly menstruation is not an illness; indeed the shedding of the endometrial layer of the uterus helps to prevent uterine cancer. Progesterone has to be included in hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in post-menopausal women to induce an artificial menstruation every month to prevent a build-up of endometrium which could become cancerous!
SENSE OF HEARING AND SIGHT
Page 44
The first sense to develop in a developing human embryo is hearing. The foetus can hear sounds after the 24th week. Subsequently, the sense of sight is developed and by the 28th week, the retina becomes sensitive to light. Consider the following Qur’aanic verses related to the development of the senses in the embryo: “And He gave You (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (And understanding).” [Al-Qur’aan 32:9]
“Verily We created Man from a drop Of mingled sperm, In order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), Of Hearing and Sight.” [Al-Qur’aan 76:2]
“It is He Who has created For you (the faculties of) Hearing, sight, feeling And understanding: little thanks It is ye give!” [Al-Qur’aan 23:78]
In all these verses the sense of hearing is mentioned before that of sight. Thus the Qur’aanic description matches with the discoveries in modern embryology.
An embryo does not have ‘understanding’ as written in the first verse. Whether it is about embryology or not whenever the senses are mentioned they are in the order given above, to maintain tone of rhyme. I am indebted to my cousin for his suggestion.
‘…He could take away their faculty of hearing and seeing; for Allah hath power over all things.’ 2 : 20
‘Say: "Think ye, if Allah took away your hearing and your sight, and sealed up your hearts, who - a god other than Allah - could restore them to you?"’ 6 : 46
‘Say: "Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight?…’ 10 : 31
‘It is He Who brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers when ye knew nothing; and He gave you hearing and sight and intelligence and affections: that ye may give thanks (to Allah.’ 16 : 78 (Are not hearing and sight supposed to be attained within the womb)
‘And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).’ 17 : 36
‘At length, when they reach the (Fire), their hearing, their sight, and their skins will bear witness against them, as to (all) their deeds.’ 41 : 20 (Day of judgment is being referred here)
‘And We had firmly established them in a (prosperity and) power which We have not given to you (ye Quraish!) and We had endowed them with (faculties of) hearing, seeing, heart and intellect:’ 46 : 26
‘Say: "It is He Who has created you (and made you grow), and made for you the faculties of hearing, seeing, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give.’ 67 : 23
And there are many other similar verses. In many of them ‘sight’ should have been placed before ‘hearing’ such as 46 : 26 because ‘sight’ is more valuable, but that would disturb recitation. Similarly night is mentioned before day in nearly all the verses that I have come across.
Dr. Lactantius:
But how could Muhammed have known these things?
It is one thing to find the Qur'an repeating the same embryological ideas as those described originally by the ancient Greeks, but is there any way in which we can be sure that the material was familiar to the Arabs of Muhammed's day? Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti.
The Nestorians experienced persecution from the mainstream church and fled to Persia, where they brought their completed translations of the Greek doctors' works and founded many schools of learning. The most famous of these by far was the great medical school of Jundishapur in what is now south-east Iran, founded in AD 555 by the Persian King Chosroes the Great (also known as Anusharwan or Nushirvan), whose long reign lasted from AD 531 to around 579.
The major link between Islamic and Greek medicine must be sought in late Sasanian medicine, especially in the School of Jundishapur rather than that of Alexandria. At the time of the rise of Islam Jundishapur was at its prime. It was the most important medical centre of its time, combining the Greek, Indian and Iranian medical traditions in a cosmopolitan atmosphere which prepared the ground for Islamic medicine. The combining of different schools of medicine foreshadowed the synthesis that was to be achieved in later Islamic medicine*.
* H. Bailey (ed) (Cambridge University Press, 1975) Cambridge History of Iran
Arab medicine, to deal with only one side of this question, borrowed from many sources. The biggest debt was to the Greeks ... The medicine of Jundi Shapur was also mainly Greek. There must have been Syriac translations in the library of the hospital there long before the Arabs came to Persia ... According to Ibn Abi Usaybi'a the first to translate Greek works into Syriac was Sergius of Ra's-al-`Ayn [sic], who translated both medical and philosophical works. It was probably he who worked for Chosroes the Great and it was his translations in all probability which were used in Jundi Shapur #.
# C. Elgood (Camrbidge University Press, 1951) A Medical History of Persia
According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia [Classes of Physicians] and al-Qifti [History of Philosophers], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." +
+ M. Z. Siddiqi (Calcutta University, 1959) Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature.
He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [Cambridge History of Arabic Literature]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [Outline of Arabic Contributions to Medicine]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [A Medical History of Persia].
So we have just the link we need to show how "The translations (into Syriac) of Sergius Ras el Ain, penetrated to Jandi-Shapur. During the first years of the 7th century [more likely the end of the sixth century], Harith ben Kalada studied medicine there and Muhammad owed to Harith a part of his medical knowledge. Thus, with the one as well as the other, we easily recognize the traces of Greek (medicine) *."
* L. LeClerc, Histoire de la M‚decine Arabe
To summarise: Sergius died about the time that Chosroes the Great began his reign, and may even have been employed by Chosroes to translate Galen from Greek into Syriac. Halfway through his reign Chosroes founded Jundishapur, where Galen's manuscripts must surely have been kept in translation. Towards the end of his reign he had an audience with Harith Ibn Kalada, who later became associated with Muhammed.
We also know that according to Muslim traditions part of at least one verse in the Qur'an that relates to the developing human came originally from human lips. While Muhammed was dictating verse 23:14 to `Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, the latter got carried away by the beauty of what he heard about the creation of man, and when Muhammed reached the words "another creature" his companion uttered the exclamation "Blessed be God, the best of creators!" Muhammed accepted these words as though they were the continuation of his revelation and told Ibn Abi Sarh to write them down, even though they were quite clearly his companion's words, not Muhammed's or Allah's words #.
# Commentary of al-Baidawi, The Lights of Revelation
This really does beg the question: since we know that at least one verse of the Qur'an contains the added words of a mere human being, how can we possibly be sure that this did not happen anywhere else in the Qur'an?
After the fall of Alexandria in AD 642 knowledge of Greek medicine spread even more rapidly throughout the Arab world. In the 9th century Hunain Ibn Ishaq (AD 809-873) made perhaps the definitive Arabic translation of Hippocrates and Galen and al-Kindi wrote over twenty medical treatises, including one specifically on Hippocrates.
Indeed, the writers of the Arabic medical literature acknowledge as their sources the major Greek and Indian medical traditions. For example, one of the earliest Arabic compendiums of medicine is Ali at-Tabari's "Paradise of Wisdom" written by a Christian convert to Islam in about 850 at Samarra in Mesopotamia. In it he said that he was following the rules set down by Hippocrates and Aristotle regarding how to write his treatise. It contains 360 chapters, and the fourth Discourse, beginning at chapter 325 is entitled "From the Summaries of Indian Books". Chapter 330, from Sushrata, "The Genesis of the Embryo and of the Members" claims that the embryo results from mixing of sperm and menstrual blood (vis-a-vis Aristotle!) and describes various constituents of the embryo. The medical historian Arthur Meyer summed up the whole of the Arabic embryological tradition when he said that at-Tabari "depended largely upon Greek sources, which would seem to imply that he could obtain little from the Arabs. Moreover, since Aristotelian and Galenical teaching survived side by side for over a thousand years without a known Arabic counterpart, it is doubtful if the latter existed".
An extraordinary passage from the writings of the medieval philosopher Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya [Tuhfat: Tuhfat al mawdud bi ahkam al-mawlud] shows how heavily the later Arabic writers depended upon the Greek doctors; in one continuous discourse the words of Hippocrates explain the Qur'an and Hadith, and the latter are used to explain Hippocrates. For example:
"Hippocrates said ... 'some membranes are formed at the beginning, others after the second month, and others in the third month ...' That is why God says, 'He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, by one formation after another in three darknesses'. 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 darknesses of the membranes. Most commentators explain: 'it is the darkness of the belly, and the darkness of the womb, and the darkness of the placenta' ... Hippocrates said, '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 eyesight' etc. etc" [Sex and Society in Islam].
Here is someone writing a medical account who includes Hippocrates (bold type), the Qur'an and Hadith (bold italics), commentaries on them (italics) and his own thoughts (normal type) in one and the same paragraph. Of course the intelligentsia of Muhammed's time would have been familiar with both Greek and Indian medicine.
Other embryologists were known but added nothing new to Galen, for example Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn 'Abdallah Ibn Sina (AD 980-1037) who wrote a Canon Medicinae. Clement of Alexandria included familiar information and believed that the embryo was formed through the combination of semen and menstrual blood. Lactantius of Nicomedia in AD 325 opened eggs at varying stages of development.
Alaqa was always translated as ‘congealed clot of blood’ though the word has about twelve meanings. The Greeks embryologists believed sperm acted on menstrual blood of a female and this culminated into what we call ‘fertilization’. Thus the earlier stage of an embryo had to be something like a ‘congealed clot of blood’. This is the common translation used in our Islamiat books. But the embryo takes this shape only during miscarriage so it can never form into a new creature as the Quran tells us.
The meaning of alaqa was thus changed to ‘clinging clot’. This is again wrong because the embryo is not ‘clinging clot’ at only one stage, it continues to cling throughout the gestation period. Now the apologists resort to ‘extended meanings’, ‘leech-like substance’ arguing leech too clings. The Arabic which Prophet used in the middle of the desert could not possibly have referred to alaqa as ‘leech-like substance. How many of them would understand this reference? If it was understood in this way then why was it always translated as ‘congealed clot of blood’? But the shape of embryo is not absolutely leech-like; it can be different from different angles.
Similarly the previous meaning of mudghah was ‘lump of flesh’ but now it has become ‘chewed substance’. Muslim scholars use a chewed gum to make it into the shape of embryo at some stage. Muhammad could not have used plaster seal or gum to explain this science to his companions. Thus, according to Muhammad semen acted on menstrual blood which turned into a congealed clot which thickened into a lump of flesh. This slowly took the shape of human with the formation of bones and the bones were clothed with flesh.
Part IV
The previous section should have ended in a storm for you. Yes, that is true. There are several occasions where one can easily trace Greek influence.
A French, Dr. Maurice Bucaille, started this practice first, of searching scientific verses through Quran. His task was give a boost and confidence by Dr. Keeth Moore, a Canadian, who included Quran among the reference books of the third edition of his book taught at embryology department. According to Christians of the West they were agents, living on Saudi pension. They did not convert to Islam. Whatever is the true story does not much attract me. Nearly all of the scientific verses in Dr. Naik’s book were copied from a book that Dr. Bucaille wrote originally. The book on which I commented was a smaller study with a limited scope. According to these apologists the Quran was not translated and understood previously so it has to be translated again. I must argue that the earliest interpretations would have more concentration of Muhammad’s explanations and thus closer to original meaning. How come they never discovered all this science?
But science in Quran is proven wrong within the sphere of use of language except for the amazing fact about female bee. Moreover the knowledge of Quran is much limited and unclear when compared to the achievements of the civilizations of older times such as Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Indians, and Persians etc. The Quran has never helped to the development of science in any way as the Muslims are fond of saying. Which Quranic verse tells us the engineering of airplane, of hydroelectricity, of electronics, of architecture? The civilizations which predate Islam were very advanced in the latter but not Peninsular Arabs. If the Quran had ever taught science the Muslims of today would never turn to West for assistance in everything. Embryology as we know was directly copied from Galen and Hippocrates.
All the apologists claim that the Quran brought about the ascent of Muslims in science. They perpetually refer to astronomy. We have learnt that the Quran fails to establish the positions of sun, stars, and moon and does not apparently consider earth within the heavens. It believes in geocentric view and has a flat earth! That’s really poor.
Interestingly none of the Islamic astronomer refers to Quran for his source of knowledge and inspiration. There are two scholars of Islamic origin or being more specific Iranian origin who drew help from Quran, Abu Rayhan Biruni and Ali Sina Balkhi. Both of them dismissed astrology first (as a science) on the basis of the ‘conjectural approach’ of astrologers and then because it is against what the Quran taught. Al-Biruni, though the truest of believers, did not uphold ‘a scientific purpose’ of the Quran. Because he realized that it was not plausible to subordinate the Quran with an ever-changing science. We saw in the previous section what Zakariya al-Razi, the biologist as well as chemist said about the challenge of Quran. Here is what Omar Khayyám, an astronomer, inventor, mathematician, philosopher and poet says about Quran.
The Koran! well, come put me to the test
Lovely old book in hideous error drest
Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,
The unbeliever knows his Koran best.
This shows it is impossible that the discrepancies and contradictions we discussed above could have escaped from Khayyám’s keen eye. He was a man of great abilities. He made the calendar reform in Iranian empire and introduced ‘Jalili calendar’ after the sultan. Jalali calendar is more accurate than the Gregorian. But his discoveries and inventions brought him in conflict with Al-Ghazali (the great Islamic scholar) who found them against Quran so Khayyám’s observatory was set on fire. This is how Islamic scholars and the Quran have contributed to science in Islamic history.
Dr. Bucaille relates a verse from the Quran which notes how a Pharaoh will be saved so that he may be a sign for those who come after. He says, ‘The Bible records that pharaoh was engulfed in the sea, but does not give any details as to what subsequently became of his corpse.’ That Pharaoh never died actually.
“Today I will save your dead body so that you may be a sign for those who come after you.” Qur’an, 10:92
All he wants to prove is a miracle in Quran. He has changed the meaning of the verse. We of course have a different situation when we read the complete story in correct translation.
‘We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)."’ 10 : 90
‘(It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!’ 10 : 91
‘"This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"’ 10 : 92
Allah wants to show how the terror of flood scared him outright so the Pharaoh came in the line of true believers and was saved from flood. This mercy of Allah will be a sign for all the people to follow Pharaoh’s suit. There is no particular reference to mistake in Bible in the above context. Interestingly in another verse we find that all those who were chasing the children of Israel were drown. You can read the complete passage… Isn’t is a discrepancy?
‘So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him.’ 17 : 103
According to Dr. Miller someone who researches on Quran says either it was written by a mad being or one suffering from ‘Mythomania’. He is apparently praising the Quran by introducing wrong information on scientific facts etc. In the end he asks how could a mad being know about this latest scientific discovery?
Dr. Miller writes about the attitude of Quran unlike any other religious scriptures; it invites the reader to find error, it advises the reader to ask those who have knowledge, it praises the greatness of Allah, it makes correct prophecy etc.
Of course there were many people against Muhammad when he declared himself a Prophet so to evade their claims regarding human source of Quran he would fain say ‘find an error in this book or ask those who have knowledge’. The peninsular Arabians were too ignorant to correct him on scientific issues. Here is the Prophecy.
‘The Roman Empire has been defeated.’ 30 : 2
‘In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious.’ 30 : 3
‘Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice.’ 30 : 4
There is no correct date given here for the year or time of Roman victory. If Allah was really confident about Byzantine victory he should have set a date.
The term Biz ai sineen can mean a period of three to nine years. This was prophesied somewhere in 615 CE. The Byzantines became victorious in about 628 CE. This leaves a long period left in between.
Moreover it is not difficult to make such extrapolations. One can know from the strength of an army or the economic conditions which sustain it to make a prediction. Historians and ‘Historicists’ can make still better and accurate ones. Karl Marx predicted the ‘Socialist French Revolution’ which if I am not wrong occurred somewhere in 1871?
Rationalists do believe that Muhammad could be suffering from ‘Mythomania’, an illness wherein Muhammad was mistaken that he was a Prophet. The nature of Quran and excessive praise of his God to restore his own confidence reveal what could be going on in his mind. What is one supposed to conclude when he comes across so many errors? He wanted to worship that God like many polytheists did in earlier times and believers of organized religions including Muslims continue to do. The Quran has no beginning, no ending, there are verses in direct contradiction with each other; sometimes Allah becomes so benign as to disapprove of compulsion in religion at others He encourages Muslims to kill the pagans and unbelievers; there are mistakes regarding astronomy; it enjoins deliberate misappropriations of things among believers (8 : 27)*; has several numerical contradictions; there are references to Pharaohs who tried to crucify? (7 : 124); prior to the flood of Noah it appears there were some true believers (11 : 27) with Noah who boarded the ark but at the end one finds that Allah made Noah’s seed the survivors (21 : 76), where are the rest?; allows marriage with the wives of the adopted sons once they have been divorced (33 : 37); and several other theological problems. This evinces a confused mind, far from ease and satisfaction so the Quran turned out to be such an amalgam of uncertainties and thus a rationalist remarks ‘Muhammad may have been suffering from Mythomania’.
* (If you read the Arabic version you will find that this verse is never translated correctly. The Quran asks the believers not to betray the trust of Allah and the Prophet but this should be done with the believers. It says la takhu nu-Allaha wa rasula, ‘do not misappropriate the things (or betray the trust) of Allah and the Prophet; wa takhuno amanatikum, ‘and misappropriate the things of believers’; wa antum talamoon, when you know it.)
We know Moses lived more than three thousand years ago so it is difficult to believe that his revelations were written in that time, Zoroaster’s philosophy is not riddern with so much uncertainties, Buddha did not claim the existence of God or his own divine source, Jesus is not confirmed by history but only gospels, but Muhammad is only fourteen centuries old. If his book claims to be a gift of God how come there are so many discrepancies. Once we cannot confirm Prophets existed we can also confirm that Muhammad was certainly mistaken. He thought of his ancestors Abraham, Ishmael, and fellow Semites like Moses and Jesus and felt he too could be like them even though there were no such Prophets.
There are many violations in Quran from the normal rules and structures of Arabic. At times the Quran does not confirm to Arabic grammar which is otherwise used!
This is from the book of Ali Dashti, an Iranian scholar:
‘The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Qor'an’s eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings.’*
* Twenty-Three Years: A study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad
An alternative would be that Muhammad wrote a book much better than this Quran but some of it was lost during compilation and the wars following his death so his rightly guided caliphs completed it with their own verses by special additions from Greek borrowings and by repetitions… You are free to consider your own opinion.
I obtained the following from a page of editorial of Australian Rationalists.
Contrary to Muslim (and the Qur’an’s own) claims that the Qur’an is a masterpiece of literature, it contains passages of bad writing and is difficult to read, often verbose, repetitive, disorganised, vague and contradictory.
Huge amounts of commentary have been written by Muslim scholars to tease out the elusive meanings of various passages and explain away the contradictions. One of the biggest obstacles to a clear understanding of Muhammad and his message is the posthumous arrangement of the various individual ‘revelations’ he received, which are called Suras and collectively make up the Qur’an. Each Sura represents material ‘revealed’ to the prophet at specific stages in his life, from the earlier years in Mecca to his later residence in Medina. But in the canonical text of the Qur’an the Suras are not arranged in chronological order so that a clear picture may emerge of the development of Muhammad’s ideas, nor are they organized by topics, with Suras discussing similar matters grouped together; rather, they are organised purely in order of size, from the longest to the shortest! There have been many rationalisations put forward to justify this absurd decision, but whatever the reason, the end result is both confusion and a mystification of Muhammad’s thinking. This deliberate opacity masks some interesting trends that only become evident when we do study the Suras in the order in which Muhammad ‘received’ them. For example, the early Meccan Suras show him as a religious visionary bringing a message of peace to his people, while the later ones are the writings of a political and military leader devising policies to keep his people together and combat his enemies. The early Suras do not tend to see Muhammad as a ‘Prophet’; this only comes after the exile to Medina. The earlier Suras recognise other deities, but these were then revised when his message became more absolutist. The earliest Suras do not mention a deity, but later on a deity is mentioned and called simply ‘Lord’; the name ‘Allah’ is not introduced until a still later stage. Unfortunately, these suggestive progressions are not obvious to the lay Muslim from reading the Suras in their canonical order.
So a reformation of Islam must start with a reexamination of the Qur’an. It must recognise that, whether divinely inspired or not, the violent, aggressive and intolerant passages in the book relate specifically to the needs of Muhammad’s struggle for recognition and survival in a savage and brutal seventh-century world and are not intended to be relevant to life in a modern multicultural democracy committed to the rule of law. like many similarly intolerant passages in the Bible, have no place in the twenty-first century.
Unless Islam is willing to abrogate bigoted sentiments such as the above and accept life in a pluralist world in which Muslims can coexist with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, humanists, agnostics, atheists and people who don’t give a damn one way or the other, it will stamp itself as an enemy of human freedom, to be opposed by every nonviolent means possible.
Now scientific facts are not confined to Quran only. Christians have their own facts in the Bible, one can find them richly distributed in Greek mythology, in Indian scriptures, and even in Mirza Ghalib’s poetry!
True it is larger an old scripture larger the possibility of error in it when Bible is compared against Quran but larger the possibility of scientific facts too! But one can expect the Quran to get away with most of the errors because there is no sequence of the verses with the time of revelation so apart from changing the meaning Muslim scholars can quote any verse from anywhere to defend against a discrepancy.
Here are some scientific facts from the Bible. The topic is Scientific Facts and Accuracy In The Bible by David Pyles.
Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."
Genesis 17:12: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
Why was circumcision to be carried out on the eighth day? Medical science has discovered that the eighth day is the only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood clotting element prothrombin is above 100%.
Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing."
Less than 200 years ago, through the advent of massive telescopes, science learned about the great empty space in the north. Also the Bible claimed that the earth freely floated in space, but science then thought that the earth sat on a large animal. We now know that the earth has a free float in space.
Job 28:25 To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Jonah 2:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet have you brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."
When Jonah was in the depths of the ocean, he spoke of going down to the "bottoms of the mountains." Only in recent years has man discovered that there are mountains on the ocean floor. The greatest ocean depth has been sounded in the Challenger Deep of the Mariana's Trench, a distance of 35,798 feet below sea level. Mount Everest is 29,035 feet high.
Amos 9:6 (written 2,800 years ago): "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth; the Lord is His name."
The Mississippi River dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? That's just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 2500 years after the Bible said that God takes the waters of the sea, and pours them upon the face of the earth.
Isaiah 40:22 (written 2800 years ago): "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth."
The Bible informs us here that the earth is round. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. He wrote: "It was the Lord who put it into my mind. I could feel His hand upon me . . . there is no question the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit because He comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures . . ." (From his diary, in reference to his discovery of "the New World").
(Other statements in the Bible also indicate that God revealed this truth long ago. For example, David said that God has removed our transgression from us as far as the east is from the west (Ps 103:12). On a spherical surface, east and west are infinitely separated in the sense that one can travel indefinitely in either direction without ever attaining the other. However, Solomon described the wind as blowing in circuits, first towards the south and then turning toward the north. North and south are not infinitely separated as east and west, because a southward traveler on a spherical surface will be heading north after crossing the south pole. Examples of Scientific Accuracy in the Bible By David Pyles )
Here is some other material in the regard, who is its author I do not know.
The Bottom of the Ocean
Until modern times people thought the ocean floor was sandy like the desert and saucer shaped—deepest in the middle. This was even true of the pre-1900 geologists. But in the 1900s oceanographers found the sea had many deep valleys or canyons. The deepest canyons were called trenches. The Marianas Trench in the Pacific is so deep that if Mt. Everest (29,000 feet high) was dropped into it, the peak would still be a mile below the water’s surface. There are also underwater mountains. The Atlantic Ocean contains an undersea range of mountains 10,000 miles long.
In addition, 3,000 years ago the Judeo-Christian Bible spoke of the valleys and mountains of the sea. In Psalm 18:15 (NIV) David wrote of God being the creator of "the valleys of the sea." God asked Job (38:16 NIV): "Have you walked in the recesses [valleys] of the sea?" The prophet Jonah was thrown off a ship and spoke of falling to the bottom of the mountains in the sea (Jonah 2:6).
The Judeo-Christian Bible spoke of the valleys and mountains of the sea thousands of years before scientists discovered them. Indeed our Bible is the inspired Word of God.
The Paths of the Sea
In the 1800s, Matthew Maury, an officer in the United States Navy believed his Bible. As a Christian he loved to read the Bible. One day Maury was reading about the dominion man was given over the animals in Psalm 8. He was amazed that verse 8 spoke of the fish and all creatures that swim in the "paths of the sea." "Paths of the sea"— how could this be? He never knew there was such a thing. He was determined to find them. Maury discovered that the oceans have many paths or currents, which were like rivers flowing through the sea. Maury wrote the first book on oceanography and became known as "the pathfinder of the seas"— "The father of modern navigation."
Maury received his idea about ocean currents from reading Psalm 8:8 which was written about 3,000 years ago by King David. David wrote as he was moved by the Spirit of God and probably never actually saw an ocean.
Incidentally, Psalm 8:8 also spoke of fish in the "paths of the seas." All fishing boats make a good catch in the currents or paths of the sea. They have learned this is where the fish swim.
Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus
Remember the story of Job? Job was extremely wealthy — enjoying a wonderful family. Then tragedy struck. He lost his wealth. His children were killed and his wife deserted him. Then Job lay in excruciating pain, covered with sores from head to toe. All this was too much for Job. He accused the Lord of being unjust. God didn’t answer Job’s accusation directly. He merely raised questions concerning the wonders of His creation. Three of these questions found in Job 38:31, 32, illustrate the dynamic logic conveyed in God’s questions.
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?
ORION
Garrett P. Serviss, the noted astronomer: one star is traveling in a certain direction at a certain speed, a second one is traveling in a different direction at a second speed, and the third one is going in a third direction and at a still different speed. Actually every star in Orion is traveling its own course, independent of all the others. Thus, these stars that we see forming one of the bands of Orion are like three ships out on the high seas that happen to be in line at the present moment, but in the future will be separated by thousands of miles of ocean. In fact, all these stars that at the present time constitute the constellation of Orion are bound for different ports, and all are journeying to different corners of the universe, so that the bands are being dissolved.
THE PLEIADES
Astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing in a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction. Dr. Trumpler said that all this led to an important discovery. Without any reference whatsoever to the Book of Job, he announced to the world that these discoveries prove that the stars in the Pleiades are all bound together and are flying together like a flock of birds as they journey to their distant goal. That is exactly what God said. "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades?" In other words, Canst thou keep them bound together so that they remain as a family of suns?
ARCTURUS
Arcturus, one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second. Arcturus, we have every reason to believe, possesses thousands of times the mass of our sun. Think of it! Our sun is traveling only 12 ½ miles a second, but Arcturus is traveling 257 miles a second. Think then of the prodigious momentum this motion implies.
It could be turned into a new course by a close approach to a great sun, but it could only be stopped by collision head on with a body of enormous mass. Barring such accidents, it must, as far as we can see, keep on until it has traversed our stellar system, whence it may escape and pass out into space beyond to join perhaps one of those other island universes of which we have spoken.
This high velocity places Arcturus in that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves. He is an outsider, a visitor, a stranger within the gates; to speak plainly, Arcturus is a runaway. Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second. Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.
The Lesson of The Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus
Few have suffered the multiple tragedies of Job. How could God reach through the enormity of Job’s self-pity? (Job thought God just didn’t care.) In these three questions (Job 38:31, 32) God is in reality saying:
Job, you think I am not concerned about your suffering. Well, let Me ask you these questions. Can you loose the bands of Orion? No, you cannot. But My Divine power will. Some day Orion will no longer exist. Job, can you bind the 250 stars of the Pleiades together in their symmetry of beauty and not have a single one drift off? Only I have this power and wisdom. Can you prevent the runaways — Arcturus and his sons — from colliding as they go dashing out of the Milky Way? No, only My Divine power and wisdom can.
Job, if I am caring for the details of the universe, do you doubt that I not only care for the details of your life, but I have the ability to solve your problems? Trust that there is a good reason I am permitting these tragedies. Remember, Job, I work from the perspective of your eternal welfare.
Other Sacred Books and the Physical Sciences
The Hindu scriptures, the Vedas and Uparushads, consider that "all the objects and phenomena of nature which man is surrounded, are animate and divine." This includes the sun, moon, earth, clouds, rain, rivers, seas and rocks as being alive. Writers of the Buddhist canon also ascribe life to numerous non-living objects— sun, moon, lightning, rainbows, mountains, etc. The Taoist and Confucian writings of China contain similar errors.
The Koran, the scripture of Islam, written 1,500 years after the Hindu scripture, does not contain many of the ancient superstitions. Yet its observations of the universe are seriously flawed. The Koran speaks of seven literal heavens which are solid. These heavens contain lamps or stars whose main purpose is to be "darted at the devils." Mohammed wrote that "the sun sets in a sea of black mud."
The Bible has some explanations which the Quran does not like the first part of water cycle or the stars.
Here is the science in Ghalib’s poetry. I could not get any professional English translation so you will have to tolerate my stifling version.
Khudayaa jazba-e-dil ki magar taeed ulti hai
Kay jitna kheenchta hoon aur khincha jaata hai mujh se
O Lord the effect of my fervour is inverse
The more I pull towards me the more becomes the distance
This is in perfect concurrence with Newton’s third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The more Ghalib pulls his beloved towards himself so she pulls away from him.
Fishaari tangi khilwat se banti hai shubnam
Sabaa jo ghanchay k parday hain ja nikalti hai
When the morning breeze enters into layers of petals
Due to the compression of loneliness it turns into dew
This clearly tells us how the pressure exerted on the air (gaseous state) turns it into water (liquid state).
Zauf say girya mubaddil bay dammay sard hua
Bawar aya humein pani ka hawa ho jana
Due to weakness my tears changed into sigh
I maintained that water changes into air
I don’t think this needs any explanation. This reinforces what we read above but with more clarity.
Par-to khoor say hai shubnam ko fanaa ki taleem
Hum bhi hain aik inaayat ki nazar honay tak
Dew is determined to fade by the sun
I wait for the kind look of your eyes
One will not miss the phenomenon of evaporation here. The heat of the sun evaporates the moisture so it fades away.
Sab kahaan kuch laala-o-gul mein numayaan ho gayeen
Khaak mein kya sooratein hoon gi k pinhaan ho gayeen
All have grown into flowers and poppies
The figures that have gone under the soil have not vanished
These lines briefly describe the carbon and nitrogen cycle. When a human being dies and is buried under the soil, his body decays but does not vanish. We know nothing is lost in the soil, everything is restored back at the earth as new compounds in same or different form.
Ghar hamaara jo na rotay bhi to wiraan hota
Bahr gar bahr na hota to bayabaan hota
My dwelling had I not moaned would desolate
If ocean were not ocean it would be desert
There are several places in the world which were once covered with water. These are dry and lifeless like deserts today. I am not sure whether this was common to scientists’ knowledge at Ghalib’s time. According to experts Dead sea, Caspian sea, and Aral sea will become dry lakes one day.
Muzmahel ho gaye quaa Ghalib
Ab anaasir mein aitadal kahaan
Age has told upon my energies Ghalib
Balance of the elements has been lost
Old age affects the health of a person. The metabolism of his body can no longer be maintained leading to gradual death. This is accompanied with the activation of certain genes, which are called lethal genes.
Hain zawaal aamadah ajza afreenish k tamaam
Mehr-girdoon hai charaagh rahguzaar baadian
The elements of nature are prone to perish
Even the sun is a lamp on the path of gale
We know that the objects of nature have disintegrated at one time or another and then gave rise to something new. Modern science tells us that the sun will extinguish one day when the reactions going on presently will stop. It would be impossible for someone to say that the sun will extinguish one day even before the science had discovered nuclear reactions as the source of light of sun.
Hai tajalli teri samaan-o-wajood
Zarrah bai par-to khoorshid nahin
You have enlightened every created thing
There is no particle without the sun’s light.
We know that the ultimate source of energy is the sunlight for an ecosystem. According to evolutionary biology different rays of the sun brought about the earliest amino acids from organic compounds such as ‘methane, carbon dioxide, water’ etc on the earth. Ghalib describes these organic compounds as particles. How could an Indian poet have known this in the nineteenth even before Darwin wrote ‘On the Origins of Species’! Surely it was not a divine revelation because Ghalib turned from a complete Muslim to only half.
Araaish-e-jamaal se farigh nahin nazar
Paish nazar hai aaina daim naqab mein
Nature has not yet finished fashioning itself
It keeps looking at mirror under the veil
Perhaps this was the best of all Ghalib’s sayings. These lines so beautifully describe ‘natural selection’. Ghalib agrees that this everlasting process continues to go without anyone paying heed because the nature is changing under a veil.
Khushi ko khushi na keh ghum ko ghum na jaan Asad
Qaraar dakihlay ajzai kainaat nahin
Happiness and sadness do not have any permanence Asad
Components of nature are never static
This is another reference to the dynamism of nature and everything that exists in it. This dynamism is even present in atomic particles, in the form of energy, which Ghalib describes here as happiness and sadness. We know everthing changes. There is nothing static in the universe.
Nazar mein hai hamari jada-e-rahe fanaa Ghalib
K yeh shehraza hai aalim k ajza-e-pareshan ka
I have in my vision the route of annihilation
That it is a fold keeping the scattered elements
One can understand that this is unmistakably referring to the Black Hole; the greatest eater. Everything, even light or information if it comes within the reach of black hole, it ultimately moves towards its path and is absorbed in it. The second line serves to clarify the purpose of the first one by saying it is sort of a fold, which keeps the scattered elements together.
Har qadam dooraye manzil hai numayaan mujh se
Meri raftar se bhagay hai bayabaan mujh se
Every step towards destination is remote from it
Desert is running away at my own speed
I hope you have got what jewel lies here… Relativity! It is impossible to say that anyone could have known about relativity at this time. Yet Ghalib speaks about it here. According to relativity the universe is expanding, there is no end to it. Ghalib is describing the outerspace as desolate, like a desert. The more he tries to reach his destination, to move out of the universes from its end, the farther it gets away from him. The faster he will go towards it the farther will it go away from him.
Ghalib’s science is modern and more accurate when compared to Quranic science. How could he have about evolution, the extinguishing of sun or relativity when science had to discover it so far ahead in the future?
The Quran does not contain most of the stuff we read above. Overlooking Ghalib’s science you may say that Bible too is a word of God so we must expect it to have scientific facts. But that is not a brave answer near me. We know the biblical text has been edited for a long time. Here too, as in the case of Quran and Islamic apologists, the holy text did not say what the Christian apologists managed to make out of it. There are more errors inspired by such verses than scientific data. It is beyond the scope of my work to anatomize it all; an atheist from Europe who has better understanding with this through the cultures that we discussed would be better placed to tell what is being objectively meant. The purpose of these holy books was not what a commentator tends to make out. The same goes for Ghalib’s science too. There may be some wisdom in them but there is no science because we do not have supporting evidence of a coherent language with scientific details.
Dr. Naik is fond of filtering out Muhammad’s predictions as a Prophet form other scriptures particularly Indian. I came across an article on Internet, ‘FaithFreedom.org’ with similar subject by chance. I had no intention of including the topic in my work but I wish to include it now. It is written by S. Prasadh.
True it is that the Quranic claim 35 : 24 ‘there never were a people without a Warner’ is incorrect. Muslims emphasize on this verse to uphold the belief that only their religion is true, the last ‘Warner’ being their Prophet. The first question that strikes me here is, where is the book of Ismael? No doubt, he was a warner, a prophet, a great Prophet, the ancestor of all Arabs. But where is his book? Abraham came to Peninsula to build the holy kaaba, if not Ismael but how come he never gave the Arabs a book. We can look at Americas, Australia, Africa and even within the Indo-European family to confirm this error. ‘Warners’ are not found in all societies because every society has its own cultures. The concept of Prophets and divine revelation do not and did not exist in many. Several of these do not have a holy book, as it was never revealed on them. The Prophets related in Quran could all be covered within the Semitic tradition. I am not sure whether according to Quran Zul- Qarnain was a Prophet but there are other views about him such as he was a king of Yemen (a Semitic region). Zoroaster did not believe Abraham or Noah to be Prophets. Aesop did not claim to be a messenger of God. The Quran was more a book for Arabs and perhaps Semites than all the races in the world. It refers several times to the people of the book, which was revealed on Semites.
All the peoples have their own history and traditions. Therefore Muslims should not expect Semitic Prophets in Indian history. Mr. Prasadh says ‘the writers seem to indicate that Sanskrit has been borrowed from Arabic. They have found this by an analysis of the Vedas’.
There are several linguistic differences between Sanskrit and Semitic languages. The basic being case system. Sanskrit employs eight cases while Semitic languages have only three. There are several other phonetic, etymological etc differences. Mr. Prasadh rightly adds, ‘however, when we come to the actual words given as examples, the ground is too shaky to withstand scrutiny’.
Brahma, the Creator in the Hindu Trinity, is declared to be actually Abraham. The initial letter A in Abraham has apparently been moved to the end making it Brahma. We are told "This analysis is accurate when one writes the two words in Arabic script, a language close to that spoken by Prophet Abraham". This immediately raises the problem of what language Abraham actually spoke and also that "a language close to that spoken" is not the same thing as the actual language.
The term Brah comes from the root Bri which means "to worship, to select, to surround". When an h is added to Bri it becomes Briha meaning to "increase, to grow". By addition of 'an', we have the word Brahman who in Hinduism is the Supreme God. Brahman thus is the original word. Brahman is without form, without gender and cannot be plural… When Brahman is imagined as a masculine being engaged in the act of creation, then it is called Brahma. When Brahman is imagined as a feminine being, who is the source of energy without which the act of creation cannot take place, then it is called Brahmani. Brahma thus has nothing to do with Abraham (incidentally we can also claim that Abraham comes from Brahma)…
"Similarly, Abraham’s first wife Sarah is mentioned in the Vedas as Saraswati". This again depends on mere phonetic similarity. Unfortunately, when we study the Rigvedic verses we see that Saraswati was actually a river… Rigveda again and again declares it to be a river with descriptions of flowing down from the mountains into the sea and it is worshipped as a river-goddess. Later on, somehow or other she became the goddess of learning as well. It was only in the Middle Ages that she became the consort of Brahma. In the Vedas, she is definitely not Brahma's wife. Unless one is willing to grant that the Sara of the Bible was originally a river, one cannot see any connection between the two.
"Noah or Nuh is mentioned as Manuh or Manu." The only similarity between the two characters lies in their stories. Like Noah Manu too was saved by God during the Flood. But this proves nothing except that these are two stories that involve flood… Manu is a generic name for 14 sovereigns of the world in the myths and there is a female Manu as well who is the Mother of mankind [Manava > children of Manu (fem.)]
Similarly, it is argued that 'Maleccha' (unclean ones) come from Hebrew word "Ma-Hekha which means 'thy brethren'. (e.g., And he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. Genesis 16:12; i.e., Ismaelites are the brethren of the Israelites). This word therefore means a descendant of Ishmael, and it is well known that Muhammad (s) is a descendant of Prophet Ismail through his second son Kedar. Those who can read Arabic Script can easily see that a mistake in separating Ma from Hekha will produce a single word ‘Malhekha,’ and when adapted in another tongue like Sanskrit might sound like Malechha". Again this relies on the belief that ancient Hindus knew Hebrew and had read the version of the Bible, as we find it today. Linguistically, the term comes from 'mlech', meaning to speak indistinctly, barbarously. So 'mlechha' came to mean those who could not speak the Vedic language, those who are outside Hindu society. The term is definitely ancient since it is found in Vedas.
The other argument draws heavily from what is known as Bhavishya Purana or Book of Prophecies. Prati Sarg Parv III: 3, 3, verses 5-27 give detailed descriptions of Mohammed's doings, the establishment of the new religion and even gets the Prophet's name right.
Puranas were written after the Vedas and Vedas never mention Puranas. The Puranas continued to be edited afterwards. They give Prophecies down to the reign of Victoria even after Islam had emerged!
The Bhavishya Purana is precisely described as: Bhavishya Purana. This is what is told to Manu by Surya (Sun). This contains statements about future events. The book praises the worship of Surya (Sun), Agni (fire) and Naga (serpent). There is an annexure dealing with the several holy places of Bharata and the rights of pilgrims. The book contains fourteen thousand verses and it is considered to be uttama (best) to give this book along with treacle as a gift to a brahmin on the full-moon day in the month of Pausha.
The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of Hinduism. They date back to around 4000BC approximately or even older. They are written in an archaic language, so ancient that when Sanskrit as a language was codified ordinary people had already started forgetting the meanings of the verses. The great pundits of the time therefore started to write commentaries and grammar books on them. Even today, it is not possible to translate the verses without these texts. However today's scholars also have the help of comparing them with other languages.
Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Haq declare that Atharva Veda, Kanda (chapter) 20, Mantras 126-137 prefigures about Muhammad. This portion is known as Kuntap sukta. He says that the word Kuntap means to consume sin and misery, and it is composed from Kuh (sin and misery) and tap (to consume). This is not wholly correct. The Gopatha Brahman defines the term as "that which burns away whatever is evil or ugly". However the meaning is close enough. But he goes onto say that the word Kuntap also means "the ‘hidden glands in the abdomen,’ inferring the true meaning to be revealed only to those who are able to develop sufficient insight". It is a pity that he does not give his source for this meaning. But apparently he has developed sufficient insight to read its hidden meaning: that this meaning proves it is actually a reference to Mecca which is called navel of the earth by Muslims. Then Dr.Naik and Dr. Haq "show that the word "Kuntap is derived from Bakkah (Makkah). In the analysis of Sanskrit and Arabic words having the same meaning’ , the word ‘b’ in Arabic is used as ‘p’ in Sanskrit (in our times, one example is that of soft drink Pepsi; it is written and pronounced as Bebsi in the Arab world). A certain ‘t’ in Arabic becomes silent and pronounced as ‘h’ depending on its position in that word. For example, ‘tun’ in Medinatun is replaced by ‘h’ when pronounced (both t and n are dropped). Further, many Sanskrit words having parallel in Arabic are written backwards. ‘ Thus one can see the similarity between the word Kuntap and Bakkah (each containing letters k, n, t, p)".
This once again is absolutely childish, on the same level as Brahma and Abraham. "Kuyang ang nam kutsitang bhavati taddopatti , tasmat [from there] Kuntap" --- the letters k, u, n, t, a, p all come from the Sanskrit words in the definition. (I have used Roman alphabets for the ordinary reader, though the pronunciation is not absolutely accurately transcribed thereby). Also, another term for the Kuntap sukt is left out. It is also called 'Khila-parva' meaning supplement; these verses are taken mostly from the Rig-Veda and are not considered to be of any great importance. Indeed many translations skip this chapter altogether, which no doubt Dr.Naik and Dr. Vidyarthi felt can only help their cause.
(Just to muddy the waters further, a Hindu has argued that the word Mecca comes from the Sanskrit root Makh or Yajna; the name Mohammad is a derivative of Krishna's another name, Madan Mohan and the word Aab (water) comes from the pure Sanskrit word Aap meaning water. We have exactly the same type of argument here that Vidyarthi/Haq gives, except that it is turned upside down: but the latter is equally valid in its methodology as the former. In fact since no analysis is given that can expose its weaknesses, -- only an assertion is made --- the Hindu claim appears more valid!).
They explain, “The root of the word Mamah is Mah which means to esteem highly, honor, revere, to magnify and to exalt. The word "Mohammad" means "the praised one" in Arabic. Therefore, Mamah is synonymous with Mohammad when the full meaning of the verse is considered. The 'd' dropped as in the case of Mamah (Mohammad, which is derived from root letters h, m, and d)". It is a very ingenious explanation. Alas! the only problem is that Mamah is not a single word nor a name. It is a combination of two words 'mamo' and 'ahe', meaning "to me".
They then give their version of the mantras of the Kuntap Sukt which according to them is amassed from some Hindu Pundits.
Listen to this O people! a praiseworthy shall be praised. O Kaurama we have received among the Rushamas sixty thousand and ninety. [population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s triumphant entry in Makkah].
The Rusama is mentioned in RigVeda as a prot駩 of Indra, and is elsewhere referred to as a community which has nothing to do with Mecca . Kaurama is the alternative name for Kaurava, a generous donor in the community.
Twenty camels draw his carriage, with him being also his wives. The top of that carriage or chariot bows down escaping from touching the heaven.
The accepted wording Whose twice ten buffaloes move right along, together with their cows; the height of his chariot just misses the heaven which recedes from its touch. I have never heard of camels being used by INDIANS in Vedic Times, nor can you make notice of camels in any of Hindu Scriptures.
Disseminate the truth, O ye who glorifies [Ahmad], disseminate the truth, just as a bird sings on a ripe fruited tree. Thy lips and tongue move swiftly like the sharp blade of a pair of shears. [The Prophet’s state when he received revelation through Archangel Jibril (Gabriel)].
Again, the standard translation is "Glut thee o singer, glut thee, like a bird on a ripefruited tree".However, the term 'narasansha' which is translated as singer, can also mean someone who praises. Someone who praises is not praiseworthy. Narasansha doesn?t equate to Muhammad. Apparently this version is relied on, so that it can be equated with Ahmad.
O you who praises (the Lord), hold fast the wisdom, which earns cows and good things. Disseminate this among the divines, just as an archer places his shaft on the right point. [wisdom of the Qur’an].
Again, here the standard translation is "O singer bring thou forth the hymns...". They say this verse in wisdom of Qur’an. Now if that is the case, Vedas were written several years before the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur’an. Then why don’t muslims read Vedas instead? Look how the translation has been played with and changed to their convenience.
He who affords shelter to everybody, gave peace to the world, as soon as he mounted the throne. Men in Kuru-land are talking of his peace-making at the time of the building of the house. [Kuru means one who protects a house in Hebrew and Kore means a house. It refers to the first house of worship, the Ka’bah. In this sense, Kuru-land means the land of Koreish . This Mantra refers to the rebuilding of the Kabah five years before Mohammed's prophethood and his role in peace-making when each tribe of the Koreish (Quraish) wanted the sole honor to put the Black Stone at its right place and disputed to the point of threats to fight each other. The Black Stone is a celestial material and is the only remaining part of the original building material of the Ka'bah].
Standard translation: "Mounting his throne Parikshit best of all hath given us peace and rest, saith a Kaurava to his wife as he is ordering his house". A Kaurava is a member of the Kuru clan, descended from Kuru, whatever may be its meaning in Hebrew. Also why are the specific terms husband (pati) and wife (jaya) left out? I am sure the writer could have found some hidden significance in them as well, if only he had worked hard.
Indra awoke the singer of his praises and asked him to go to the people in every direction. He was asked to glorify Indra, the mighty and all pious men would appreciate his effort and God would bestow on him His rewards. [The Prophet sent letters to several kings and rulers in every direction inviting them to Islam].
What do Mr.Naik/ Mr.Haq want to tell? They tell Indra = Allah!!! In Hinduism Indra is god of weather and war, and Lord of Heaven or Swargaloka He was also an important figure in non-Hindu traditions. Mythology is that, Indra is also cursed by the supreme power. The supreme power is the only GOD, and INDRA is supposedly a Demi-God. Refer here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra#The_curse_on_Indra . Well, there is mythology that Indra rode on chariots. Does Allah drive a chariot or BMW?? How ridiculous! Only someone very determined to prove his thesis can find that these verses refer to Islamic history.
As can be seen the writer very carefully leaves out certain words and gives others another meaning than commonly associated with them. However, even that is not enough to turn the verses into predictions about Muhammad. Read in the ordinary manner the verses simply show a picture of a kingdom thriving under a benevolent king; these are simply hymns of praise. He therefore has to take the help of symbolism. The source of his symbolism cannot be found in the Vedas themselves --- he simply imposes them arbitrarily in order to suit his theory. Only the eye of faith can produce such an interpretation of the hymn.
Then these two quote a verse from Sama Veda, II:6,8: "Ahmad acquired religious law (Shariah) from his Lord. This religious law is full of wisdom. I receive light from him just as from the sun." They get the translation almost right with a peculiarly Islamic twist. The proper translation is, "I from my Father have obtained deep knowledge of eternal Law; I was born like unto the Sun". As for 'Ahmad', once again it is a typical example of sleight-of-hand like Mamah. The actual Sanskrit term is 'ahammiddhi' , 'aham' meaning ? I ?.
Further Dr.Zakir Naik in his site says:
Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda
A similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:
The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).
The above specified Hymn and verse translates as : ‘ With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra, thou far-famed, hast overthrown the twice ten Kings of men, With sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers, who came in arms to fight with friendless Susravas.’
It speaks about Indra, a praise to Indra and not Muhammad!! Dr.Naik Susrava is singular. Susravas = plural. Group of praiseworthy people. So it does not point to Muhammad!
The last premise would be logic. Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq seem to commit several logical fallacies. They tend to contradict each other. They say they don’t believe in HINDU scriptures once. You can find how Zakir Naik criticizes Hindu way of worship in a section called ?Conveying Islam To A Hindu?. But still he uses Hindu scriptures’ authority to prove Muhammad’s prophethood and Islam’s validity! Either this proves
* Hindu religion is truly divine.
* Allah did not give enough proofs in Qur’an to sustain his claims.
* All muslims must convert to Hinduism.
* Muslim scholars are bluffing to convert Hindus just like they do to Christian.
Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Haq actually commit these logical fallacies : Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Red herring, Petitio principii, Non Sequitur ,Straw man and Tu quoque. Simply no hindus will convert because of such bad marketing skills!! Truth is powerful than any other attractive marketing techniques.
Another claim of Muhammad being Kalki Avatar is also doing rounds. Due to space and time constraint, let me tell you, AVATAR = GOD INCARNATE. Muhammad was a normal Arab who did nothing! Kalki Avatar will have 8 superhuman qualities. Muhammad had none.
I hope you have got the picture of what these Mullahs do. How they change, twist and enforce the meanings, simultaneously quoting half or less from a text and omitting some within the text that is taken. They also attempt to hide true historical accounts as suits their intentions. A rational, unbiased and objective outlook provides the best and an honest understanding for everything. Still Muslims scholars cannot prevent themselves from doing this, as they want to strengthen the beliefs of ordinary Muslims.
In order to prove their claim Dr. Naik and his fellow apologists should have come with stronger evidence. I am borrowing the following information from P. H. Matthews’ book to illustrate this.
There is a story whose origins are in about 1000 BCE of a Greek hero called Achilles who is faced with a hard choice. If he fights a battle he will gain ‘imperishable fame’ but this will come at the cost of his life. If he refuses to fight, he will return home safely but lose ‘noble fame’. A similar story appears in Sanskrit in Rigveda dating back to the same period. The translation for the phrase is same in both languages. The scholars agree that the phrase was inherited from a common ancestral tradition and from a common poetic tradition. The words used for ‘fame’ were shrávah and kléos in Sanskrit and Greek respectively. Both of these languages distinguish gender into masculine, feminine and neuter. These words were neuter. The words for ‘imperishable’ were áphthiton and áksitam in Greek and Sanskrit respectively, both neuter again.
These languages have ‘case’ distinctions too like many other languages. The commonest of all cases are Nominative, Accusative and Genitive.
Nominative: Hassan is tall
Accusative: Hassan hit him.
Genitive: Hassan’s bicycle
As for the cases, nominative and accusative cases are never distinguished in both languages in neuter. In Greek, for example, masculine gender in Accusative case ends in ‘n’. Thus the form for a man would be ánthropon. In Sanskrit, such a form would end at ‘m’. In either languages, many neuter (which could be nominative and accusative) had an identical ending to that of accusative form found in many masculines. This fits in for both áphthiton and áksitam.
We know these languages were single deep in history, in about 4000BCE. When the languages change so do the consonants (use dictionary), vowels and syllables. So we have to reconstruct the words. The vowels in both words are relevant, áphthiton, áksitam; so are the consonants that follow the initial, áphthiton, áksitam. For the ‘fame’ words there is evidence, within the Greek and Sanskrit, they were once in part closer: kléwos, shráwas. Compare the words for ‘(he, she, it) is’: Greek estí, Sanskrit ásti. Such differences are to be expected even in different dialects of a single language. The Punjabi ‘a’ is common for many terms to Siraiki ‘e’. As for ‘k’ and ‘sh’, it is more frequently to be found in several other languages. The word for ‘to sing’ is cantare (‘c’ is pronounced like ‘k’) and corresponds to chanter in French.
The language that we are taught in our childhood provides the ground for the beliefs that we hold throughout our lives. It is not impossible to get started again. Language influences our thoughts. If there was no language then we would not be able to construct ulul amr, messiah etc. Similarly if there were no language no one would be able to claim Quran contains scientific facts or Muhammad is predicted in Indian scriptures. You can argue these scriptures would not exist if there were no language. That would be just. I will discuss it again in the final part.
We discussed in the second part about certain cultures. One of them was the culture of fathomablility which according to me has greatest influences of all the three at the way we look at our world. In this culture lies the language. Arabic is the language of Quran. If the Quran has to be a universal guide and Islam the only true religion then it would be essential to enforce all the cultures on everyone so that he becomes a true Arab Muslim. Not the present day cultures of Arabia but those of early seventh century of Arabia. (I made a similar statement in the conclusions of Part II.) This is what ‘sunnah’ tries to do. They should be made to learn Arabic and adopt other components of Arabian culture. Do you think it is morally correct to enforce one culture on another people? I don’t think you will say yes. We cannot just do that! If Allah had left the only path of Paradise in Semitic tradition and culture why should he let other cultures live on? Why should He let that same culture change? This is nonsense.
One can say Quran should be translated in other languages. But we have already seen what happens in the case of translations. The Quran was not and is not even interpreted by Arabs correctly. I should not say ‘correctly’ rather as Muhammad interpreted it. Even if the Quran is translated by rough and hard there is one language in which I say it would require the divine himself to translate. People living on the border of Colombia and Brazil, called Tuyuca, speak it. I am quoting from P. H. Matthews’ book again.
There are languages in which… Assertions rely on different kinds of evidence… Tuyuca, for example… distinguishes five ‘evidentials’.
Some examples of evidentials in Tuyuca
There are five evidentials, identified as (1) Visual, (2) Non-Visual, (3) Apparent, (4) Secondhand, and (5) Assumed. They are distinguished by endings in conjunction with both ‘past’ and ‘present’ and a partial indication of ‘I’, ‘you’ and so on. Thus, in the first example, the ending –wi can be glossed more precisely, by both ‘Visual’ and ‘Past’, and is used in referring to, among others, the ‘I’ who is speaking.
(1) atí-wi wáa-wi
Visual Visual
‘I came’ ‘He went’
Note: One can see oneself as well as someone else.
(2) mũtúru bisí-ti tisá-ga
Non-Visual Non-Visual
‘The motor roared’ ‘I like it’
Note: A nonvisual form is also used of something that would have been visible, had there not, for example, been a wall in the way.
(3) bóahõã-yu
Apparent
‘(Apparently) I threw it away’
(said of something found to be missing)
Note: ‘Apparent’ evidentials are rare in reference to the present, and logically excluded in statements with present reference to the speaker. One has direct knowledge, visual or nonvisual, of what one is oneself now doing or feeling.
(4) pũũyuki mãnĩ-yíro
Secondhand
‘There weren’t any hammocks’
(said after hearing that a shop was out of them)
Note: A ‘secondhand’ form is used in stories and legends as well as in reporting what the speaker has heard recently.
(5) diágo tii-kú
Assumed
‘You are sick’
(judgment based on the way someone was groaning)
Note: An ‘assumed’ form will also be used in stating what can be known, for example, from the state of the world in general or from normal patterns of behavior.
Such distinctions between evidentials are among the features linguist expect to find in the various languages of a large area of South America. English is among the many languages throughout the world that, from a Tuyuca viewpoint, ‘lack’ evidentials. That is hardly because they are not needed for precise communication. It is simply that the histories of these languages happen to have been quite different.
The last line is full of impact. Since the histories of these languages happen to have been quite different so one has ‘evidentials’ while the other lacks it. This language is so different from the languages that we have ever read about. It is a natural language! Observe the perfection that its speakers wish to attain in everyday statements. Do you still think we all have descended from one parent? Here is one language which would have been best ‘revelation medium’.
If Quran was to be made easily intelligible without any mistake at interpretation then a wise Allah would have revealed it in Tuyuca because it provides better communication as opposed to Arabic which often confuses descendant and follower. To say the circumstances as to the development, which Tuyuca people had attained, did not permit, would be like arguing against Allah’s omnipotence. Of course, my argument poses a strong challenge to the concept of ‘organized religion’ and ‘divine revelation’.
The Quran does not comply with Arabic grammar of Prophet’s time will it be possible to translate it in Tuyuca. I am particularly stressing on Quran because Muslims believe it is a universal guide and has not changed ever since it was revealed. They believe it gives the same ‘meaning’, the same ‘ideas’ it used to give fourteen centuries ago. I do not accept this.
Imagine a glass placed on a table in front of a vase. When you move to the other side of the table, you find the glass behind the vase. When you change the angle of your position by ninety degrees you find one object on the right of the other. This is again from Mr. Matthews’ book.
… The only relevant coordinate is the subjective angle from which it is viewed.
Tzeltal, for comparison, is a language of the state of Chiapas in the extreme southeast of Mexico, for which I rely on accounts of Stephen Levinson. It has too many forms, like English inside or between, by which speakers can refer to an intrinsic relation. Tzeltal does not, however, have expressions such as left or right, in front or behind, which would refer to a subjective coordinate. What matters instead is an absolute coordinate … that a speaker of English would ignore.
Levinson discusses, in particular, a dialect spoken in an area tht drops steeply from a range of mountains, roughly to the south, with a valley to the north. Suppose, then, that a speaker sees one object standing to the south of another. They do not have to be within this territory; they might be on a plain, for example, well outside it. the objects, however, are related on an axis parallel to the way it slopes; therefore, from whatever angle the speaker views them, one will be referred to, in the most convenient gloss, as in a position ‘uphill’. The other to the north, will be ‘downhill’, and other objects, neither ‘uphill’ nor ‘downhill’, would in relation to the same coordinate, be ‘across’. For people to speak about the world in that way, they must constantly be aware of how they are oriented. Levinson reports, for example, that speakers of Tzeltal have been led into an unfamiliar concrete cell, with no windows, and could still point accurately in the direction of places where they had been, up to 100 miles away. The way they talk about positions in space obliges them to be dead-reckoners, in a way that speakers of a language such as English, who talk differently, need not be.
The purpose of quoting this passage was not to attack anybody’s faith but to show how varied the languages and the cultures can be. How much differently do they determine us, influence us, and help us. The histories of our languages are one of the reasons of what is our culture today, of what is our religion today, of what influences our daily life. There are many things which one may not experience in Arabic. Arabic does not have so many tenses as English. One single word can have many meanings which can always be a source of confusion for non-Arabs and often for Arabs too. Similarly the compactness (not ‘conciseness’) of Arabic grammar is not found in several other languages.
The single language that we speak varies from person to person. My English is not same as yours. Muhammad’s Arabic was not same as that of his followers or rather fellows of his time. The way I look at a certain word is not same as you do. It is the similar culture of fathomability, which we share, that helps us to understand each other. The use of language helps us to deliver words with the impact that we want. We do not ‘break glass’ with the same intensity with which Prose writers ‘break heart’ unless mother had recently bought it from the market at a very expensive rate; culture of humour accounts for it. Both of us can understand each other through the similarity in our ‘Englishes’ which we have. The culture in which we have lived for so long should have rendered us to use Urdu language for this discussion but either Urdu does not provide us with rich ideas; or else if it possesses them then we do not share them with it so we are not using it.
This is going to be the final topic of this part, Science. Do we know what is science? We may know some of the scientific facts. According to science the universe came into existence with the ‘Big Bang’. People did not know this in the beginning of twentieth century. Why did not scientists propose this before? The answer is simple, because scientists could not think of ‘Big Bang’ before. Even if a Muslim scholar had told them that his holy book states ‘heaven and earth were joined together before Allah clove them asunder’, scientists would never believe him. The question is why not?
A theory is not deduced out of a verse of religious scriptures but after going through scientific method. In science a theory is first built through observation. Upon what observation can the Quran tell us the universe came into existence through Big Bang? Is there any other than ‘Allah caused the Big Bang’? There is none. Thus we cannot accept it to be what science is in true spirit.
Below are the steps of scientific method.
Consider the problem
Make observations
Try to make sense out of them
Look for the explanations already given about the problem
Make deductions from this data
Experiment the final conclusion
It’s not as simple as I have stated. A single scientific method tends to be risky. Nevertheless it can be helpful for a general understanding. For a detailed explanation please visit the Internet.
Is it possible that Muhammad would have been through them when he wrote the Quran. He would not. Scientific method in this refined form can be traced back to Muslim Arab philosopher Ibn Al-Haythim (965-1039 CE). Though it was used by Greek as well but it did not have much significance at that time. At Muhammad’s time the intellectual culture was not so advanced so that it could help him at the fourth stage given above. Naturally one begins from the point upon which the intellect has reached at his time. I am better placed to examine the universe than an ordinary village peasant since I already have better explanations to begin with.
This was not the case with the Prophet. Not only did he not have any accounts of the work already done with him to prove his claim to be scientific he did not even give a clue as to his own observation. It was not couched in intelligible detail. As I said before he did not give any mathematical evidence to support his claims if they were ever scientific, while this was a usual practice among the Greeks. The Quran cannot claim to carry scientific information on ‘Big Bang’ and ‘gaseous mass’ unless it gives us information about initial inifinite mass, energy, plasma, atoms of hydrogen and helium and the coming of mass into existence. These are various scientific concepts which we had to discover before we came to Big Bang. I guess you have got the notion of causal chain of scientific progress. To say Allah endowed it to him would stretch the matter into another problem because he did not give us that detail and because the claims of Quran are already established. There cannot be any improvement to them. That is not the case with Science as it is on a path of continuous improvement.
Getting back to the scientific method, predetermined ideas or beliefs can alter one’s observations. With them a person will find the new observation giving previously established results. It is for this reason that true science maintains ‘objectivity’, by having a reduced degree of biasness. ‘Subjectivity’ is found in nearly everything. When any idea in culture of fathomability is influenced by ideas already established, which are parts of other cultures, then observation is sure to be highly biased, subjective. I will deliberate more upon it in the next section. Al-Ghazali, the great Islamic philosopher was highly biased in his views. According to him, the cotton turned black when burnt because this was how God structured the universe. Everything is such because that is how God wants it to be.
The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a belief about how things are, through repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias. It is a way of slicing away subjectivity. These experiments should be repeatable so that scientists who analyze the conclusions can repeat the experiments. One cannot say that supernatural powers exist because I saw such and such person seeking help through godly jinns to detect stolen goods. This issue however does not seem to have any relation with science.
But this is one way in which one can establish the reliability of scientific explanations over others. This is what puts science in my eyes closer to reality than other forms of intellects. The process of re-experimentation serves a road for gradual progress as science is forever dynamic. The theory of a ‘gravitational force’ was discovered over a large period of time after successive improvements to the concept of Newtonian force of gravity. Thus, science is not the facts taught in the text books. They are basics. Through them a student gets acquainted with science. For coming nearer to science I believe it is imperative that one should study science through Philisophy.
Can we know the validity of scientific reasoning? We can take Newton’s third law of motion as an example. ‘For every action there is equal and opposite reaction.’ Newton has made a bold claim by saying ‘for every action’. It is not feasible for scientists to work through ‘deduction’. They cannot go on and test every incident of an action in order to confirm Newton’s claim. Nevertheless in all the incidents positive results have been attained. But how can we still be sure that the result will be same when we test next time.
A solution could be to rely on the notion of ‘induction’. If for some ‘observed cases’ we have found corresponding results then for all the coming cases we will find the same results. This will become a law until a new discovery proves otherwise.
The sun rose yesterday. It is rising today. Does that mean it will rise tomorrow? The question of a skeptic, David Hume.
Hassan usually practices driving the car with his father. One day his father cannot go with him due to some other occupation. He asks Hassan’s older brother Faizan to go with Hassan so that he can maintain his practice. Faizan hesitates for he does not want to go because he believes Hassan in amateur and he is afraid that an accident may occur.
Father: Has an accident ever occurred before? No. How can you say it will today?
Faizan: The fact accident has not occurred before is not the reason that it will not occur today.
Faizan is good at reasoning. The sun rose yesterday and today is not the reason that it will rise tomorrow. There is nothing wrong with this view until we discover that it is not the sun, which rises daily, but the rotation of a round earth that makes us feel the sun is rising. Now scientists have established this notion but they are not comfortable with it. They start wondering why the earth is rotating.
But the earth was only one object about which they were wondering. Hassan will have to go driving on other occasions as well and if it again turned out that father could not go with him, who will? Faizan hesitates an accident may occur. This is the problem of induction. It is not for science to tell whether an accident will occur or not, an astrologer may get this done somehow.
Suppose the Quran tells us about Big Bang with more clarity and detail than shown in 21 : 30, and we did not have the other verse 41 : 11 which contradicts the first one by saying they were brought together. Would it be possible then to believe the Quran speaks about Big Bang? If we put aside the quality and quantity of clarity and detail then it would still be impossible to rely on this Quranic statement about Big Bang. When the Quran says that it is being deductive because apart from changing the meanings of words (as in the case of embryology) apologists can do nothing about the claims the Quran has already established. However Science works through induction. It would not be wrong for me to say that if the divine cannot keep improving his or her book with time so it cannot be scientific. Improvement in Quran over time refutes its own claim as a complete book and also shows Quran is not even divine let alone scientific in its claims.
We have seen what big mistake the Quranic author made when he said in 20 : 53, 13 : 3 and 36 :36 ‘everything is in pairs’. But we know it is not correct. That was a test for Allah’s omniscience Who we know is a champion at deduction. The Quran in present would be going on with deduction even if it does not say ‘every such and such’.
According to a well-known philosopher of Science, Karl Popper, science relies on deduction. But he stands for this view in a different context. According to him science relies on deduction and not that it works deductively. He believes science searches the universal laws which are definite; since the scientific reality is definite so science can rely on deduction but in any case it makes a gradual improvement. It, of course, works inductively to proceed gradually with the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. Since Allah is omniscient, He knows everything so the Quran works deductively and relies on deduction at the same time.
Note that the purpose of Popper’s philosophy of science was to separate science from non-science. This was actually aimed against pseudo-science and other branches of knowledge. This is how I understood Popper. You can read him yourself if you want to.
I recall a very interesting incident here. There were some students of class one occupying the last seat of the Wagon, going on a trip. They were remarking on vastness of the fields nearby which they could clearly see while the Wagon was moving. One of them asked himself: ‘who could be the owner of such a large area? Surely he is wasting his money by not growing anything on them even when they are ploughed.’
His friend could not believe that a single person could own such a large area. He argued that since the fields were divided into various plots so they must be the property of many people.
Another one who seemed to me to be near genius said, ‘these fields belong to a single person. If there were many owners then at least one of them would be prudent enough to grow crops on his part. Because not a single field is grown so there must be a single owner!’ Perhaps he was himself prudent enough.
Induction? Deduction? Or just reasoning? All three of them were full of wisdom.
Induction is not only used for observation but it also attempts to justify scientific statements by reference to other specific scientific statements. In this way we can build a whole web of concepts. This again signifies the notion of a gradual improvement. Are the ‘more than thousand of signs in Quran’ as claimed by apologists such as they support each other? Does each help us to clarify the other? We saw in the previous section how the Quran could not pass this test when we tried to the understand space according to the Quran. Similarly the Quran says heaven and earth were joined together before Allah clove them asunder then it says they were brought together. The theory of Big Bang relies on already established theories in order to admitted as true for the time being. I hope everything is gradually opening up to your eyes.
Quoting from Neil Bohr; ‘It is a wrong idea to think that the task of Physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.’ This brings us back to ‘what can we know?’ There are other forms of philosophy such as old tradition metaphysics which tend to include for this investigation mostly those notions for which there is not empirical proof. Religion is frequently on their side. Then you can go on to make a god or gods , chains of prophets, holy spirit, ulul amr etc. But science does not begin until it has verifiable empirical data. Religion and its cronies do not seem to understand this question or pass by it and move without empirical proof. Thus, although science is not and cannot be the ultimate reality but it is an objective outlook of what we can say about nature. This would not make God or religions ultimate reality. That is the ‘wrongest’ idea near me. The various principles upon which science is founded are stronger and closer to what reality can be than those of religion.
Following this you need a language into which your claim can be put. My brother once visited a certain saint known by the name of Ajoo Shah. He is quite famous and well respected. It is popular about saints that they can recognize who you are and where do you belong even if they have never met you before. My brother was expecting the same with a train of expectations in his mind; any moment Ajoo Shah will say something about me which will open up my identity and show his knowledge of the unseen. For this Allah helps him through His power. Suddenly a person who was both mad and drunk appeared on the scene and asked Ajoo Shah to help bring his wife back since on his own insistence she would not. And if she did return he would love her like a brother!
Ajoo Shah turned his head towards the new company (which comprised of my brother and his friends) and said, ‘ainjhay mareez tuhaday passein anday honden?’
This statement does not have a definite meaning. The best translation could be ‘do such patients turn on your side as well?’ This was sufficient for my brother to admit some power in Ajoo Shah, some mysterious power, some magical power, some miraculous power. How could he have known that my brother was the son of a doctor until he held such a power! He did not think that this could refer to anyone else of his company too.
Lets try to interpret this statement. The term tuhaday passein can mean
On your side
In your village
In your town
But can never mean ‘on your place’. It can also mean ‘in your city’ since my brother had come from far away to meet him. Had Ajoo Shah said tuhadee jhaa tay then my brother would be closer to the meaning that he wanted to take, ‘on your place’. But he should have been more specific by saying tuhado instead of the other two.
So why did not my brother take the correct meaning? Both of us share a lot in our culture of fathomability. The meanings, which I have given, are how he refers to them when he speaks to me. Why should he go for something else this time? It is simply because he wanted to take that meaning; this is what he was searching for. We know he was prepossessed about Ajoo Shah making a magical statement. Similarly this is exactly what happens when the apologists look for scientific facts in Quran. They find them simply because this is what they are looking for not because this is what the Quran wants to give. I hope you have not forgotten our anatomy of Shakespeare’s sentence…
The above statement made by Ajoo Shah was in Siraiki of the twenty first century spoken near Taunsa. You can see how much work we had to do in order to interpret this sentence of six words. Quran was written in Arabian Peninsula, fourteen centuries ago, in a certain dialect of Arabic which is no longer used as an ordinary spoken language. When this is taken in with the fact that language changes but still more our cultures change then I don’t think you can easily digest the fact that Quran is what it was fourteen centuries ago. It did not even sound to Arabs same as it did to Muhammad the very next day that Muhammad died then how can we interpret it in the same way. In order to mend this nook commentaries were written and continue to be written but as time passes away we advance into new cultures and move away from Muhammad’s Quran. Most of Muhammad’s philosophical and religious culture have rather been lost or synthesized to give rise to new and different beliefs. Though you belong to a Siraiki family I am not sure whether you understand Ajoo Shah’s statement as clearly as I do. Of course you do not share this perspective of culture with us, who fathom it without much pain. When I criticize Quran, I criticize mostly that which is understood from it at this time.
When you search for science in Quran there are two things that matter to me above all; your biasness and your understanding of Quranic language. Science as we have seen has least biasness thanks to the scientific method. Science has a very coherent language so that its propositions will sound as they did when they were first introduced. The meaning inferred from ‘every action has an equal and opposite reaction’ is same as what it was about three centuries ago. We can verify this empirically. Sadly that is not the case with Quran which has so much vague, blurred and equivocal expression. Where do we find stars being shot at rebellious spirits or sun setting in murky waters? We have seen the example of the fallacies of ordinary language, now we must inquire what is the language of science.
Science does not have a particular language. It can be put into an ordinary language for the understanding of people. We can understand Greek science, Eastern science and European science as soundly as it was in their own times. This is because, as already stated, science is almost always supported with empirical data, diagrams, mathematical formulas and equations. Again, a scientist who proposes a theory gives details of his observation and how he attempted to falsify the previous concepts with experiments, also relying on the already established scientific theories which have not been refuted through experiments etc.
There is much more, a complete ocean, about science, its philosophy and the relation of analytic philosophy with it but I want with all my ability to push the subject to an end.
If my work has really shaken your beliefs I urge you not to give them up. I do not want to be a ‘dogmatic preacher’, though I have behaved in that way in this work. I was forced to. You, too, do that when you talk about the hierarchies of hell and conjecture who would be in which part. You are requested not to propagate wrong information about religion and science particularly evolution. You were heard to say ‘Darwin died a Christian and admitted that he only devised the theory of evolution because it makes the things easier.’ That’s wrong. In fact it is the creationist approach which provides albeit absurd and irrational but simplistic explanation and not ‘evolution’. You should recognize the right of everyone to believe what he wants to no matter he is monotheist, polytheist or atheist. Those who find solace in Bible or Quran let them embody themselves to these books while those who find rest in Ramayana let them have peace in it.
True it is that ‘missionary practice’ is one aspect that I hate in every religion. It aims to bring people on its side, through psychological terror, use of one’s economic strength and coercion etc. Thus missionary pratice or Tableegh is immoral near me. What is so bad about animistic rituals or paganism that the god of a monotheist cannot tolerate? They are all sets of beliefs and ideas. If some people endear these let it be their practice.
I don’t think I need to open other topics in order to prove there is nothing divine or that Islam and Quran are not a miracle. Throughout I discussion I am sure I may have hurt your feelings by exposing the errors of your book or criticizing your Prophet and scholars. I sincerely apologize for this. But I could not contain myself from showing you the other side of reality or rather the objective truth.
Again that does not mean I want you to give up your beliefs. I am still not sure whether you do think there is slightest truth in what I told you. Of course you cannot give up Islam simply because I have criticized it. Atheists of Europe have attacked judaeo-Christian tradition for more than seven centuries but that has not restricted or caused a decrease in their numbers up till now except that they have learnt to tolerate other’s beliefs. I would be very much happy if you maintain the same religion with ‘mellowed belief’.
I may be wrong, mistaken, or premature in criticizing your religion but I am in my conscience, my mind, and myself when I say ‘let everyone have his or her belief’. Do not say they will burn in hell because they do not follow what you do. This can have some bad consequences. As Samuel T. Coleridge said, ‘He who begins by loving Christianity more than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.’
