Friday, July 10, 2015

foundalis.com An Epic Fail

(English isn't my first language so I might make grammatical mistakes)

Introduction:
I was replying to a specific individual on the internet until he brought me a link to an article [1] that supposedly refute science in the Quran, I will have to say I laugh at how cringe worthy the article really is, it looked like a 12-year-old fool wrapped words in a mish mash of letters and formed an article, that is how ridiculous and ludicrous it was, I was intending to write a respectful refutation without any mockery, but sense I went through some parts of this author article, I can’t really help it but to mock back at his statements, without further ado here is my initial reply to it,

Red Text is Mr. Harry claims

I would like to start by pointing out that those Muslims who make the above claims violate the deepest and strongest foundational pillar of science; specifically, this one:

In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and then we see which theory explains best the data.

What Muslims do is the opposite: they have the “theory” that their Qur’an is Allah’s direct word (which was revealed and passed on to Muhammad’s mind, then dictated by him and written in the Qur’an), and then they try to find the data that — they think — support their theory. That’s an entirely unscientific endeavor. By doing so they show that they don’t understand science, the subject that they try to subjugate under their religious yoke.

This is a straight out strawman and a misrepresentation of why Muslims search for scientific knowledge in the Quran, what Muslims claim is what called a scientific prediction, which is claiming a theory in scientific notion and put it on the test, what the author above shows is what called scientific method, of establishing the means of a theory, but what the Quran propose are not Theories but rather predictions and prediction foretold a claim then by time testable data can either refute it or verify it

We shall not waste any time in reading furthermore let’s start with his first premise

1. The “Cosmology” of the Qur’an
1.1 The seven heavens


The Author later on start explaining who we see the sky on it’s own color but we shall skip that and get to the point
In summary, there is nothing like “heaven” in reality. The “heaven” is only an illusion, caused by some properties of our planet’s atmosphere. And the closest object to us is the Moon. Farther away is the Sun (and the planets of our solar system); much-much farther away are the stars of our galaxy, and other galaxies are even farther. Now, what do we read in the Qur’an? What is our data? First, I must note that modern science recognizes no such divisions of the sky. One of you, a young Muslim correspondent of mine, claimed that, supposedly, modern science divides the “heaven” into layers, such as the troposphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, and so on. Yes, science divides the Earth’s atmosphere into layers (five of them, actually, not seven). But Allah didn’t mean the Earth’s atmosphere by the word “heaven”, because the Sun and the Moon are in some part of the “seven heavens”, according to the Qur’an, and such astronomical objects are of course not in our Earth’s atmosphere. Moreover, in verse 37:6 Allah tells us that he put the stars in the lowest of the seven heavens:

The lower heaven in this verse is not the point but rather the word Al-Kawakib الكواكب which means it was filled with beautiful lights of the stars, this in no way means the lowest heaven (earth atmosphere) is filled with stars, however beside the point, I see two errors in the claim above:
1-     The author claimed that the word heaven here is not referring to the earth atmosphere sense earth atmosphere is not part of the heavens
2-     The author claimed that there are only 5 layers not 7 of the atmosphere
Error in (1) Mr. Harry is rather ignorant and didn’t actually check all the verses of the Quran that state the nature of the seven heavens, verse 65:12
{It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them. [His] command descends among them so you may know that Allah is over all things competent and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge.}

i.e. the earth contain the seven heavens, Tafsir Al-Tabari Go further and claim “يعني سبع أرضين” translate into “which means the seven layers of earth, so from the seven heavens there are earth layers, what makes it interesting is that there are 7 layers of earth crust just as much as there are 7 layers of the atmosphere (will come to that later)
Ibn Kathir explains the verse as follows:
{ يقول تعالى مخبرا عن قدرته التامة وسلطانه العظيم ليكون ذلك باعثا على تعظيم ما شرع من الدين القويم ﴿اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ﴾ كقوله تعالى إخبارا عن نوح أنه قال لقومه ﴿أَلَمْ تَرَوْا كَيْفَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ طِبَاقاً﴾ [نوح: 15] وقوله تعالى: ﴿تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ﴾ [الإسراء: 44] وقوله تعالى: ﴿وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ﴾ أي سبعا أيضا كما ثبت في الصحيحين: «من ظلم قيد شبر من الأرض طوقه من سبع أرضين»(2)، ومن حمل ذلك على سبعة أقاليم فقد أبعد النجعة وأغرق في النزع وخالف القرآن والحديث بلا مستند وهكذا قال ابن مسعود وغيره.)}
Translation:
{Allah says telling us from his Great power and total control (it’s Allah who Created the Seven heavens) like his verse about Noh that he said to his people (Do you not consider how Allah has created seven heavens in layers) and his words (The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [ Allah ] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and forgiving.) and his words (seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them.) means seven of earth layers, just like who it’s mentioned in the Sahih (Any person who takes even a span of land unjustly, his neck shall be encircled with it down seven earths) and who take that on seven places}[2]
Error (2) we shall first look at the 7 layers of the earth crust
Depth
Layer
Kilometers
Miles
0–60
0–37
Lithosphere (locally varies between 5 and 200 km)
0–35
0–22
… Crust (locally varies between 5 and 70 km)
35–60
22–37
… Uppermost part of mantle
35–2,890
22–1,790
Mantle
100–200
210-270
… Upper mesosphere (upper mantle)
660–2,890
410–1,790
… Lower mesosphere (lower mantle)
2,890–5,150
1,790–3,160
Outer core
5,150–6,360
3,160–3,954
Inner core

As we can see there are 8 in total (counting the main categories) if we consider water as the first layer because water is an essential part of the earth, it will count as 7 in total:
  1-     Water
  2-     Crust
  3-     Uppermost part of the mantle
  4-     Upper mesosphere
  5-     Lower mesosphere
  6-     Outer core(or known as solid core)
  7-     Inner core(or known as liquid core
As for the atmosphere layers we have to understand the subcategories are counted here, for example, the earth core contains two layers the liquid and the solid, but in general, it’s counted as one layer
We need to be more precise about this and count every layer as one
Atmosphere layer:
  1-     Exosphere
  2-     Thermosphere
  3-     Mesosphere
  4-     Stratosphere (contain also the ozone layer)
  5-     Troposphere (counting The planetary boundary layer  as in it)
  6-     Ionosphere
  7-     The homosphere
As we can see in Total there are 7 layers of earth if we count them more precisely
Mr. Harry, it’s not going so well for you now is it?

But here comes the disaster: if the stars are in the lowest (or nearest) heaven, what is there in the other heavens? Alas! The Moon is there! Here is the datum, in 71:16, as a continuation of 71:15:

71:15 “See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens, one above another,”

71:16 “And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) lamp?” [transl.: Yusuf Ali]

71:16 “And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?” [transl.: Pickthal]

71:16 “And made the moon therein a light, and made the sun a lamp?” [transl.: Shakir]

No, my dear Muslim, “I see not” what your book is talking about. If the Moon is a light somewhere among the (supposed) seven heavens, then it is necessarily at least as far away as the stars, which adorn the “lowest heaven”, the one nearest to us. Most probably, the Moon is not in the lowest heaven, because if it were there then the author of the Qur’an would have mentioned the Moon, too, together with the stars, when he informed us that he decorated the lowest heaven with stars, in 37:6. Is there any way to escape from this conclusion?

It’s mind boggling how Mr. Harry jumped into such conclusion, nowhere does the two verses EVEN mention the lowest heaven but rather claim the sun and the moon are in these seven heavens, how does that suggest this is referring to the lowest heaven?, and how does that even suggest the, the verse 37:6 merely mention the light of the stars it doesn’t suggest that they are in the lowest heavens, the stars in Arabic are referred to as Nujom, there is no conclusion here Mr. Harry, only your twisted propaganda, the verse suggest as several Tafsīrs claims, and as an Arab myself is that the moon is among one of the seven havens along with the sun, the Tafsīrs goes on and claim the moon is a reflecting light to the sun.
Before you find satisfactory answers for the previous questions, remember please that you must be objective. Do not try to figure out how to distort, twist, and “re-interpret” the data, so that they accommodate your theory that the Qur’an can have no error because it came out of Allah’s mind,

These are interesting words coming out from the mouth of a man (or a boy in this case) who just twisted the words of the Quran to fit his propaganda
Here is an example of “reinterpreting” the data: “By ‘seven heavens’ the Qur’an means starting from the Earth’s atmosphere and extending all the way to the rest of the universe!” My answer: First, in that case, as I said, you’ll have to explain why the stars are not just above our heads, in the “lowest heaven”,

NO, Mr. Harry the lowest heaven provided by the verse you gave in Arabic state the follows
إِنَّا زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِزِينَةٍ الْكَوَاكِبِ

As you can see the word بِزِينَةٍ here means the beauty or in this case the beautify light of the sky, the Quran in this verse says that the lowest heaven (our earth) is beautified with the light of the stars in the sky
Here an example
You and your brother John are in a tent, John look at the sky and say “look how beautiful the sky is full of stars”
Here in this analogy John is not saying the stars are in our sky, but rather talk about the beauty of the light emitted by them

Oh, I didn’t know that Allah is a physical entity, standing just outside our universe! (Let alone that “outside our universe” makes no physical sense.) Are you willing to admit that your Allah is physical?

What? What a load of bullocks where is the evidence for such nonsense?


Now, objectively, according to the above, which of the next two theories explains most naturally the data that we find in the Qur’an:

That an all-wise entity, such as Allah, made a grave error telling us that the Moon is at least as far as the stars, and also that he talked about such non-existent things as “the Heaven”, which consists of — supposedly — “seven layers, one on top of the other”, whereas such notions are nonsensical in modern science.

That the above was what a human could think of, a human who lived in Muhammad’s time — Muhammad himself, most probably — and who had no knowledge of the true distances of the Moon, the Sun, and the stars, and also that there is no such thing as “heaven” in reality.
Are you speaking of your ass?

Why doesn’t the Qur’an make even the slightest, most indirect reference to galaxies? If we think of the world (the universe) from a large-scale perspective — and certainly Allah is able to do that

Because 7th century Arabs will not understand such word, you will have to be fair enough when you speak to a group of people who have such limited knowledge of the world that is why the Quran scientific claims are pretty simple in nature

Yes, but since Allah is “all-wise”, certainly he should be able to say things so that they were both understood by the Bedouins, and impress us today,

How could Bedouins understand things like black holes, quasars, galactic year, Jupiter, Saturn, planet, dark energy, dark matter, supernovas and so on? You are speaking about people who have no knowledge at all in astronomy, other than looking at the sky and the stars, of course, the Quran went beyond that and talked about the beginning of the universe, but surely the Quran as its claim to be clear, it has to remain clear for the Bedouins

Allah could have at least mentioned that stars are at vastly different distances, not all placed on one sphere (or one “heaven”). There are stars only 4 light years away from us, and there are stars 4 billion (4,000,000,000) light years away from us (and even further).

  Allah could have mentioned that stars come in vastly different physical magnitudes. The diameter of a star (e.g., a neutron star) can be as little as a few kilometers across, or it can be so large as to engulf the orbit of planet Mars (e.g., the star Betelgeuse), or even of Jupiter. Thus, one star can be billions of times larger than another one (in diameter alone —  whereas in volume it can be trillions of times larger).

  Allah could have mentioned that stars exist for vastly different periods of time. One star (e.g., an extremely large star, a supergiant) might live for only 50,000 years before exploding as a supernova, whereas another star (an inconspicuous, tiny red dwarf) may keep shining for a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) years.

Allah could have chosen to mention any of thousands of facts (data) that we now know in astronomy. And, as I showed, even a mere human can find ways to say things so that they both sound “innocent” to the ancient listener, and astonishing to us today. Why did Allah — if he is the author of the Qur’an — choose to speak only about things that were known by Muhammad, and even known in the wrong way (“seven heavens”, Moon farther than stars)?

Again back to the point of being clear

For example, the ancient Indians (who are not “people of the book”, mind you) had similar beliefs. Actually, what Indians believed makes more sense today than the Qur’anic story. The Indians separated each of the Earth, the atmosphere, and the rest of the world, into three layers. With 20/20 hindsight we can easily make this idea fit into today’s knowledge, quite nicely: the three layers of the Earth can be its core, mantle, and crust; the three layers of the atmosphere can be the troposphere, stratosphere, and ionosphere; and the three layers of the rest of the cosmos can be our solar system, our galaxy, and everything else outside our galaxy. See? With a bit of good will and imagination we can make the Indian story fit to reality better than the Qur’anic story with its gawky and too-many “seven heavens”. But the important idea is not which story matches better with reality; the important idea is that the Qur’anic story of “seven heavens” is not original. It was “stolen”, copied from other, earlier cultures, and possibly modified by the Qur’anic author’s imagination.

Where is the reference to these supposed Indian claims, but other than that, as I showed it will be irrelevant since the Quran is absolutely Correct in terms of earth layers and atmosphere layers, but the so-called three layers of this Indian claim, is wrong, earth, as we say, has more than three layers of crust and more than three of atmosphere layers, and certainly the universe is not three layers
“the three layers of the Earth can be its core, mantle, and crust”
so at the beginning, you said the Earth has five layers (which is false as we saw it has 7 layers in total) but now you even went further and smashed the rest of the layers into three to fit your Indian legend?
In conclusion
, the Quran stay superior to your Indian legend


As for the position of the Moon among the other heavenly bodies, the ancient Greeks had understood it better than the author of your Qur’an. A thousand years before Muhammad’s birth, the Greek philosopher Plato had written: “The Moon, God set in the orbit nearest the Earth, and the Sun in the next, and the morning star [Venus] and the one called sacred to Hermes [Mercury] in orbits which they complete in the same time as the Sun.” (Plato, Timaeus, I vii 37–9.) Did you get that, my dear Muslim? Plato thought that the Moon is nearest the Earth — and he was right! The author of your Qur’an thought the stars are nearest the Earth, and the Moon is farther away. On the basis of this only, who appears to be wiser: the author of your Qur’an, or Plato?

Sigh….. The Quran of course, and as I said before I already replied to this myth of the stars being the nearest
This is reference to the light of the stars not the physical embodiment of the stars
Check the above responses
For one last time, I’ll repeat my question: on the basis of the above observations, tell me, but objectively please: which of the above two theories explains best the data of the verses of the Qur’an that I quoted earlier? (Remember: first go the data, then come the theories!)

None of your supposed theories stand to logic as we saw Mr. Harry

1.2 The Sun and its whereabouts

In Chapter 18 of the Qur’an (“Al Kahf” : “The Cave”), in verses 86–90, we read something that should cause great embarrassment to every sane and educated Muslim today

This Again? I’m not goanna waste my time again with this trivial nonsense, here is a blogger refuted your claim
This will be long
First on the issue of Khadir, Ibn Kathir explain it further
(Verily, you will not be able to have patience with me!) meaning, `You will not be able to accompany with me when you see me doing things that go against your law, because I have knowledge from Allah that He has not taught you, and you have knowledge from Allah that He has not taught me. Each of us has responsibilities before Allah that the other does not share, and you will not be able to stay with me,')
later on
((71. So they both proceeded, till, when they boarded the boat, he (Khidr) damaged it. Musa said: "Have you damaged it wherein its people will drown Verily, you have committed a thing Imr.'') (72. He said: "Did I not tell you, that you would not be able to have patience with me'') (73. He said: "Call me not to account for what I forgot, and be not hard upon me for my affair (with you).'')
Later
(Allah tells us that Musa and his companion Al-Khidr set out having come to an agreement and reached an understanding. Al-Khidr had made the condition that Musa should not ask him about anything he found distasteful until he himself initiated the discussion and offered an explanation. So they went on board the ship, as described in the Hadith quoted above -- the crew recognized Al-Khidr and let them ride on board free of charge, as an honor to Al-Khidr. When the boat took them out to sea and they were far from the shore, Al-Khidr got up and damaged the boat, pulling out one of its planks and then patching it up again. Musa, peace be upon him, could not restrain himself from denouncing him, so he said)
Later
((Have you damaged it wherein its people will drown) the grammatical structure of the sentence in Arabic implies that this was the consequence, not the purpose, of his action.)
Later
((Verily, you have committed a thing Imr.) About `Imr', Mujahid said: "An evil thing.'' Qatadah said, "An astounding thing.'' At this point, reminding him of the previously-agreed condition, Al-Khidr said)
Notice how this is referring to the incident of the ship and the people who died in it, Moses referred to it as something evil has happened
Later
((Did I not tell you, that you would not be able to have patience with me) meaning, `this thing that I did deliberately is one of the things I told you not to denounce me for, because you do not know the full story, and there is a reason and purpose for it that you do not know about.' (He said), meaning, Musa said: (Call me not to account for what I forgot, and be not hard upon me for my affair (with you).) meaning, `do not be harsh with me.' Hence it says in the Hadith quoted above from the Messenger of Allah: (74. Then they both proceeded till they met a boy, and he (Khidr) killed him. Musa said: "Have you killed an innocent person without Nafs Verily, you have committed a thing Nukr!'') (75. He said: "Did I not tell you that you can have no patience with me'') (76. He said: "If I ask you anything after this, keep me not in your company, you have received an excuse from me.'') (Till they met a boy, and he (Khidr) killed him.) It has been stated previously that this boy was playing with other boys in one of the towns, and that Al-Khidr deliberately singled him out. He was the finest and most handsome of them all, and Al-Khidr killed him. When Musa, peace be upon him, saw that he denounced him even more fervently than in the first case, and said hastily: (Have you killed an innocent person) meaning, a young person who had not yet committed any sin or done anything wrong, yet you killed him, (without Nafs) with no reason for killing him. (Verily, you have committed a thing Nukr!) Meaning, something that is clearly evil. (He said: "Did I not tell you that you can have no patience with me'') Once again, Al-Khidr reiterates the condition set in the first place, so Musa says to him: (keep me not in your company, you have received an excuse from me.) `You have accepted my apology twice.' Ibn Jarir narrated from Ibn `Abbas that Ubayy bin Ka`b said: "Whenever the Prophet mentioned anyone, he would pray for himself first. One day he said: (79. "As for the boat, it belonged to poor people working in the sea. So I wished to make a defective damage in it, as there was a king behind them who seized every boat by force.''))
Now as for the boy
((his parents were believers, and we feared he would oppress them by rebellion and disbelief) their love for him might make them follow him in disbelief. Qatadah said, "His parents rejoiced when he was born and grieved for him when he was killed. If he had stayed alive, he would have been the cause of their doom. So let a man be content with the decree of Allah, for the decree of Allah for the believer, if he dislikes it, is better for him than if He were to decree something that he likes for him.'' An authentic Hadith says)
Later it says
((So we intended that their Lord should exchange him for them for one better in righteousness and nearer to mercy.) A child who was better than this one, a child for whom they would feel more compassion. This was the view of Ibn Jurayj.)[3]
So in genral Al-Khadir killed the boy because he fear he might rebel and cause doom or the death of his parents with his rebellion, the boy of course according to the narration gave indications to it
Notice he didn’t kill him merely for being a disbeliever but for endangering his parent’s safety, this is further more explained by Allah giving them a child more compassionate
How is this “Embarrassing”? I don’t know, maybe to your world

There, and specifically in verse 18:86, we learn where the Sun sets. Allah tells us that Zul-qarnain visited the point of the Earth in the West where the Sun sets, and he saw the Sun setting in a muddy spring; he also found some people nearby:

18:86 “Until, when he [Zul-qarnain] 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.’ ”

Then in verses 18:89–90 we learn that Zul-qarnain traveled also to the East, and he saw that the Sun rises from another place over there, which is also inhabited by some other tribe of people:

18:89 “Then followed he (another) way,”

18:90 “Until, when he 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.” (That “We” is Allah, of course; so Allah gives us a direct account of what Zul-qarnain found there.)

Then Zul-qarnain goes on to other places, and the chapter finishes with another barrage of promises and threats of doom (91–110).

Now, I hope you understand that even little children today know that the Sun cannot dive into the Earth during sunset, nor can it rise from within the Earth during sunrise, for the simple reason that the Sun is a fiery ball much-much larger than the sphere of the Earth. If the Sun’s sphere is like a soccer ball, then the Earth is like the head of a pin. Can you imagine a fiery soccer ball diving into a pinhead? What sense can you make of verses 18:86–18:90?


if there is away for me to insert Emojis and show how much laughable your claims are without making my article as childish as yours I will be happy to do that

now let me ask you Mr. Harry, how does the verse claim that the sun sits on a muddy water? Please explain “Objectively” how, let me bring you an example
a teacher is giving in the class 2+2=4 but one of the students though that 2+2=5, the school went crazy for something like then, the teacher was questioned by people like you, and asked “how can you say 2+2=5?” the teacher reply with “I didn’t, I clearly said 2+2=4”
Now let me ask any rational thinker, who is to be blamed? The student who mistaken the equation, or the teacher?
Clearly any rational critical thinking observer with say the student
The student in this case is Dul-Qaranain
And the teacher is Allah

You tell me who is mistaken
For further more analogy read the blog[4]

But before answering the above question, remember the scientific principle: you must not assume that your theory is correct, and then try to twist the data so that they fit in your theory.

Nobody is twisting anything here Mr. Harry, it’s only you who is doing it

you might say, “Oh, but in verses 18:86–18:90 Allah was speaking not literally, but allegorically! Allah didn’t literally mean a muddy spring and some real people; this was all an allegory!” My answer: what evidence do you have that Allah was speaking allegorically? How can you know that everything else in the Qur’an is not an allegory?

Nobody is saying the Quran Is speaking Allegorically, the Quran is speaking from Dul-Qaranain point of view and that is Clear and evident sense the Quran is talking about Dul-Qaranain Vision, the Quran is not saying “the Sun sit on a muddy water” the Quran says “He Found it sit in a muddy water”
Incase if you don’t understand the example I gave here is a better one
James was writing an article in the article he said “John think the sun is a coin of lava” of course people like you instead of basing on John, you bash on James, what James was doing is passing by the though process of John by thinking the sun is a coin of lava when we know it’s actually a sphere of gas
So what people like you will say James though the sun is a Coin of lava, any critical thinking person will not take your claim seriously. But the blog I posted explain it better

Thinking scientifically you must examine the data first, and then try to see objectively which of the following theories fits the data best:

that an all-wise Allah said such nonsensical things as that the Sun sets into and rises from two places on the surface of the Earth? Or,

that a person who had absolutely no idea of the relative sizes of the Sun and Earth (remember: a soccer ball compared to a pinhead) made such nonsensical statements?

Logically none of your hypothesis above stand to the merit of the story, here is a theory I proposed and it’s based on logical thinking:
·         Allah was speaking from Dul-Qaranain point of view, this is what Allah think, but rather what Dul-Qaranain or what he observed of such event
Again you need to think “Objectively” Mr. Harry


Muhammad had no idea that the Earth is a sphere and that the Sun is another sphere, completely separate from the Earth. On the contrary, in verse 15:19 (“And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.”) we get the impression that the author of the Qur’an (whoever he is: Allah himself, or an Allah who is actually Muhammad’s alter ego) thinks that the Earth is flat

No you dumb Buffon, nowhere does the Quran state the earth is flat, the word spread out, and here can’t be just exclusive to flat, take a balloon for example, if I blow air into it, it will spread out, does that make it under your logic flat? Anyways the same blog I gave answer this to you[5]
But I will cite one of the greatest Islamic scholars in history and several others to pinpoint your error
Note: these scholars existed long before the satellites let along the astrological discovery of the spherical earth
" وقال الإمام أبو الحسين أحمد بن جعفر بن المنادي من أعيان العلماء المشهورين بمعرفة الآثار والتصانيف الكبار في فنون العلوم الدينية من الطبقة الثانية من أصحاب أحمد : لا خلاف بين العلماء أن السماء على مثال الكرة ......
قال : وكذلك أجمعوا على أن الأرض بجميع حركاتها من البر والبحر مثل الكرة . قال : ويدل عليه أن الشمس والقمر والكواكب لا يوجد طلوعها وغروبها على جميع من في نواحي الأرض في وقت واحد ، بل على المشرق قبل المغرب "

Translation: “and Abu Al-Hussain bin Ja’far Bin Al-Munadi from amongst the famous Ulama who are known by looking at the artifacts and the categories of the important artists in the religious Uloms from the second level from Ahmed Companions : No disagreement exist between the Ulama(religious scholars) that the sky is like a ball
And said: and also they agreed that Earth on all of it’s movement from land to sea is like a sphere, he said :and it’s evident that the sun and the planets doesn’t appear and rise on all surfaces of earth in the same time, but under the sun rise before the sun sit”[6]
Also Ibn taymia goes on to follow when he was asked
وسئل رحمه الله : عن رجلين تنازعا في " كيفية السماء والأرض " هل هما " جسمان كريان " ؟ فقال أحدهما كريان ؛ وأنكر الآخر هذه المقالة وقال : ليس لها أصل وردها فما الصواب ؟ فأجاب : " السموات مستديرة عند علماء المسلمين ، وقد حكى إجماع المسلمين على ذلك غير واحد من العلماء أئمة الإسلام : مثل أبي الحسين أحمد بن جعفر بن المنادي أحد الأعيان الكبار من الطبقة الثانية من أصحاب الإمام أحمد وله نحو أربعمائة مصنف ، وحكى الإجماع على ذلك الإمام أبو محمد بن حزم وأبو الفرج بن الجوزي ، وروى العلماء ذلك بالأسانيد المعروفة عن الصحابة والتابعين ، وذكروا ذلك من كتاب الله وسنة رسوله ، وبسطوا القول في ذلك بالدلائل السمعية ، وإن كان قد أقيم على ذلك أيضا دلائل حسابية ، ولا أعلم في علماء المسلمين المعروفين من أنكر ذلك ، إلا فرقة يسيرة من أهل الجدل لما ناظروا المنجمين قالوا على سبيل التجويز : يجوز أن تكون مربعة أو مسدسة أو غير ذلك ، ولم ينفوا أن تكون مستديرة ، لكن جوزوا ضد ذلك ، وما علمت من قال إنها غير مستديرة - وجزم بذلك - إلا من لا يؤبه له من الجهال
how are they shaped (talking about the sky and earth), are they spherical?” one of them said spherical the other denied it saying this has no origin to it the other replied with “the heavens are curved according to Muslim scholars, and all of Muslim scholars agreed on that except for one, like abi Hussain bin ja’far bin munadi, one of the big scholars in the second level from the companions of the Imam Ahmad, and he has over 400 publications, and the Ijma(agreement of all scholars) from Imam Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazim, and abu Al-Faraj Bin Juzi, and the Ulama (scholars) has reported this from will know authentic narration from the Sahabah (compainions of the prophet Muhammad) and they also mentioned that From the book of Allah (the Quran) and the Sunnah and made it simple with evidence by hearing words, and also calculating evidence, and I don’t know of any of Muslim Scholars who disagreed on that except from a small group of spreading rumors, when they debated the scholars they said “probably rectangular or six shaped” but they didn’t deny the sphereical aspect, they only said it’s possible that it’s not, and I never knew anyone else who disagreed on spherical aspect except for ignorant”[7]
And Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazim said:
“and that when we mention by the grace of god on mentioning what they disagreed on, and that they said: the evidence support that it’s spherical, and the public says otherwise, and we reply with that one of the muslims Imams who deserve the title of “may god bless them” didn’t deny earth spherical shape, and no one in a single shot memorize a word, but that evidence of it’s spherical shape came from Quran and Sunnah[8]
One of the most significant verses in the Quran about the Earth Spherical shape is this
خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ يُكَوِّرُ اللَّيْلَ عَلَى النَّهَارِ وَيُكَوِّرُ النَّهَارَ عَلَى اللَّيْلِ ۖ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ ۖ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ۗ أَلَا هُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْغَفَّارُ
39:5

  Yusuf Ali
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 the moon (to His law): Each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power - He who forgives again and again?
Sahih International
He created the heavens and earth in truth. He wraps the night over the day and wraps the day over the night and has subjected the sun and the moon, each running [its course] for a specified term. Unquestionably, He is the Exalted in Might, the Perpetual Forgiver.

Even oxford classics Official Translation of the Quran (that is oxford university translation of the Quran):
He created the heavens and earth for a true purpose; He wraps the night around the day and the day around the night; He has subjected the sun and moon to run their courses for an appointed time; He is truly the Mighty, the Forgiving.
(OXFORD WORLD'S CLASSIC The Qur'an a new translation)
But the wrapping here is the most important part, what is the original Arabic word for it?
يُكَوِّرُ
Yukawir is the word we should focus on, what does lisan al-arab the most authentic will know Arabic to Arabic dictionary say about it?:
وكارَ العِمامَةَ على الرأْس يَكُورُها كَوْراً: لاثَها عليه وأَدارها؛ قال أَبو ذؤيب:وصُرَّادِ غَيْمٍ لا يزالُ، كأَنه مُلاءٌ بأَشْرافِ الجِبالِ مَكُورُ وكذلك كَوَّرَها.
Translation:
“And Kara (wrap) the Turban on the head (because the head is not flat incase if you don’t know) Yukawiroha Kura (make it wrapped in spherical shape): he wrapped it on his head and role it around his head, Abu Thuaib said frigorism clouds and still, like it’s sheet wrapped around the most honored mountains “
And Ibn Authaimin (one of the greatest Islamic scholars in history) said:
“the earth is spherical by the evidence of the Quran, and the reality is the words of the people of knowledge, but the Quran evidence is the word of god “He created the heavens and earth for a true purpose; He wraps the night around the day and the day around the night” and Takwir making something like a sphere, like how to make a turban spherical, and it’s known that the day and the night are wrapping over earth, and that must conclude the earth must be spherical, because if you wrap something on something the later object like earth has to be spherical, and if the earth had the night and day wrapped around it like this, it Has to be spherical……this doesn’t go on conflict with { Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made?, And at the Sky, how it is raised high?, And at the Mountains, how they are fixed firm?, And at the Earth, how it is spread out?} Quran 88:17-20 the earth is spherical but by looking at it, it’s seams as it was spread out and Sutihat, because by eye perspective it’s flat, nothing in it necessitate being worried on settling it in, this doesn’t deny the spherical shape of the earth, because it has such large buddy, but despite that they mentioned it’s not spherical but equal in sides, but it’s curved on north and south, for they say it’s egged shaped, meaning that it’s on a shape of an egg in it’s curve north and south”[9]

Now let’s look at the verse you cited 15:19
{And the earth we have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.}
If you look at the word Madadnaha it has several meanings
1.      Means spreading out a shape and make it larger
2.      Providing support for someone or something
Let’s look at the first one spreading out and making something larger, this doesn’t go to mention being flat hence the example I gave.
As for the second one this is the more plausible one, let’s make an example
An Arab SWAT team Is attacking a drug manufacturing facility, they run our of ammo so they call the support team and say “مددنا بامساندة” which means “provide us with the support” as you can see I used the same word mentioned in the verse above, the reason why the second option is the more plausible one is because if you read it in context it seems the Quran is talking about the early stages or earth and how god is providing it with water and mountains as (support) read verse 20  the next one
{And we have provided therein means of subsistence, - for you and for those for whose sustenance ye are not responsible.}

Like I said read the blog I gave, it provide better counter argument

pread out like a carpet. (Think please: who could have shown such ignorance? Allah or Muhammad?) If the author of the Qur’an thought that the Earth is spread out like a carpet, he must have considered it natural that the Sun meets the flat plane of the Earth somewhere in the west (sunset) and somewhere else in the east (sunrise). This wrong geometry fits perfectly to the knowledge of Muhammad (the illiterate), and not to the knowledge of Allah (the all-wise). If you want to know what Muhammad’s knowledge was, look no further than your ahadith, and specifically the following one from one of your most authoritative ancient Muslims authors, Sahih al-Bukhari:

The verse don’t state even the word Carpet, the word Carpet is in Arabic (سجادة) nowhere does the word even exist in this verse, this is the addition of the translator


Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:

Narrated Abu Dharr:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the Sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the Sun runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’” (36.38)

Such was the miserable state of knowledge of your “Prophet”. He thought that the Sun has a soul, so that it can prostrate itself, ask permission, and so on; and that Allah would give “orders” to that anthropomorphic Sun! If you are a carpenter, do you ever give orders to the chairs that you make?

I’m I speaking to a mentally disabled fool or something? Giving order doesn’t necessitate doing the exact action over and over to your subject, for example if I program a robot to do something I gave it an order that it will keep on doing it, the same example apply above, God has given a programmed order to the sun, plus the hadith empathize actual figurative speech that shows the majesty of god

In addition, as you know very well, the Sun does not “go” anywhere at the time of sunset. It is the Earth that turns; the Sun merely stays where it is

The sun does move, Mr. Harry it goes around our milky way galaxy, in 230 million year, a single spin is called a Galactic year, so it does go somewhere after all
Islamic sources. That hadith shows us what Muhammad really believed.

Please tell us, what did he believed
But he didn’t even invent by himself what he believed. He wasn’t smart enough to come up with original ideas. Muhammad simply made a salad in his mind out of ideas that already existed in ancient cultures of that region of the world. For example, all ancient cultures believed that the Sun and Moon were gods who cruised along the dome of the sky. The ancient Egyptians believed that the sun-god Ra was born every morning, growing in strength until noon, and cruising the sky on a boat. At noon he would switch to another boat that carried him to the entrance to the nether world, where further boats carried him through the night. Does that bring to mind Muhammad’s wondering: “Do you know where the Sun goes (at the time of sunset)?”? Of course it does, because Muhammad’s knowledge about what happens to the Sun at night rested on mythological beliefs of ancient and pagan peoples, such as the Egyptians and Greeks. (In Greek mythology, too, the Sun was personified as a god, the god Helios, who, during the night hours crossed the sea — “Oceanus”, encircling the earth — in a boat from West to East.) So it is not surprising at all that Muhammad personified objects such as the Sun and the Moon, when his beliefs are compared against the background of legends and mythologies of peoples that surrounded him and his culture. This observation, however, should make every pious Muslim wonder: how could Muhammad ever be considered “divinely inspired” if he believed in such falsehoods?

How the Hell does believing the sun and the moon being Gods correlate the the hadith above? Are you speaking from your ass? If Muhammad talked about the movement of sun and the moon how does that correlate to ancient Greek and Egyptians who thought the sun and the moon are conscious deities? You are presupposing your conclusions, the Quran Even clearly says not to worship the sun and the moon, so how can Muhammad take a “salad” of ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology? Not to mention you are burdened with the proof of providing evidence that Muhammad really got knowledge of ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology
 “But he didn’t even invent by himself what he believed. He wasn’t smart enough to come up with original ideas. Muhammad simply made a salad in his mind out of ideas that already existed in ancient cultures”
where is your evidence?
In conclusion, theory #2 explains all our data (both the Qur’anic, and those that are in the above hadith) and makes perfect sense. At least that’s how it seems to me, thinking about the matter as objectively as I can. What is your view?

None of your theories stand to the merits
 Also, no matter which theory (1 or 2 above) is correct, the idea that there are places of sunset and sunrise on the Earth is nonsense. That is, whether Allah said this nonsense (theory #1), or Muhammad said it (theory #2), it is nonsense anyway. Allow me to whisper it to your ear in different words, please: your Qur’an, in the above-mentioned verses, speaks nonsense, no matter who wrote it. There is no way to escape from this conclusion, no matter how much you would — understandably — want it. Verses 18:86–90 sound so silly today that they can make even little children laugh.

I think I’m dealing with a clown who has no idea how critical thinking works let alone how to think in the first place, I won’t repeat myself read the blog I linked

1.3 The Moon and its whereabouts

In verses 36:38–40 we read the following (my emphasis):

36:38 “And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing. 36:39 And the Moon, — We have measured for her mansions (to traverse) till she returns like the old (and withered) lower part of a date-stalk. 36:40 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).”

What? “It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon?” The above verse is either ridiculous or wrong, depending on whether we try to understand it from the modern perspective or from the Bedouins’ perspective, respectively. Here is why:

  From the modern perspective, to say that the Sun tries to catch up the Moon (but is not permitted to do so) is laughably naïve. The Moon’s orbit around the Earth has no overlap with the Sun’s location in space, since the Moon orbits the Earth once in around 27.3 days (the “sidereal month”), and the system Earth–Moon orbits the Sun once per year (see diagram).

“From the modern perspective, to say that the Sun tries to catch up the Moon (but is not permitted to do so) is laughably naïve.”

What? Hold on, What? Are you serious? No you have to be joking, this can’t be coming out from a mouth of a human, and I don’t believe what I’m dealing with here

Where does the verse empathize such “naïve” conclusion? Where does the verse say “the sun tries to catch up with the moon but it’s not permitted to do so”
Anyone who has any mental capacity to understand reason or logic will tell me not to waste my time with you here, what you have committed here is a Strawman fallacy, misrepresenting with the verse is saying

The verse is saying the sun should not catch the moon path, this is either a response to a wrong Arabian thinking, or general claim of reality
For example if I say, the Mercedes Benz should not catch up with Audi speed, this means that Mercedes should not reach Audi speed.
Another example if two air planes are about to take off, one has path A and the other has Path B
Path A should not catch up with Path B i.e. it should not collide

So, because according to what we know today it is just plain stupid to say that the Sun tries to catch up the Moon, there is only one possibility: that verse 36:40 was said that way for the Bedouins to make some sense of it. But in that case,... it’s wrong again!

Where does it say it tries to catch up with the moon?

From the Bedouin’s perspective, seeing the Sun and Moon cruising on the (nonexistent) dome of the “heaven” (the sky), it made some sense to think that the Sun might try to catch up the Moon, and is not permitted by Allah. But that idea is wrong, too, because that’s exactly what happens during a solar eclipse: the Sun catches up the Moon!

The sun in solar eclipse doesn’t catchup the moon you idiot, it interfere with its lights and vision,

But let us read the verses cited
36:38
 And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.

No scientific problem here, the sun has it’s own course so as the moon

38:39:

And the moon - We have determined for it phases until it returns [appearing] like the old date stalk.

No scientific problem here, the moon has it’s own shape in appearance
39:40
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).

Now according to Tafsīr Al-Jalalāin
({لا الشمس ينبغي } يسهل ويصح { لها أن تدرك القمر } فتجتمع معه في الليل)
Translation:
The Sun should not catchup with the moon on night on same sky
i.e we should not see two objects in the sky (sun and the moon)
No scientific problem here

Later on
({ ولا الليل سابق النهار } فلا يأتي قبل انقضائه { وكل } تنويه عوض عن المضاف إليه من الشمس والقمر والنجوم { في فلك } مستدير { يسبحون } يسيرون نزلوا منزلة العقلاء.)
Translation:
“And the Night should not be mixed with the day, each has their own path (referring to the night and the day and the sun and the moon)

Now, part of our data is that ancient peoples did not understand what happens during a solar eclipse. They thought that the Sun simply darkens, and they panicked. The ancient Greek historian Herodotus describes how two ancient armies, the Lydians and the Medians, stopped fighting and agreed to make peace, terrified during a solar eclipse that took place while they were engaged in battle (Herodotus: Histories, Book 1, §74). Ancient people could not understand that the dark region of the Sun during an eclipse is the Moon, which the Sun “catches up” and overtakes from the viewpoint of the observer on the Earth, contrary to the claim of verse 36:40. There is evidence that even Muhammad was terrified by a solar eclipse, as the following hadith tells us, again from the trustworthy source of Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 167:

Narrated Abu Musa:
The sun eclipsed and the Prophet got up, being afraid that it might be the Hour (i.e. Day of Judgment). He went to the Mosque and offered the prayer with the longest Qiyam, bowing and in prostration that I had never seen him doing. Then he said, “These signs which Allah sends do not occur because of the life or death of somebody, but Allah makes His worshipers afraid by them. So when you see anything thereof, proceed to remember Allah, invoke Him and ask for His forgiveness.”

What we see is that, terrified and clueless as he was, Muhammad could not understand that during an eclipse the two heavenly bodies, Sun and Moon, catch up each other on the sky, from the Earth-bound observer’s viewpoint. He recorded his ignorance in the Qur’an.


Where is the link between the two? The prophet was terrified because this is one of the signs of the judgment day, so he thought it was the judgment day

if Muhammad was guided by Allah, why was he terrified like a schoolboy who thought that he saw a ghost?

Muhammad doesn’t receive knowledge at all time and at all places, even the Quran sate
Quran 17:85
“They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)"

So here even the Quran state Muhammad didn’t know in details what the soul is, he doesn’t always receive revelation whenever he wanted, he only receive revelation when god demand it
Furthermore Fatih Al-Bari Fi Shariah Sahih Bukhari state that eclipse is a sign for judgment day, and it’s used as a sign of repentance, so the prophet did so thinking it’s the judgment day to warn people and let them repent

You are not scared because you know what is going on. But if Muhammad was terrified, it was because he didn’t know. But how could your prophet not know,

Why is he demanded to know?

if he was a real prophet of Allah’s? How could he say that an eclipse is a sign that Allah sends, when we know exactly when an eclipse will happen, just as we know exactly when it will be Friday? Would you ever say that “Allah sends Fridays as signs”? No, it sounds stupid. Similarly, to say that “Allah sends eclipses as signs” is equally stupid, because we know exactly when there will be an eclipse. A “sign” is something that cannot be predicted by science or any person. But science predicts eclipses with absolute precision. How could your prophet sound so ignorant, so unguided by Allah?

That is not the characteristics of a prophet, the prophet is a role muddle and a guideline for mankind in manners NOT in scientific knowledge, the prophets are not meant to be Einstein, they are meant to be followed and now learn mathematics, astronomy, or even engineering from them.
No a sign is an indication, what is unpredicted is what called a prophecy, something you foretold to happen and happens later on, a sign for example let’s say, you
Making illogical and on reasonable claims is a sign of your mental limits,
Same as how if a boy at school make bad marks is a sign that he is not paying attention, so no sign is an indication of an event
Now, of course, we cannot be 100% sure that the above hadith is true. But, equally important, you should not reject it as false merely because you “don’t like it”

What’s wrong with the hadith to the level that we claim to not like it?


Because what it says disturbs you. You cannot put your theory — that Muhammad was wise and would not say the above nonsense

What is disturbing about it?
that Muhammad was wise and would not say the above nonsense — ahead of the data (i.e., Sahih al-Bukhari’s excerpt). Muhammad was illiterate, and had the knowledge (or lack thereof) of ancient peoples about eclipses; those are your data. You may assign a less-than-100% certainty that the above hadith is true, but remember that all the ahadith of Sahih al-Bukhari have been given a high degree of trustworthiness by Muslim scholars. Merely “not liking” a hadith because of your personal preferences is a knee-jerk reaction, and a very unscientific one.

A sign is not unpredictable, a sign is an indication of an event, whether it’s in the past of present of future, for example
If a student is bad at school, that is a sign of his bad behavior or a sign of not paying attention in class
A sign is an indication to an occurred event, not something that can’t be predicted

And no one is not liking the hadith, seriously what are you on about?

Ibn Hajar Al-Askalani goes on explaining it as follows
قوله : ( إلى ذكر الله ) في رواية الكشميهني " إلى ذكره " والضمير يعود على الله في قوله  يخوف الله بها عباده  ، وفيه الندب إلى الاستغفار عند الكسوف وغيره لأنه مما يدفع به البلاء .
Translation:
In his word: “To mention the glories name of Allah” in the Narration of Al-Kshmehne, the conscious is related to Allah words in making his slaves aware and in it is warning about the sin and repentance when the eclipse happens as a sign of the judgment day

Means Muhammad only did this to encourage people to repent thinking it was the judgment day

I feel like I’m dealing with a “schoolboy” like you here


This is not just a linguistic objection. It has serious implications in the lives of Muslims. Two of the so-called “pillars of Islam”, namely, praying and fasting, are based on the cycle of the Sun, i.e., on when the Sun rises and sets. What about Muslims who now live in very northern latitudes? In their places, the daytime can last for such a short or long time (or even vanish entirely, “outstripped” by the night, or persist for several 24-hour periods), that regulating fasting and praying according to the Sun is impossible. So, Muslims in such places resort to following the rhythms of the Sun in Arabia. (But not simultaneously with Arabia, because they might be in a very different time zone.) Why did Allah — if that’s the author of the Qur’an — establish such parochial rules, such rules that are good for some part of the world only? Didn’t Allah know that Islam would spread one day beyond Arabia?


Yes yes, what about the Muslims living in mars, Jupiter, sedna , ceres, or Saturn, what about them?
Our deer Mr. Harry have just Debunked Islam
Seriously can you be that stupid? Muslims pray toward the direction of the Kappa, plus they rely on time to fast, usually it’s from 3:12 Am to 7:12PM and the time of fasting decrees by one minute per day, so the Muslims on these regions follow such simple timing, let me guess you goanna tell me the region effect the mechanic of the clock right? I won’t be surprised if this comes from you this is how I as a Muslim and all Muslims on earth fast

Back to 36:40. How could Allah have said so many factually wrong things in so short a sentence?

What is wrong with the verse?

And if Allah was trying to impress only illiterate Bedouins who knew nothing about what happens during solar eclipses or in polar latitudes of our planet, then why should we today take seriously a book written for those clueless people of that time? We are neither Bedouins, nor illiterate, nor do we live in the Dark Ages.

Given the above, don’t you think that the theory that Allah is the true author of the Qur’an is wrong? Don’t you think that the theory that the Qur’an was the product of Muhammad’s mind (without inspiration from Allah) explains better what we read in it? (Remember to be objective like a scientist: data from observations go first; explanatory theories follow, and depend on the data.)

Dark Ages? Will I don’t need to respond to that

Yes he is the true author of the Quran, and no you have not shown why the Quran is wrong
No it was not the product of Muhammad, speak your evidence

1.4 Heaven and Earth were one piece initially, then split asunder? Sounds familiar?


No Mr. Harry, doesn’t sound Familiar at all

In verse 21:30, as well as elsewhere in the Qur’an, we read what ancient peoples thought was the correct cosmology, which, however, has absolutely no relation to what today we know is true:

21:30 “Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?”

No, sorry. They will not believe (in Islam, at least), because the idea that the “heavens” (which is an illusion, as we said in §1.1) and the Earth were united in one piece (which then God split asunder) is: (1) not original (the ancient Jews also believed the same thing, and it is described in Genesis of the Jewish Bible),

Where is the evidence?


and (2) false anyway, conflicting with everything we know today. How can something nonexistent as the “heavens” be thought of as united with the Earth? And if by “heavens” one understands “everything else in the universe except the Earth” (a silly idea, given the unimportance of the speck of dust that we call Earth in relation to the entire universe), then didn’t Allah know that around eight and a half billion years passed after the Big Bang and before the Earth was formed? How can Allah have said that “the heavens and the earth were of one piece” if for 8.5 billion years the Earth did not exist, but the “heavens” existed?


Where does the verse say earth existed with the universe? This is yet another strawman, let’s read it in full context
If you read 21:31 it says
{ 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.}

which indicate the earth were in its proto-state, showing that the verse was not talking about a fully created earth, but rather it was still in it’s proto-state of creation, sure it doesn’t sate the age, Why will it? It will be wrong if it state the age, a thousand year from now if the Quran state the earth never created for 8.5 billion years, thousands of years from now this could possibly change with new advancement in science, nowhere does the Quran state what came first or last, only talks about the stages of development in earth and the universe.

But the problem doesn’t end here, there is a verse that shows the earth was created later
 79:27-30.
 What! Are ye the more difficult to create or the heaven (above)? ((Allah)) hath constructed it: On high hath He raised its canopy, and He hath equally ordered it. Its night doth He endow with darkness, and its splendour doth He bring out (with light). And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse)

1. At first sight, it may seem as though these verses contradict because 2:29 mentions the earth before the heavens, while in 79:27-21, the situation is reversed. However, on closer inspection, we discover some significant differences:
A) 2:29 mentions the development of the heavens into seven layers, not their initial creation which is described in 79:27-31.
B) 2:29 describes the creation of the earth and its features while 79:27-31 only describes the spreading of the earth
Thus, based on the two verses we know two things:

1.  The creation of the earth preceded the formation of the heavens into seven layers
2.  The creation of the heavens preceded the 'spreading' of the earth.
And a third point is logically concluded from the above:
3.  The creation of the heavens preceded their formation into seven layers
However the Quran as I said doesn’t mention what was created first
Imams of Tafsir moreover state the following
Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273CE) states in his monumental Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an when giving his opinion on the Qur'anic description:

I believe that what Qatada said is sound Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and [He] arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth[10]
Imaam Ibn Kathir state:
“It already has been mentioned previously in [the Tafsir of] Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir”[11]

The Problem doesn’t just end here, actually, there IS something called early earth
“Differentiation in the first few 100's of millions of years led to the formation of the core and the mantle and a crust and initiated the escape of gases from the moving interior that eventually led to the formation of the atmosphere and oceans.

The earliest Earth was probably an unsorted conglomeration, mostly of silicon compounds, iron and magnesium oxides, and smaller amounts of all the natural elements. It became increasingly hotter as the protoplanet grew.

...After loss of the hydrogen, helium and other hydrogen-containing gases from early Earth due to the Sun's radiation, primitive Earth was devoid of an atmosphere. The first atmosphere was formed by outgassing of gases trapped in the interior of the early Earth, which still goes on today in volcanoes.

For the Early Earth, extreme volcanism occurred during differentiation, when massive heating and fluid-like motion in the mantle occurred. It is likely that the bulk of the atmosphere was derived from degassing early in the Earth's history.

...Lava flowing from the partially molten interior spread over the surface and solidified to form a thin crust. This crust would have melted and solidified repeatedly, with the lighter compounds moving to the surface. This is called differentiation. Weathering by rainfall broke up and altered the rocks. The end result of these processes was a continental land mass, which would have grown over time. The most popular theory limits the growth of continents to the first two billion years of the Earth”[12] [13]

The early earth was a form of gasses and clouds as stated above if the Quran state that such thing as earth was there it’s still correct

However we what should conclude is as follows:
1-     The Quran doesn’t sate the age of the Earth
2-     The Quran doesn’t state the age of the universe
3-     The Quran doesn’t state the age between universe creation and earth
4-     The Quran Simply state the stages of earth development in a nutshell
That is all, it’s really that simple why is it hard to get?


if for 8.5 billion years the Earth did not exist, but the “heavens” existed? (If “heavens” refers to the rest of the universe; but read §1.5.1, below, to see that “heavens” cannot refer to that.) Even I, a mere mortal, can do a better job: “Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens existed before the Earth, for a time longer than you can imagine, then We formed the Sun and the Earth out of swirling dust from the heavens?” That wording definitely would not sound strange to the rational and cosmologically oh-so-sensitive Bedouin mind, would it? But it would certainly convert us all to Islam. Why did Allah choose such sloppy and inaccurate language in the Qur’an?

NO need to reply to such nonsense above, the Quran doesn’t want to impress you, it just want to provide very simple accurate easy to understand language for Bedouins and people in the future, even if the Quran stat there will be something called computers used by humans in the future such accurate prediction will not convince some people

As for the phrase “and we made every living thing of water”, that, too, is incorrect. Living beings were not made of water. Water is important for the evolution and maintenance of life as we know it here on our planet,

Citation Needed.

but so are several other chemicals that form the bodies of all living organisms. One of them is carbon. There is no living being that has no carbon in its body.

Strawman, the Quran Doesn’t say that Water is the compound of living things, but rather state that from water life emerged, which is the earliest stage of biogenesis, in which what we call, primordial soup, carbon is the compound of our bodies, But NOT the origins where life began

“The Hadean Earth is thought to have had a secondary atmosphere, formed through degassing of the rocks that accumulated from planetesimal impactors. At first, it was thought that the Earth's atmosphere consisted of hydrides—methane, ammonia and water vapour—and that life began under such reducing conditions, which are conducive to the formation of organic molecules. During its formation, the Earth lost a significant part of its initial mass, with a nucleus of the heavier rocky elements of the protoplanetary disk remaining”[14]

The flexibility doesn’t end here, imagine life without water, will all living things continue to live? I doubt it
Mr. Harry such ridiculous nonsense the comes out of you is in disputable, either you make a strawman on the Quran or you are the one who ironically makes the scientific error


Instead, the author of the Qur’an said that Allah “made every living thing of water”. Out of plain water, only water can arise, not life. Nor is it true that life evolved in the sea or lakes. Again, this is an ancient idea that was (1) not original, and (2) scientifically inaccurate. The ancient Jews believed that God created life first in the seas (just read the first few verses of Genesis); also the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander (~ 6th C. BC) proposed that life originated in the water, Anaximander (~ 6th C. BC) proposed that life originated in the water, and he stated this more than 1000 years before Muhammad was born.

Citation needed, plus where dose the Quran say life originated out of plain water? Why do you keep on committing strawman? Let’s make an example
Robots are made of circuits
Is there a problem with this? As an engineer myself Mr. Harry I have no problem with this, robots are indeed made of circuits, of course there is wires there is plastic and metal, there is chemical reactions in the battery, but essentially circuits is necessity for them
Infact Anaximander is wrong, he thought Everything, not just life, but even Everything was originated from water, that doesn’t come close to the Quranic claim Mr. Harry, why being dishonest
“It is debatable whether Thales actually was the teacher of Anaximander, but there is no doubt that Anaximander was influenced by Thales' theory that everything is derived from water. One thing that is not debatable is that even the ancient Greeks considered Anaximander to be from the Monist school which began in Miletus with Thales followed by Anaximander and finished with Anaximenes.”[15]

Just how water is necessity for life
 “For Anaximander, the principle of things, the constituent of all substances, is nothing determined and not an element such as water in Thales' view. Neither is it something halfway between air and water, or between air and fire, thicker than air and fire, or more subtle than water and earth”[16]

How can that come close the Quranic claim, he though Fire is one of the 4 elements of life origin, that is Fire Mr. Harry how can the Quran make such copy????

Today we believe that water played a vital role in the evolution of life, but to say that “we made every living thing of water” is scientifically inaccurate.

Again, Citation Needed

The rest of what you say is pure nonsense I won’t waste my time with it


Given the above, dear Muslim reader, and always thinking objectively, which of the following theories do you think is true?

Allah said things that were already believed by ancient Jews and Greeks (long before your religion was established) and said them in such a way so as to sound today either downright wrong or scientifically sloppy.

Muhammad, the true mind behind the Qur’an, said the above things because that’s what he had heard. What he said agrees with what was believed by ancient peoples, but is wrong — or at best scientifically inaccurate — by today’s knowledge.


Again none of them is true, again you have to be logically valid to make theories
Try harder Mr. Harry

 I remind you that to think objectively 

Before you tell us how to think, make sure you follow your own rule yourself, and not be a hypocrite.
By the way, why is it that I can always say things more accurately than your Qur’an?
I’m I supposed to laugh or something? I have a feeling that your above question is a joke

It can’t be that I know more than Allah, because Allah is supposed to be infinitely wise. Then could it be that it’s because I benefit from modern knowledge, which is highly more accurate than Muhammad’s knowledge? But, in that case, doesn’t that imply that Muhammad did not draw his knowledge from Allah, but from his own culture, which in turn received it from other ancient cultures?

Citation needed.



1.4.1 Deceptive translations of the Qur’an by present-day Muslim translators


Sometimes Muslims try to impress non-Muslims by giving their own, totally ad hoc and unjustified translations of the Qur’an. Such translations sound as if they agree with some key feature of modern science. But they are not just bad, but deceptive translations. For example, take verse 21:30, as stated above. See here for a deceptive translation of it, where it is given as follows (my emphasis):

21:30 “Do the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?”
Again, Citation needed. Who gave you this translation? Or you just brought it out of thin air to make a blame on nonexistent victim?
Plus I find it doubtful, you as non-Muslim I will assume you don’t even know Arabic, how cloud you tell the true translation from the false one?

That “idiot” you are referring into is more likely Khalifa, a quranist translator who is rejected by the majority of Muslims in the world and even academics of Muslim community like Bilal Philips doubted his scholarship[17]

that explosions were unknown in Muhammad’s time and place? Gunpowder was discovered only in the 9th C. by Chinese alchemists, whereas nitroglycerin and hence dynamite were manufactured in Europe in the 19th C. The only explosions that could occur in Muhammad’s time were the natural ones, of volcanoes. Unfortunately, southern Arabia has no volcanoes. Thus, the language of the Qur’an couldn’t possibly have a word for referring to an unknown, nonexistent concept.

(Facepalm) Gunpowder? Really? You think explosions are explosive to Gunpowder?
Tell me and define to me explosion
Explosion:
a violent shattering or blowing a part of something, as is caused by a bomb.

Blowing apart or Violent shattering, so even if we apply it to the verse, it’s stull accurate, because the word we clove them ascender meant to separate parts, so explosion sense on it’s essence means the shattering or blowing apart something then it can also be used as translation

In addition, the Big Bang event was nothing like an explosion — in spite of the “Bang” in it. In an explosion, thermal energy dissipates violently by expanding into an already existent space; in the Big Bang, space itself was distended, decreasing in curvature, without expanding into some other pre-existing space. That’s quite unlike an explosion, but whoever translated 21:30 as above (in red letters) obviously knew so little of physics that he thought Allah would refer to the Big Bang as an “explosion”.

Citation needed

1.5 Our solar-system surroundings as seen with the eyes of a Bedouin

1.5.1 The confusion about what “heaven” is


21:32 “And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn aside from its signs.”

So, the heaven is a canopy, which means a roof over the heads of people.

Is that what you believe the verse say?


You, of course, know today that there is nothing like a roof over your head. But the Bedouin didn’t know. Therefore, I can think of two theories to explain the above verse, and also all those that will follow soon:

It is really Allah who is speaking in the Qur’an and who, although of course knows that there is nothing like a canopy, he uses that false image to reinforce the wrong idea of a roof in the Bedouin’s mind.

It is actually Muhammad who is speaking in the Qur’an, perhaps genuinely believing that Allah is talking to him, but in reality saying things from the perspective available to him by his Bedouin’s knowledge.

If theory #1 is correct, we conclude that Allah is talking to the Bedouin of those times, not to us today.

Let’s see which of the above two theories is best supported by the data. Remember, data for us is certainly what is included in the Qur’an (with 100% certainty), and to a lesser extent what is included in the ahadith (with less than 100% certainty).

Here is a bit of refreshing for you, have you heard of the Ozone Layer? Isn’t a roof Layer
Looking at the roof of your house isn’t it a layer of blocks? Wrapped together with chemicals?
Your rooftop is a layer Mr. Harry wither you love it or hate it, it’s consider a layer, infact there is nothing wrong with this verse, the word roof or canopy is referring the atmosphere layers, more likely the ozone layer, yes it’s not physical but it acts as a roof to protect us from sun Gamma ray radiation, just like how the roof of your house protect you from…….. Will I’ll let you figure that one out
Why do you have such ignorance in science Mr. Harry?



22:65 “Do you not see that Allah has made subservient to you whatsoever is in the earth and the ships running in the sea by His command? And He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except with His permission; most surely Allah is Compassionate, Merciful to men.”

The phrase “except with His permission” might mean one of the following two things: (a) except when Allah determines that the Day of Judgment has come, or (b) except when it rains. So we have two theories here, (a) and (b). Theory (b) seems more reasonable to me, because elsewhere in the Qur’an we read that it is Allah who allows the rain to fall and water the crops, which is beneficial to people, and so this all ties in with what follows: “most surely Allah is Compassionate, Merciful to men.” And also, when looking at the rain from faraway it really looks as if the heaven is falling on earth at that place where it’s raining. In any case, we see that this canopy, the “heaven”, is withheld so that it doesn’t fall on earth (hence, on our heads) by Allah. Elsewhere, Allah boasts that the canopy, the roof, has no pillars that support it:


This is referring to the judgment day Mr. Harry NO where does the verse EVEN mention Rain?
Here is Ibn Kathir response:
(He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except by His leave.) If He willed, He could give the sky permission to fall on the earth, and whoever is in it would be killed, but by His kindness, mercy and power, He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth, except by His leave.)[18]
31:10 “He [Allah] created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see;”

If Allah knew that the Earth is a sphere, and that its atmosphere (responsible for the illusion of “heaven”) surrounds that sphere and is held around it by gravity, why would he boast that there are no pillars to support it? Pillars are used only to support ceilings, roofs, or other solid surfaces. But the atmosphere is no solid surface. And doesn’t 31:10 tell us that “heaven” means the atmosphere, and not the abstract notion of “rest of the universe except Earth”? If Allah meant this last idea by “heaven”, why did he need to boast about “no pillars” — isn’t that ridiculous? And how can the rest of the universe be prevented from falling on the Earth (22:65) — isn’t that astonishingly ridiculous?

WOW, so when the Quran say there is no pillars to support it, (which is scientifically accurate, there is no pillars to support the heaven) you go on your way and still say this is “ridiculous”?
Plus where does 31:10 tell us it means the atmosphere? How the Quran claiming no pillars is an error? Are you that stupid?
What makes you think that 22:65 is referring to the universe? Infact the verse is not referring to the universe, because if you read it in FULL you clearly see it’s talking about the seas and how ships go through the seas, and what’s on earth, how can that refer to the universe? Are you that ignorant?


Moreover, in verse 7:40 we learn that not only is the canopy of the heaven a physical thing, but that it even has gates! And people like me, who are unbelievers, will never pass through those heavenly gates. Here:

7:40 “Lo! they who deny Our revelations and scorn them, for them the gates of heaven will not be opened, nor will they enter the Garden until the camel goeth through the needle’s eye. Thus do We requite the guilty.”

A guy with shot terms memory can do better than you, how does this refer back to verse 22:65? You have not provided any logical explanation to it, and the burden of proof is on you

But if you read it in Full context you can clearly see sense 7:41 talks about the people of hell, and 7:38-39 clearly talks about the people in the judgment day


As you see, the evidence is mounting that the author of the Qur’an thinks of the heaven as something physical. More evidence exists in verse 21:104, where the author thinks of the heaven as something that can be rolled up like an ancient scroll for writing:

21:104 “The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolls up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.”

If you are a fan of the interpretation that the “heaven” is the rest of the universe except planet Earth, tell me please, what sense does it make to think of it as a scroll that can be rolled up?

But if you think of heaven in the way a Bedouin would think of it, then of course 21:104 makes sense: the heaven is a physical dome, a blue canopy over our heads (even with gates), and so it can be thought of as rolled up like a scroll. Sure, it makes sense; but to the ancient, illiterate minds, not to ours.


Where does this verse claim the universe is like a written scroll?
I’m at loss of how cloud you come up with such nonsense Mr. Harry
Let me bring Again another example
If I bake a cake that is spherical then on one day I decided to squish it, I put it inside a big book then I slam the book cover like how I want to close it, then the cake becomes flat like a scroll of paper

Doesn’t that indicate an action done to make an object flat?

Plus the universe

78:19 “And the heavens shall be opened as if there were doors”

How can the “heaven” as we understand it today be “opened”? Only physical, solid things open up. But the ancient Bedouins thought that the sky is exactly such a solid piece, so “opening it up” was a sensible thought in their minds. However, why does Allah — if he is the true author of the Qur’an, according to theory #1 — keep speaking in ways that today would make little children laugh?

Oh mine, Context Mr. Harry Context, read 78:13-30 it makes full detail about the judgement day, the heaven referred here is the heaven where believers will go after they die
78:18 (the verse before it) clearly refer to the Trumpet shall be sounded, and everyone will leave their grave to the heave (what does that tell you?)

In contrast, theory #2 doesn’t suffer from such problems. According to theory #2, Muhammad is simply projecting his incorrect knowledge about what he saw as “heaven” to Allah. He puts his knowledge into Allah’s mouth, making Allah sound as if Allah is saying false things, lies, sometimes even stupid things (“muddy springs”!). But in reality it is Muhammad who speaks. That’s what theory #2 says, and I don’t find any datum that contradicts this theory. If you can find any, dear Muslim reader, please make it known to me.

Simple answer? None of your theories stand to the merit of the verses Mr. Harry, you asked to find a Datum that contradict it? Read my responses and you shall see why your theories are wrong

However, no matter which theory is correct (#1 or #2), you must admit that somebody is speaking nonsense in your book

No one is speaking nonsense here Mr. Harry, only you


First of all, we understand they are conditions, not objects that require a creation, as many Qur’anic verses suggest. Once there is the Sun and a planet like Earth that rotates around its axis and thus shows half of itself to the Sun, inhabitants of the planet are bound to experience day & night — what can be more mundane and uninteresting that that, we’d think today. But ancient peoples didn’t have the correct model of a round Earth rotating around its axis in their minds. Moreover — and quite surprisingly for us — they couldn’t make the connection between Sun and daylight! They couldn’t “get it” that the Sun causes day, and the absence of Sun causes night. Instead, they observed “Day” starting to appear at some early time, whereas the Sun came out later, as a “crowning jewel” of “Day”. Likewise at sunset: they saw the Sun disappearing, but “Day” (the object) was still there for a while; so — naturally — they thought that the “Day” does not depend on the Sun, since it can exist even after the Sun is gone. From their perspective, the Sun didn’t cause the day but was merely a bright object cruising along the blue dome, the “heaven”, while “Day” was present. So in their view of things, ancient peoples treated “Day” and “Night” not as conditions but as objects that required creation, like all other objects. Here is a characteristic verse that tells us precisely that “Day” and “Night” were created, independently and before the creation of the Earth.

79:27 “Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built? 79:28 He raised its canopy, and He hath given it order and perfection. 79:29 And He made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. 79:30 And after that He spread the earth.”

Notice how the Sun doesn’t seem worthy of any mention in the above verses; Allah “raises” the canopy of the heaven (what sense does this really make if by “heaven” we understand “everything else in the universe except the Earth”?) and creates night and day on the heaven. Subsequently, Allah spreads the Earth. (And note please that if you want to create a sphere you don’t spread it, which is what you do if you create a flat, planar surface.) So the Day and Night are objects created, associated with heaven, but not associated with Earth, which comes afterwards. But what sense do the notions of day & night make in the absence of planet Earth?

Day and Night as objects? Where does the verse claim them as objects?
You said the earth comes afterwards, what makes you think the verse claim the earth came afterwards? Clearly you must be smoking something while writing this article Mr. Harry
Let me bring you YET again another hyperbole example

I have a balloon not fully grown of course if I blow in it it will spread out and become bigger, and bigger

The verse above suggest the earth was already there, the spreading out is a later process on earth, of course a smaller or in this case a primitive earth can still see the condition of day and night just it’s not yet finished according to the verse above
For example the earth on it’s early stages of development where in the moon size (this is an example it might not be scientifically accurate but just to illustrate a point) when it was on moon size it’s still sees the condition of day and night sense it’s still on it’s rotating axis and still rotate around the sun, but later on it’s (expanded) and grew bigger,
This is basically what the verse is saying (not the part where I claim it’s on the moon size) but rather the earth was already there seeing day and night but not big enough

How can you not see this?
In case if you still don’t get it, the verse in a nutshell speaks like this:
1-     It’s he who made the night wraps the day
2-     And the earth he expanded and spread out (remember it doesn’t mean flat but rather make something bigger)

Notice how the Sun doesn’t seem worthy of any mention in the above verses

The Quran Already mention the Sun as the source of light we discussed this before

Allah “raises” the canopy of the heaven (what sense does this really make if by “heaven” we understand “everything else in the universe except the Earth”?) and creates night and day on the heaven. Subsequently, Allah spreads the Earth. (And note please that if you want to create a sphere you don’t spread it, which is what you do if you create a flat, planar surface.)

Flat surface? I don’t need to reply to this again, check my response above

Some Muslim readers might object that the Arabic word used in the original text doesn’t have to be translated as “after that” (as translators Pickthal and Shakir translate it), but as “moreover” (as Yusuf Ali translates it). But this doesn’t make any significant difference. Try to read the text using “moreover”: 79:29 “And he made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. 79:30 Moreover, He spread the earth.”

It astonishes me that I’m not an English speaker unlike you probably, yet you have clear ignorance in the difference between moreover and after
Moreover suggest an event happened while the other one already took place for example
Event A is taking apart in Action, Event B is the later Event,
Using Moreover
The universe was expanding, moreover the black holes were getting bigger
This means the universe being expanded but the black hole on that time was taking change at the same time
Meaning both the universe and black holes are taking changes but black holes comes later
Further more to make it simple
Event A Duration is 8 minuets
Event B Duration is 3 minutes after  event A and last For extra 2 minutes
Event A is taking place While Event B is taking place at the same time only after event A

As for After:
Event A has the Duration of 8 Minuets
Event B has the Duration of 3 minuets
Event B happens after A
Means:
Event A has been done for 8 minuets
Then Event B took place after Event A was finished

Do you see the difference?


Still, day and night sound like two separately created objects

Nowhere does the verse say they are objects

If you have the correct, modern model of our solar system in your mind, and you say that the Earth was created, what sense does it make to say that the day and night were also created? And even mention their creation in the text (79:29) before the creation of the Earth (79:30)?

Already dealt with that

With the correct model in your mind, you should mention the Sun first,

No if I talk about the Day and the night and their properties I’m not forced to mention the sun first, for example I can talk about the rotation of the gas giants without mentioning that their sheer size make them rotate reversed to our order

“And I made the dark surface, and the bright surface. Moreover, I spread out the table.” Would you ever say an incoherent thing like that?

NO where does the verse say “we made Dark” and “we made light” only talk about dark overlapping night
If it talks about the creation of dark and light it will mention it without mentioning earth, it make it sound like a singular creation
For example if I say I made the table dark or I made it dark, wihout mentioning the creation of the table, we have no problem with that
The only problem is if I say the example you gave
However the verse never says that god created day and night then later spread out earth
Again here is what the verse say:
{And He darkened its night and extracted its brightness.}
Nothing about the creation of night and day, only saying that the night overlaps the day

The verses of Chapter 79 are of course not the only ones that show a lack of understanding of what day and night is, and what causes them

NO it doesn’t


Here is a verse showing again a separation between day & night on one hand, and the Sun and other heavenly bodies on the other hand:

7:54 “Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then He mounted the Throne. He covers the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and has made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!”

Can the “Lord of the Worlds” speak in a way that shows he understands some fundamental features of his creation?

Or Can “Harry” speak in a way that doesn’t strawman the Quran or have lack of scientific understanding?

Specifically, that the night and day are not independent creations, separate from one of the other objects (the Sun) which he also created? Why does he speak like an illiterate, ignorant person? If your answer is that he wanted to be understood by Bedouins, then my counter-answer is that Allah, being all-wise, could always choose to speak so that he was both understood by tribesmen, and also make sense to us today. A very simple way to do that in 7:54 is this one: “Lo! your Lord is Allah who created the heavens and the Earth in six Days. He has made the stars, the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon [in that order, please!], and has let the Sun to shine during the day, which is covered by the night after sunset, and the night in turn is covered by day in haste before sunrise. His verily is all creation [blah-blah, but I would prefer less boasting and bragging from a truly wise Allah].”

If a creator of heavens and earth and all of what’s in between don’t you think that create deserve some bragging rights?
Plus how cloud he talk to Bedouin while being understood by our time? The simplest way of doing so is to be speaking in a middle level, not so complex, not so simple, like the verse above
Second of all AGAIN nowhere does the verse state that the day and night are objects, the verse Simple say that the night is later covered with the day, it doesn’t say that the object of the night is covered with the object of the day
If I say that my flash light shinned the dark room, does this mean that the light in my flash light is an object? Please answer this
Plus why order? The first stages, the sun then earth are perfectly correct, the sun was created then earth no problem with that

I don’t think the extra-sensitive Bedouins would have a hard time to swallow the above, given that they swallowed far more difficult ideas, such as that their many other gods were false gods, and that Muhammad had a special direct communication channel with the one God, Allah. I mean, if you are so naïve and gullible(*)
as to believe a person who says Allah talks to him in a cave through the angel Gabriel, and you believe him just because that person tells you so, then do you think it is that hard to accept the sentences I wrote in blue color? Would you have any difficulty to understand them?

And what makes you understand the Bedouin mentality better than the Quran, a book was sent in the language of those people? Again under what criteria we can make the Bedouins understand it?

By the way, Allah could also avoid the phrase: “He mounted the Throne”. What “Throne”? Does Allah need a throne to sit on? A throne is a physical thing, especially if it is mounted somewhere. Does Allah have a physical body (with the necessary part that humans use when they sit somewhere), which he uses while sitting on a throne? What does this tell you about what the author of the Qur’an thought about Allah? (Think, and then re-read this quote from Sahih Al-Bukhari, to see what the author really thought about that throne and where it is located.)


If God is a King and he has the right to make what he want, why not having a throne? God can do whatever he want, you really think he can’t make himself nonphysical and yet still be on a physical objects?

As I mentioned, I don’t find it appropriate that Allah boasts about himself and asks to be blessed all the time (“Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!”). Is this the example you want to follow? Boasting continually about what you have created? But I am not going to complain about your Quran’s distasteful moral advice here, because that subject belongs to a different article. Let’s go back to the subject of cosmology

Again the Creator of EVERYTHING doesn’t deserve some bragging rights or respect?
Or do you want to be better than someone who created the entire universe and you are nothing but a simple ant, NO you are even smaller than an atom compared to him, yet you think he should not be that bragging? Plus despite his bragging in several verses he shows that he is merciful, the majority of his 99 names lead to his merciful side, even in hadith it’s recorded that his mercy beats his wrath[19]
You would expect from someone who created everything and has absolute power to be tyrant right?
The more power you gain the more likely that you become evil and selfish

Here are a few more verses that show the dissociation between day–night and Sun:

21:33 “And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.”

36:40 “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).” If you understand that night and day are simply caused by the illumination of the Earth from the Sun, what sense does it make to boast about not permitting night to outstrip the day? How else could it be on a spherical body like the Earth?

Ironically you gave verses that probes the earth being spherical, how can night and day orbit? If the surface that they are in it isn’t spherical? I mentioned this before in this article
But again where does it says it’s an object? You can still create conditions, for example mutation is not an object, but if you for example expose someone to gamma ray radiation you are more likely to “Create” or “Make” a mutation in their body
Otherwise how can you describe it? Please show us how can you describe a condition without mentioning it’s cause?
Let’s say you wanna describe the day and night without mentioning the sun, can you do that, and of course you can


Looking again at all the above verses we have two theories, as before:

Allah, the carpenter of the universe, says that (a) he raised the ceiling as a canopy over the heads of the ants that live on a table, giving to that canopy order and perfection, (b) he made a darkness and a brightness, and (c) subsequently (or moreover), he made the table for the ants to dwell on. But actually the “darkness” and “brightness” are mere conditions of the two surfaces (lower and upper) of the table, as they are illuminated by a lamp, which the boastful carpenter failed to mention. Worse, the table is not a table, but a spherical object.

Muhammad, the illiterate Arab nomad, not understanding that brightness and darkness are conditions of the table that depend on the existence of an external light source (a light bulb), claimed that Allah, the real carpenter, said things in a way that shows a basic misunderstanding of brightness, darkness, surfaces, tables, light bulbs, and the relations of those objects to each other.

Which of the two theories explains better what we read in all the verses that I quoted? Which theory would you choose if you were a scientist, trained to look at the data first, without pre-selecting the theory that you’d emotionally wish to be true?

Again none of them are logical
“Muhammad, the illiterate Arab nomad, not understanding that brightness and darkness are conditions”
and you can still again as I explained Make conditions


1.6 Wrong Order, Wrong Duration of Creation

The most detailed Qur’anic verses that tell us how Allah created the world, and what he created first, what next, and so on, are in Chapter 41 (“Fusilat”, or “Explained in detail”). In 41:9–12 we read the following (translation by Pickthal, with my emphasis, and with a few archaic words turned into more common and understandable ones [e.g.: “loth” → “unwillingly”]):

41:9 “Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds.”

41:10 “He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;”

41:11 “Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or unwillingly. They said: We come, obedient.”

41:12 “Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.”

I will refrain from complaining about the arithmetic, which sums up to 2+4+2=8 days (contrary to the 6 days of creation mentioned in several other verses in the Qur’an), because I want to grant the “benefit of doubt” to those Muslims who claim that the first 2 days must be merged into the next 4, thus yielding the sum of 4+2=6 days. All right, all right... we know Muhammad was illiterate, but it’s hard to believe he was worse than a first grader, who knows that two-plus-four-plus-two doesn’t add up to six. Of course, if it is really Allah speaking in verses 41:9–12, this is still a question: Why did Allah choose to speak in such a way so as to allow non-Muslims today to exclaim: “The author of the Qur’an didn’t even know basic arithmetic!”? Couldn’t Allah, being so wise, predict this and make the arithmetic in 41:9–12 sound more accurate and less like that of an illiterate person? But, anyway, let’s skip this moot point.

They were six. The verses of 41:9-12 speak of overlapping actions in spans of four and two days each. The adverbs are the keys to understanding this. The verses of 11 and 12 use the adverbs "thummah" and "fa" which imply consecutiveness of action. Neither of these two, however, are used in verse 10 (the only one which mentions four days) which instead uses the adverb "wa" implying parallel, or "overlapping" actions. In other words, the grammar tells us that the four days mentioned in 10 are a continuation of the two mentioned in verse 9. The four days of "measuring the earth's sustenance" refers to the two days of the creation of the earth in addition to the two days of the "spreading out of the earth's features"

Nor will I insist in commenting much about the really-really childish: “Come both of you, willingly or unwillingly”, which Allah said to heaven and earth, and the equally childish: “They said: We come, obedient.” Can you imagine that you are, for example, an ironsmith, and that you speak to your hammer and anvil, giving them orders? And also imagine that the hammer and the anvil answer back to you, expressing their obedience? How old do you think a child can be today and still imagine talking to inanimate objects, and that those objects answer back? 10 years old? 11 years old, at most? I think that by 12 years of age,


Ever heard of Ad huminum?
Ad huminum attack on the Quran I never expected this from you, ever heard of figurative speech? The majority of anti-Muslim critiques like you care about the so called contradiction within 8 or 6 days of creation, they will care less about the conversation between god and the sun and earth.
Here is a better response among the many[20]
What is so childish when a god make sun or earth move tward the place he want wither when he speak to them or not?
12 years old? I think that the guy I’m responding to here is 12 years old

today, the children that I know find that talking to objects is just silly

You must have talked to every single child in the world heh?


And if you answer that the anthropomorphic view of heaven and earth in 41:9–12 is there by “poetic license”, then I’d reply that poems for grown-ups are one thing, and poems for children are quite another. A Western poem for children, for example, has the child talking to a star: “Twinkle, twinkle, little star / how I wonder what you are!” That’s how 41:11 sounds

How does that apply to 41:11? Or that is just your mind boggling trivial nonsense that comes out of it, I bet you grew up in a very harsh environment that made you grow an illogical unpragmatic brain
I won’t be surprised if I’m replying to a child either

You can go and say that what I’m doing here is character assassination, but trust me Mr. Harry this could gone much more respectful and more civilized if you just weren’t the mocking mouth child you are here. And just cut to the chase

But the above are mere details. What I really want to comment on is the total mess in the order in which Allah says he created things, an order that comes to a headlong collision with modern scientific knowledge; and about the duration of Allah’s creation, which also contradicts modern knowledge, in two ways. So, let’s see:

In verse 41:9 we learn that Allah created the Earth in two days.
In verse 41:10 we receive confirmation that the finishing-up of the creation of the Earth took some time, as it took Allah a total of four days to adorn the Earth with mountains, etc. So, let’s say that in the first four days of creation Allah was concerned with the Earth, no matter what other things he might be doing at the same time. That’s an unassailable conclusion from 41:9–10.

Verse 41:11 tells us that Allah “turned to the heaven”. Translators Pickthal and Shakir say “Then He turned to the heaven”, whereas Yusuf Ali says “Moreover He...” Whether the meaning is “then” or “moreover”, our datum is that the Earth was the first object that Allah created. If the meaning is “then”, then of course Allah finished with the Earth (in 4 days) and then turned to the heaven. But even if the meaning is “moreover”, still it cannot be that Allah created the heaven before the Earth, because in 41:11 he speaks to the heaven “when it was smoke”, i.e., unformed yet. Allah converts the unformed heaven into a formed structure of seven heavens in 41:12, in the next two days.

Let’s write our datum down again, so that it is fully appreciated: the Earth was the first object that Allah created. No matter how much the imagination is stretched and logic is twisted, we cannot conclude something different from the chronology given in 41:9-12. Beyond any doubt is that the heaven acquired its structure (of seven layers) in the last 2 of the total 6 days of creation, whereas the Earth with its mountains was already ready in the first 4 of the 6 days. Any objection to that?


I already explained the Difference between Moreover and then (after)
But anyways, I see you seams to accept the claim of after, why? Did you consulted any Arab on this issue? Or because it match your anti-Muslim propaganda
But anyways there is a big problem in your conclusion, the Major point that refute your argument that the Earth was Created First is the Following verse
“Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke”
Wait, if the Earth was created first then the universe, then tell me why does the verse state the universe was smoke (a condition) after the creation of earth?
This Verse Clearly state the universe was already created (Not after earth) hence the claim that it was smoke, Seriously though why when non-Muslims read the Quran to criticize it they seem to suffer everything wrong that could happen to the brain?
The verse clearly state that the universe already existed hence a current state to it, the earth was on it’s stages of development


Yes, modern science objects to that — completely, absolutely, and as certainly as an objection can be made. It is beyond any scientific doubt that the Earth is no older than around 4.5 billion years.

And where does the verse state the age in order to have an objection in the first place?

The Sun is a little older than the Earth, as it was already partly formed at around 5 billion years ago. And, more important, much before that time, stars existed, both in our galaxy (the Milky Way) and in the many other galaxies of the universe. The universe itself has an age of around 13.7 billion years.

Again where does the verse state the age?

So, the Earth was clearly not the first object that was created, and “heaven” (if we interpret that word to mean “everything else except the Earth” — although we saw what “heaven” really meant for the author of the Quran in §1.5.1) existed long before the Earth was formed; specifically, for around 9 billion years.

Again back the universe was already in a current state of creation (smoke) suggesting that it was already existed before the creation of earth in the verse above.
This is no “Twisting” this is looking at the meaning of each word and dissecting the verse
How can you be so blind to such claim?

The rest of your comment is unnecessary




The second problem concerns the durations reported in the Qur’an. They conflict with modern scientific knowledge both absolutely and relatively. First, here’s what the absolute conflict is:

The Qur’an tells us that Allah created the world in six days (in several verses, and I said I am not going to argue that the verses in 41:9-12 describe a creation in eight days). The Jewish Bible has essentially the same duration of six days in its creation story (and the Bible is much older than the Qur’an, a datum that’s merely pointed out here), but the difference is that the Bible doesn’t explain what it means when it says “day”. (Of course, the simplest interpretation is that it means literally one period of time during which the sky is bright, because the Bible exhibits the same dissociation between the notion of “day” and the Sun as that of the author of the Qur’an, which was pointed out in §1.5.2; but let’s be generous and assume that a “day” is not just that, otherwise the two “holy books”, Qur’an and Bible, drop to the level of comics books for children.) Contrary to the Bible, in the Qur’an Allah attempts to tell to Muhammad how long an “Allah’s day” lasts, although Allah gives two different estimates. In verses 22:47 and 32:5 Allah says that a “day” for him is like 1000 years for people:

22:47 “And they ask you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and surely a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you number.”

32:5 “He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count.”

Notice that although 32:5 talks about a specific day, in contrast, 22:47 talks about “Allah’s day” in the abstract. So, from 22:47 we may conclude that when Allah says “day” in general he means a span of 1000 years. However, in verse 70:4 Allah muddles the issue a bit, as he talks about a specific type of day (the day it takes for angels and the spirit to ascend to him), which is equal to 50,000 years for people:

70:4 “To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.”

There is no other verse in the Qur’an that tells us how long an “Allah’s day” is besides the verses listed above.

The problem is that even if we take the longer duration of 50,000 years for a day, then six days will add up to no more than 300,000 years. Of those, 4 x 50,000 = 200,000 years should be the time that Allah was creating the Earth and placing mountains on it. That, as an absolute number, is almost nothing compared to the around 4,500,000,000 years,


You are forgetting one fact, Arabic the Word Youm in Arabic (translated in the verse as day) has several meanings, the word youm in both modern Arabic (sense I’m an Arab myself) and classical Arabic means long period of time
ويومٌ أَيْوَمُ ويَوِمٌ ووَوِمٌ؛ الأَخيرة نادرة لأن القياس لا يوجبُ قلب الياءِ واواً، كلُّه: طويلٌ شديدٌ هائلٌ
Translation:
“Youm, ayoum, wayoum,wooom: the last one is very rare because the Ya (Arabic letter) should not be changed into wawo(Arabic letter) the hole meaning is : very very long and huge period of time[21]

But your problem doesn’t end here, the verse doesn’t state AGAIN the age of the universe, but rather the period that it took to created
Seriously why can’t you see this?
The verse clearly state:
“Who created the earth in two Days”
In two days, again In two days
What does that tell you? It means it took God to create earth Two days of Creation
For example
If I design a robot in 4 years then sell it to a costumer and the costumer will use the robot for 8 years
That means it took me 4 years to create it, but it aged to extra 8 years
8+4=12 years
Means the robot is 12 years old
But the first 4 years was used to create it
Now someone like you will come and say that the robot is 4 years old
If I look at someone like you I can hardly take you seriously

Given all the above data, we may now consider the following two theories (to explain the data):

Allah, the true author of the Qur’an, claims that the Earth was created first and the heaven later, or at best concurrently with the Earth, but certainly not before it; whereas scientifically we know that the rest of the world existed for around 9 billion years before the Earth started being formed. Allah tells us that it took him at most 200,000 years to complete the creation of the Earth, and at most 300,000 for the entire universe, whereas science tells us that the corresponding numbers are 4,500,000,000 and 13,700,000,000. Finally, Allah tells us that the ratio of earth-to-universe creation is ~0,666, whereas science tells us that the same ratio is ~0.328. Allah, although infinitely wise (and therefore knowing about all these discrepancies with reality and errors in magnitudes), stated things as above for no reason at all, because even the Bedouins of Muhammad’s time couldn’t disagree on the basis of some numbers, since they had no personal opinion of any numbers involved in the creation of the world.

Muhammad, the true author of the Qur’an, and without divine inspiration, claims all the above, which — quite expectedly — conflict with everything we know from modern science today.

Again none of your “theories” stand to the merits


Regarding cosmology, Muhammad had the knowledge of his fellow ancient Arabs, who had some traditional beliefs that circulated in that region of the world, and which included the Jewish belief of a creation in six days. Given an infinitely wise mind on one hand, and an illiterate and uninspired one on the other hand, from which of the two minds would you expect such factual errors?

Citation (evidence) needed.

Notice also that, no matter who the true author of the Qur’an is, the above errors exist anyway.

What Errors?

Trying to explain them away with various arbitrary assumptions implies employing the unscientific attitude of first believing a theory as true, and then twisting the data and inventing new and arbitrary data in order to support the theory that you love so much. If you do that don’t bother talking about science please, because you don’t understand what it is.

There is no twisting here Mr. Harry only you

Summary of Cosmological Observations

To explain the data that we have from verses of the Qur’an that concern cosmology, and those from scientific observations, we have the following two theories:

Allah is the author of the Qur’an, and what he says disagrees with modern knowledge because he wanted to please the ancient Bedouins (although most probably they couldn’t care less), disregarding the present-day conflict with scientific knowledge.

Muhammad is the author of the Qur’an, which he conceived of without divine inspiration, and what he says disagrees with modern knowledge because it reflects Muhammad’s knowledge of the world as it appeared to his uninformed mind.

If theory #1 is correct, then Allah surely enough succeeded in pleasing the illiterate Bedouins, but simultaneously succeeded in making young children of today “laugh their brains out” (as children say) with the stupidity and egregious errors of the Qur’anic “cosmology”.

Again none of your theories stand strong


2. The “Biology” of the Qur’an

2.1 Qur’anic “Embryology”, or: “How to Pass Your Exams Without Studying”

Much fuss is made by Muslims today about the supposed knowledge of “embryology” (the development of the embryo in the mother’s womb) in the Qur’an. They ask how Muhammad could possibly possess such knowledge, which, moreover, they believe is correct. This section argues that Muhammad could indeed possess such knowledge, which is actually incorrect, and — worse! — is stolen from (plagiarizes) the writings of Galen, a famous ancient Greek medical doctor.



Not Goanna waste my time again
plagiarizing? Evidence?

Anyways here is a complete website dedicated with academic references that refutes your claims
they even went forth and refuted the so called Plagiarizing in a complete document [22]


2.2 All living kinds come in pairs (but only if you are cross-eyed)


Some verses of the Qur’an claim that all “fruits” of the earth, or living beings in general, exist in pairs: male and female. Some of those verses, although they obviously mean to talk about biological things (living beings) given the context in which they are embedded, are however so vague that — out of context — sound as if Allah is saying that all things (in the universe) come in pairs. Some Muslims grab the opportunity to claim that Allah must have meant things like matter & antimatter, pairs that have been discovered in quantum physics in the 20th century. This is a silly argument, logically argued against as follows: if Allah said “all things come in pairs” (without meaning all living beings, i.e., disregarding the context), then it should be all things; therefore it suffices to find one counter-example (something that does not belong to a pair) to invalidate the idea of “all things”. Indeed, as we’ll see, there are plenty of “things” in nature that do not belong to pairs. But even if we restrict the meaning to “all things biological”, i.e., all living beings, again we find that it’s not true that all living beings come in pairs of male and female. Let’s see the relevant verses (my emphasis):

13:3 “And He it is Who spread out the earth and placed therein firm hills and flowing streams, and of all fruits He placed therein two spouses (male and female). [...]”

36:34 “And We have placed therein gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have caused springs of water to gush forth therein,”
36:35 “That they may eat of the fruit thereof, and their hands made it not. Will they not, then, give thanks?”
36:36 “Glory be to Him Who created all the sexual pairs, of that which the earth groweth, and of themselves, and of that which they know not!”

43:10 “Who made the earth a resting-place for you, and placed roads for you therein, that haply ye may find your way;”
43:11 “And Who sendeth down water from the sky in (due) measure, and We revive a dead land therewith. Even so will ye be brought forth;”
43:12 “He Who created all the pairs, and appointed for you ships and cattle whereupon ye ride.”

51:48 “And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!”
51:49 “And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.”

Now let’s examine each verse carefully.

Verse 13:3 talks explicitly about “fruits”. Now, if “fruits” is meant literally, i.e., apples, pears, peaches, bananas, kiwis, etc., then this verse is evidently wrong,

This is hilariously wrong, no the verse talk about living things
The empathize in the translation that says (Male and female) doesn’t exist in the original Arabic, but rather an addition by the translators (depending on what translator you are using), the word used it Zaujain, which means two pairs
The Word Zaujain can also be used for the married couples, but of course plants fruits don’t get marriage don’t they?
Therefore this is a general empathize about the types of sexes in all plants
Here is it in a nutshell
·         the Pair of the Female is Male
·         the Pair of the Male is Female
·         the Pair of Asexual is hermaphrodite
·         the Pair of Asexual is Female
·         the Pair of Asexual is Male
And so on, this is how the verse empathize all animals or in this case the fruit by making a general statement of the word “Pairs”, nowhere does the verse make an exclusive statement about male and female
Because if so the verse has to state the following
(ومن كل الثمرات جعل فيها زوجين اثنين ذكر و انثى)
Transliteration:
“waminkulli aththamarati jaAAala feeha zawjayniithnayni, Thakar Wa Untha”
Translation:
“And we made of each fruit two pairs, Male and Female”

Instead the following original verse
(ومن كل الثمرات جعل فيها زوجين)
Transliteration:
“waminkulli aththamarati jaAAala feeha zawjayniithnayni”
Translation:
“And from all of the fruits He made therein two Pairs”

Not only you strawmaned the verse but deliberately exposed your lack of scientific and logical understanding

because none of the fruits just mentioned is either male or female. (When you eat an apple, you eat an apple, not a “male apple” or a “female apple” — I hope that’s obvious and part of common knowledge.) And if “fruits” is used figuratively to mean “plants” (by a figure of speech called “synecdoche”, as when we say “brain” to mean “very intelligent person”), then verse 13 is wrong again,

Already responded to this nonsense above

because there are some plants that are neither male nor female

And where is the error in the verse?

they don’t multiply sexually, but asexually, through a biological process called “apomixis”. Some such plants are extremely common. One of them is the humble dandelion (see picture), which, being so widespread throughout the world, must have existed just under Muhammad’s nose — except that he couldn’t “sniff” the fact that that lowly plant would stand as evidence against his verse 3 of sura 13.

What evident against the verse?


The humble dandelion, Qur’an’s asexual nightmare

What Nightmare?

so we see that no matter which way we interpret “fruits” in 13:3, we find that verse to be contradicting reality
Where is the contradiction?
Oh no wait already responded to it

Either Allah was sloppy when he said “all fruits” come in pairs of male and female

Again nowhere does the verse state male or female, seriously why don’t you research your claim before spewing it out?



Moving on to verses 36:34–36, we see that (34) Allah talks about creating gardens with date-palm fruits, grapes, and waters, (35) for people to eat and not toil to make, asking them to be thankful, (36) glorifying himself for having created all the sexual pairs, those that grow out of the earth, i.e., the plants.


And again no mention of male and female in the original Arabic here, plus it says of “what they don’t know” which means there are pairs of what we don’t know


This of course logically does not imply that all plants are sexual. Then the phrase “and of themselves” has been interpreted as referring to people by some interpreters, or referring to animals by other interpreters, because the animals move by themselves (well, at least most of them, barring some aquatic species that really behave like plants). Then follows “and of that which they don’t know.” The pronoun “they” here must refer to people, who can be the only ones who don’t know. But the word “that” has been used by some Muslims as a reference to such exotic things as subatomic particles, matter and anti-matter, and so on. This is a completely arbitrary interpretation

Why is it arbitrary? It clearly say of what we don’t know which include atoms, something the Bedouins back then didn’t even know about

because all the discussion (the context) from 36:34 up to this point was about things of the earth;

What? And Atoms and Matter and Anti-matter doesn’t exist on earth?
Plus the referring to “Earth” here I referring to what grows on earth, the word of what we don’t know is a general statement about what we don’t know about, not just on earth


why should Allah make suddenly a conceptual jump and talk about nuclear physics?

Because it clearly state of the things we don’t know, and atoms or matter fall under the category of nuclear physics

he phrase would then be incoherent, and you wouldn’t want your Allah to think incoherently

Why is it incoherent? If the Quran make a general statement after stating earth properties what is the difference then? Because of the things we don’t know properties of it fall under earth aswell, and still till this day Mr. Harry there is a lot of things we don’t know about earth, we didn’t even go down to the deepest level of our sea,

The phrase “and of that which they don’t know” is called a blanket statement, which means that it’s so general and vague that it can cover anything that can be forced under it. Why should our minds go to nuclear physics and not to ideas much more accessible to Muhammad,

So at the start of your article and you repeat this theme many times, that why wouldn’t Allah impress us with a scientific statement that still impress our time and even in our current day technology and still understood by 7th century Bedouins, yet now what the Quran finally reach a point of mentioning something close like matter, you go complaining about it and call the Quran incoherent? Are you that stupid?


such as that there are living beings that come in male–female pairs and which Muhammad didn’t know of? If I were in Muhammad’s position, thinking shrewdly, and knowing that I know next to nothing, I would think that there might be other living things besides those that I know, so I should cover that possibility with a blanket statement, so that my “revelation” does not become obsolete by later knowledge.

Please tell me that you are joking here?


Why is this explanation not as satisfying as the other one, if we don’t already have the theory that Allah is the originator of the Qur’an? Objectively, either of the two interpretations seems equally plausible. And, frankly, if Allah’s purpose was to persuade us, present-day unbelievers, why did he use such an ambiguous and vague phrase? “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, says a dictum. To claim that “that which they don’t know” refers to nuclear physics is an extraordinary claim; the ambiguous phrase in 36:36 is anything but extraordinary evidence to support it.


Why will it require evidence? If it’s a general statement about things we have not acquired knowledge of, it’s not making any claim at all, but rather saying there are things we don’t know about,
Saying that there are things that are still out of our reach in terms of knowledge, because of some limitation doesn’t require extraordinary evidence, but it’s rather a logical statement, even now we don’t know if there is multiple universes, if one claim that there is multiple universes then that one is burdened with providing your so called extraordinary evidence.
For example if I say there are things we don’t know about planet Jupiter
Does this require from me to provide evidence for it? Or is it just a logical statement which is backed up by reality that we don’t know a lot about Jupiter, we never went inside this gas giant, yes we know few things there and there, but a lot of it we don’t know, why does this require evidence?
For example if an atheist was debating a theist
The theist ask “where did the universe came from?” the atheist then reply with “we don’t know” then under Your logic Mr. Harry the Atheist then is burdened to provide extraordinary evidence for his statement

An exactly parallel argumentation holds for verses 43:10–12: there is not enough evidence (let alone an extraordinary one) that the phrase “created all the pairs” refers to anything other than the male–female pairs that Muhammad could witness.


Again, no mention of the word Male and Female in the Original Arabic


As for the verses of sura 51, although the context is again the earth (in 51:48), we read: “all things We have created by pairs” in 51:49. This is false no matter which way the word “things” is interpreted. If “things” refers to anything in the world, then there are many things that do not exist in pairs. I do not see the paired counterpart of the Grand Canyon, for example, or of hydrogen, gravity, Mars, Saturn, Sun, the real number π, the imaginary number i, the human feeling of sarcasm, and a host of other “things” that are one-of-a-kind. And if “things” refers to living beings, and therefore “pairs” refers to the male–female notion, then first, Allah is being sloppy in his language once again, saying “things” when he means “living beings”; and second, he is wrong, because there are plenty of living beings that do not come in pairs of male–female, such as the bacteria, many protists, fungi, and among animals, the rotifers — all of which are types of beings that escape the attention of someone who has only a superficial knowledge of the biological world.


The Phrase of everything as how Tafsīrs put if forth is a general statement, as we saw before the verse before it claim that there are pairs of things we don’t know
For example the Pair of winter is summer, sweet and acidic, darkness and light, sun and black holes, male female, earth sky, quasars and black holes
As for Grand Canyon
It depends on the category of their geology, as for planets, we have for example mars, the opposite is in terms of it’s structure let’s imagine mars being a waste land, of full land no water, if we bring a planet with full water surface, that will be the pair of mars
You have to know that pair doesn’t require full counterpart of things, but rather some of it’s category
Jupiter being a gas giant, the pair of Jupiter is earth being smaller and not a gas giant


As for living things that doesn’t come in pair I already answered that


As usual, two theories are available:

Allah, who is indeed the author of the Qur’an, chose to be sloppy in his language and/or wrong in his statements. Allah of course knows that neither “things” nor “beings” always come in pairs. He opted to say wrong or inaccurate things so that the average Bedouin would agree with him, but billions of non-Muslims today would find that Allah spoke like an illiterate person.

The author of the Qur’an is Muhammad (without divine guidance from Allah), and everything fits into place. Muhammad could very well be sloppy in his language, because he was only a human; and he could very well be wrong in what he said, because he talked only about things he could see with his bare eyes (lacking microscopes and lenses) and could not understand properly.

Which of the two theories makes better sense, explaining best the data?


Again Nether one of them is logical





2.3 Who holds birds in midair? (“The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind...”)

There is a Qur’anic verse the context of which is not — strictly speaking — biology, but something like aviation and aerodynamics. But, lacking such a specific section in this article, and since the issue concerns birds, I’ll comment on it in the context of biology. So, there is the following verse in the Qur’an that explains to us what makes birds fly, or rather, who helps them be suspended in midair:

16:79 “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.”

The author of the Qur’an makes a very strange statement, indeed. He doesn’t seem to know what it is that holds birds “in the midst of (the air and) sky”! Clueless, he attributes that to the power of Allah.

Wait What? How is that a problem?

But the answer is known to anyone who has a most rudimentary understanding of the medium of air (which was not well-understood in antiquity — it was conceived as “nothing”), and of the body structure of birds. And it doesn’t take scientific knowledge to understand the answer


In case of a figurative verse we need to check what the Tafsīrs of the verse state
Oh look the Tafsir of Jalalāin state something very odd
“(Nothing holds them up but (the power of) Allah.), means that the body of the bird which include the wings, helps it in the flight, that is by the power of Allah”

Hmmm how could a “clueless” author or such Clueless people of 7th century Arabs could make such statement?

Of course, there is more to the answer than just “The wind blows, so the birds are lifted by it.”

It’s funny how you accuse the Quran being unscientific yet you just made a scientific error yourself
It’s not the Air that holds the birds up, it’s the flapping of the birds Wings that holds it up



Perhaps the conclusion from the above discussions is that the less one knows, the more likely it is that one will see the flying of birds as an act of God. An illiterate person is prone to seeing God’s interventions everywhere, in every inexplicable phenomenon.

The confusion of identifying air with nothing seems to have pervaded ancient thought. A notable exception was ancient Greek thinkers, who elevated air into one of the four fundamental elements of nature (fire, air, water, earth — the theory of Empedocles, with ether adder later as a fifth element by Aristotle), and even earlier, as the only fundamental element (Anaximenes, 6th C. BC). But, generally, non-philosophers and the laypeople thought that what stands above solid objects on earth is nothing (see the book: “Nothing: A Very Short Introduction”, by Frank Close). This confusion lasted until the times of Galileo (17th C. AD) and the invention of the barometer. In summary, whereas philosophers and thinkers in general could understand the notion of air filling up space, laypeople and especially the illiterate among them identified the air with nothing.

That seems to explain the Qur’anic phrase: “Nothing holds them [birds] up”

What? This is a Misquotation, if you read the rest of the verse it says
“Nothing Holds them up except” which means nothing else holds them up except a specific power given by god
Here is a simple example “there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”
If you took the first sentience “there is no god” and cut the rest it seems that this indicate the nonexistence of god, but if you connect the rest of the phrase it seems it suggest that all other gods are fake (doesn’t mean they don’t exist for example I can make a statue and call it god) but Allah is the one only true god, and Muhammad is his messenger

This renders the entire argument on nothing from you irrelevant, because it’s based on a decapitated sentence

Qur’an, verse 16:79 is hard to explain. Still, an attempt can be made, claiming that “(the power of) Allah” that holds birds in midair is the design of body structure of birds, which can be attributed ultimately to Allah. But, by this logic, everything can be attributed ultimately to Allah,

The verse state an exclusive event in nature brought by a power from Allah, how is this can be attributed to everything?


The most stunning observation is that if we could put all the bacteria on one scale of a balance, and all other forms of life (animals, trees, etc.) on the other scale, then the balance would tip toward the side of the bacteria. The total mass of bacteria weighs more than all plants and animals put together!

The reason is that one gram of soil contains an average of 40,000,000 bacteria, and one milliliter of fresh water contains an average of 1,000,000 bacteria. The total number of bacteria of our planet is about 5 nonillion (5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), forming a biomass that exceeds the biomass of all plants and animals (source).

But the Qur’an is completely mute regarding such stunning facts.


Why does the Quran have to state bacteria? Again back into the statement that he created things we don’t know about

Why? Why isn’t the existence of bacteria even hinted at by the author of the Qur’an?

Could it be because the author of the Qur’an couldn’t see them?

Or could it be that you are just too stupid to understand that the Quran has to be understood clearly by all ages
No!... That can’t be true! Right? Because if the author of the Qur’an couldn’t see the all-important bacteria of our planet, then he couldn’t have been Allah. He must have been Muhammad; Muhammad, the illiterate nomad, who couldn’t imagine microscopes even in his wildest dreams, and thus couldn’t ever know about what he couldn’t see!

A Wild Nonsense


Why doesn’t the Qur’an mention the DNA, this molecule that turns out to be all-important in biology, and essentially determines how life is on our planet? Don’t give me again the dumb old argument about those extra-sensitive Bedouins, because you’ll force me to come up with a verse that would sound innocent to them, and yet reveal the DNA structure to us.


Dumb argument? Please show us enlighten us, how can you make it clear about the DNA using the language of 7th century Arabs, that you have no idea how they spoke and how they communicate
Or maybe you just want to though out some dumb excuse about the Quran
Why doesn’t the Quran mention cars?

Please this is how foolish you look


Why doesn’t the Qur’an mention anything about animals or plants that Muhammad couldn’t have known?

Why is the Quran Forced to follow your claims?


Why doesn’t the Qur’an refer even indirectly to the fact that living beings on Earth are not just plants and animals?

Again, back into the claim of creating things we don’t know about



I could continue like this with more examples, but I don’t want to tire you. The less you know about the biological world, the more you think that the Qur’an is fine in what it says about earthly biology. That’s because the less you know the more your mind is similar to the illiterate Muhammad’s mind,


Silly Character assassination based on no logical deduction

so the more you agree with him. On the contrary, the more you learn about biology, the better you see the gap between the simplistic, childish view of the Qur’an,

What Gap?

and the complex reality. The more you know, the more distant your mind becomes from Muhammad’s mind,

What is “Muhammad’s Mind”?

I won’t bother and waste my time with the rest


3. The “Geology” of the Qur’an

3.1 Why mountains exist, or: “putting the cart in front of the horse”


What does the Qur’an tell us?

Exactly the opposite. According to Qur’anic wisdom, Allah placed the mountains on Earth so that the earth doesn’t shake! Seriously, that’s what the Holy Book of Islam says. Here:

31:10 “He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you;”

Just as you read it: Allah put the mountains on the earth so that the earth doesn’t shake with “you” (the believers). In other words, in the Qur’an we have the following relation of cause-and-effect: the cause is the mountains; the effect is the stability of the earth. Does this comply with our modern knowledge of plate tectonics?


Oh God this is unbelievable, I think I’m dealing with a mentally disabled guy here, where does the verse state that the earth won’t shake as general statement on all of earth crust? The earthquake in Arabic is called Zalzala, the word in Arabic here is Tamida, which means either support or stabilize,


Modern science (as explained earlier with the analogy of the dough) tells us that the relation of cause and effect is different: the cause is the movement of tectonic plates; the effect is the formation of mountains (“wrinkles” on the Earth’s crust) and of course of volcanoes (which the Qur’an seems to be blissfully unaware of — I wonder why!  )


You wander why? I wander why you couldn’t do some research before spewing nonsense
an activity naturally accompanied by earthquakes. Thus, the mountains are not “stabilizing factors” that exist due to Allah’s benevolence to human beings (“lest [the earth] should shake with you”), but necessary and unavoidable results of tectonic plate motion. Just as the wrinkles of the dough, mountains will still form whether Allah likes it or not

No you are wrong, mountains does provide stabilization factor, but stabilizing doesn’t equal preventing earthquake
Because like I said the verse NEVER state the word earthquake as I stated before this is a strawman by you and any Arab who read the Quran will laugh at you, the work Earthquake is translated into Zalzala زلزلة the word used in the verse is Tamida تَمِيدَ which means move, so basically the Quran state the Earth will not Move because of mountains
Earthquake is not movement but rather unstable shaking of two separated earth crusts
You said mountains doesn’t provide support, can you cite your sources?
This is the fact that mountains have roots please read the sources in the following blog[23]

Here is some academic sources that disagree with you
“Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth.  This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s”[24]
“The mountains play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth”[25]

You cited no sources whatsoever to back up your claims
Again the Verse doesn’t say the Mountains prevent earthquakes, and it doesn’t claim all of earth
But rather prevent it from movement and stabilize it due to it’s deep roots



Once again, two theories are available:

Allah, not understanding what the cause and what the effect is, stated that he placed the mountains where they are so that the earth doesn’t shake and people feel safe. In reality, tectonic plates move, and their motion results in earthquakes, “wrinkles” (mountains), and “holes” (volcanoes). Allah forgot to mention the closely related volcanoes.

Muhammad, not understanding what the cause and what the effect is, stated that Allah placed the mountains where they are so that the earth doesn’t shake and people feel safe. In reality, tectonic plates move, and their motion results in earthquakes, “wrinkles” (mountains), and “holes” (volcanoes) on the Earth’s crust. Muhammad didn’t mention the volcanoes because no active or recognizable volcano exists in southern Arabia, and Muhammad, being illiterate, didn’t know about them.

Which of the two theories makes more sense?

None of them make more sense



3.2 The “oceanology” of the Qur’an, or: “seeing shapes in clouds to score a point”


Here we’ll witness another example in which the Qur’anic words and phrases are twisted so that their meaning matches some knowledge that is claimed to be modern and scientific (though it is not).

The relevant verses are 25:53 and 55:19–20, which talk about “two seas”. Specifically:

25:53 “And He has set free the two seas; one is fresh and palatable and the other is salty and bitter; and He has put between them a formidable, inviolable barrier.”

55:19–20 “He let free the two seas, they meet together; He has built a barrier between them, they do not transgress.”

Verses 55:19–20 sound like a repetition of 25:53, except that they are less detailed: there is no mention of salty or fresh water. Perhaps verse 35:12 is also relevant, because it talks about salty and bitter seas, though not about a barrier between them:

35:12 “And the two seas are not alike: this, fresh, sweet, good to drink, this (other) bitter, salt.”

The above verses, and more specifically the first two, have been interpreted by seeing-shapes-in-the-clouds Muslims as referring to the following natural phenomenon: when the fresh water of a river flows into the salty water of a sea, a “barrier” of sorts is formed between the two bodies of water that have different salinity, a phenomenon that can be easily seen from above (e.g., a hill — see picture, below) and examined from up close (e.g., with a boat).
Except that... there are some holes in this reasoning. First of all, verse 25:53 cannot refer to a sea-meets-sea situation, such as the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, because it talks about one of the two being “fresh and palatable”. That should be the Atlantic, since it is the one with slightly lower salinity than the Mediterranean.(*) I advise Muslims not to drink from the water of the Atlantic to test whether it is fresh and palatable! Verse 25:53 can only refer to a river-meets-sea situation. But then, we don’t need “modern science” to tell us about it! The phenomenon can be readily seen, as mentioned, from atop a hill, and can be examined from up close. Ancient sailors knew about it. Aristotle, who lived 1000 years before Muhammad, made reference to it in these words: “The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and is all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind [emphasis added].” Pearl divers in the Arabian Gulf also knew about it. In the salty waters of the Arabian Gulf there are springs of fresh water that lay about 4 to 6 meters below sea level. One such famous spring is `Ain Ighmisaâ which lies to the north-east of the city of Jubail, in Saudi Arabia. The Nile delta is so close to Muhammad’s old lands. Why do we need “modern science” to know about this phenomenon? And why shouldn’t Muhammad have heard of it, just as he had heard of so many other things in his life (including the works of Galen, as we saw earlier)?

Again back into the so called Galen and the Palagrization, you guys must really love it don’t you? Where are your evidence that he heard them?
“35:12 “And the two seas are not alike: this, fresh, sweet, good to drink, this (other) bitter, salt.”

The verse clearly talk about drinking sweet water not the salty one
The verse talk about the flesh and the fruits near them are eatable
Yes you do need modern science, because the verse clearly state a barrier where they don’t mix, but if any observer will see two seas meeting but with a barrier one can simply assume that there is mixing of the water drift underneath the surface

As for verses 55:19–20, they sound like a reminder of verse 25:53, but as if the author forgot to mention the difference in salinity. Why should 55:19–20 refer to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean? This is where Muslims see shapes in clouds.


“But as if the author forgot to mention the difference in salinity”
why should the Quran mention them?
The Quran is using clear and simple language

“Why should 55:19–20 refer to the Atlantic and the Mediterranean?”
How does it refer to them? It’s simply making a general statement about specific two seas, nowhere does it exclusively mention Atlantic and the Mediterranean

I propose that 55:19–20 refers to the two bodies of water (or “water”) that ancient peoples thought that exist: the water of the sea, and the “water” of the sky. (Because the sky is blue, and water comes down from it when it rains, ancient peoples — such as the Hebrews, who say so in their Torah — thought that waters lie above the heavenly dome, and that God separated “the waters above” from “the waters below”.) The two “seas” meet (apparently only) at the horizon, where the sky “meets” the sea. This interpretation of 55:19–20 seems no more arbitrary than the Muslims’ favorite Atlantic + Mediterranean interpretation.

Cite your sources, how does this verse refer to the two “waters” of the Torah?
You are making a purely intuitive claim with no pragmatic assertions

In addition, the said barrier is neither formidable nor inviolable. Soon after the fresh water meets the salty one, it mixes with it. (If it didn’t — if the barrier was truly formidable and inviolable — then the river waters would extend indefinitely into the sea and eventually replace it!) The barrier appears as “inviolable” to sailors because there is a constant flow of fresh water from the river. Before the old fresh water has the time to mix with the salty one, new fresh water arrives, and that’s what creates the illusion of a “barrier”. The latter is merely a region a few feet or meters wide (depending on the speed of the river water) where the two waters do get mixed.


They can mix, but they also don’t mix this is all dependable on the level of air winds, this is a Fact even Recorded by hundreds of scientists on NASA


Once again we see the same pattern: knowledge that was already known in antiquity (cf. the stages of an embryo)


What is the Palagrization ”already known”? There is no evidence that suggest such claim




4. The “Noology” (“Cognitive Science”) of the Qur’an

4.1 Lies: Dear Muslims, do you lie with your... er... forelocks?



Muslims who try hard to unearth “science” in the Qur’an have come up with the following claim, based on verse 96:15–16:

96:15–16
“Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock — a lying, sinful forelock!” (transl.: Yusuf Ali)
“Nay, but if he cease not We will seize him by the forelock — The lying, sinful forelock -” (transl.: Pickthal)
“Nay! if he desist not, We would certainly smite his forehead, a lying, sinful forehead.” (transl.: Shakir)

We see that two of the three well-known and accepted translators (Yusuf Ali and Pickthal) have translated the Arabic word ناصية as “forelock”, whereas the third one (Shakir) translated it as “forehead”.

The claim made by Muslims is that, whether “forelock” or “forehead”, verse 96:15–16 says that Allah will seize a certain liar by the front of the head; and that modern neuroscience has discovered that lies indeed originate in the frontal lobe of the brain (the prefrontal cortex in particular), which is situated behind the forehead! How could Muhammad ever know such a modern scientific finding! Ergo, the divine origin of the Qur’an is proven.

I’ll skip the moot point about what modern neuroscience has discovered about lies, because although some research shows that the frontal lobe plays a pivotal role in dealing with lies, there is also research showing that when the frontal lobe (specifically the anterior prefrontal cortex) is inhibited, the processing of lies improves (e.g., see here); which means, roughly, that with the frontal lobe out of the way, our lying ability gets better!; as well as other research showing that the entire brain participates when lying, not just the frontal lobe. But, even though neuroscience hasn’t come up with a final verdict yet, for the sake of argument, I’ll accept that the frontal lobe is the area of the brain that deals with lies, and I’ll examine the rest of the claim.

I find it fascinating that you now don’t disagree with the Quranic claim


But that’s only the general cultural background. There is a specific cultural background here, which we need to understand in order to see the origin of the strange verse 96:15–16. The entire surah 96 of the Qur’an, which is very short (only 19 verses, created when Muhammad was in Makka) was “revealed” in order to condemn a specific person, Abu Jahl, who had a feud with Muhammad. Let me repeat this: Muhammad had a feud, a long-standing quarrel with Abu Jahl, a man who hated Muhammad and did nasty things to him. Then comes (supposedly) Allah, who sides with Muhammad, revealing the 19-verse-long surah 96 to him, which condemns Abu Jahl, threatening him that if he continues with his lies he will be grabbed by the forelock, like a horse or slave, and will face “the guards of the Hell” (96:18). (So much for the timelessness and eternal validity of the Qur’an, surah 96 of which is devoted to Muhammad’s personal feuds and problems, which ended 14 centuries ago.) How do we know all this, about Abu Jahl? Because the story is recounted in a hadith by Sahih Muslim. Here it is:

Sahih Muslim, Book 39, Number 6718:

Abu Huraira reported that Abu Jahl asked (people) whether Mubammad placed his face (on the ground) in their presence. It was said to him: “Yes.” He said: “By Lit and Uzza. If I were to see him do that, I would trample his neck, or I would besmear his face with dust.” He came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as he was engaged in prayer and thought of trampling his neck (and the people say) that he came near him but turned upon his heels and tried to repulse something with his hands. It was said to him: “What is the matter with you?” He said: “There is between me and him a ditch of fire and terror and wings.” Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: “If he were to come near me the angels would have torn him to pieces.” Then Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this verse — (the narrator) said: We do not know whether it is the hadith transmitted to Abu Huraira or something conveyed to him from another source: “Nay, man is surely inordinate, because he looks upon himself as self-sufficient. Surely to thy Lord is the return. Hast thou seen him who forbids a servant when he prays? Seest thou if he is on the right way, or enjoins observance of piety? Seest thou if he [Abu Jahl] denies and turns away? Knowest he not that Allah sees? Nay. if he desists not, We will seize him by the forelock-a lying, sinful forelock. Then let him summon his council. We will summon the guards of the Hell. Nay! Obey not thou him” (Icvi. 6-19). (Rather prostrate thyself.) Ubaidullah made this addition: It was after this that (prostration) was enjoined upon and Ibn Abd al-Ala made this addition that by Nadia he meant his people.

As we see, the entire surah 96 of the Qur’an is included in this hadith. Interestingly, the above hadith tells us that the last phrase of 96:19 (“But prostrate thyself and draw near [unto Allah]”) was not given by Muhammad but was added later by Ubaidullah! People felt free, back then, to make additions to the Qur’anic text.

“(“But prostrate thyself and draw near [unto Allah]”) was not given by Muhammad but was added later by Ubaidullah! People felt free, back then, to make additions to the Qur’anic text.”
Where is your evidence for such nonsense?

And why did Shakir translate the word ناصية as “forehead”? Most probably because he felt that a forelock cannot be literally lying and sinful. Shakir didn’t understand the poetic use of the adjectives “lying, sinful” when referring to a lock of hair, and didn’t want the verse to sound silly in its English translation. But, in my opinion, it is not silly at all to say that a forelock is lying and sinful; it can be said “by poetic license”.

In summary: the Arabic word ناصية means “forelock” and only “forelock” in the Classic Arabic language of the Qur’an, and has nothing to do with neuroscience

If the Quran describe the Forelock as lying and sinful where is the conflict?
But the problem is not here about the verse, little number of Muslims use such term, and this only came accurate to our late scientific discovery, Muslims back then didn’t even know the functions of the brain parts, so how come the Quran refer to the forelock as lying?, you claim that It has nothing to do with neuroscience is purely intuitive thinking,

and modern knowledge about areas of the brain that become active when telling lies. Attributing such wild interpretations to old Arabic words can only be the result of a desperate attempt to take the data, reinterpret them, and make them fit to our cherished theories

No one reinterpreted the verse, you will have to provide an example, all what Muslims did is compare the claim in the verse that the forelock lies to modern science and it matched it, no one changed any meaning of words or claimed it to be added later on


a wholly unscientific attitude. Whoever does this, shows a total lack of understanding of how science works.

You have not shown us a single error in the verse, yet now you still have the guts to claim it has wholly unscientific attitude?

Conclusion:

Can you be a pious Muslim and simultaneously examine scientifically each of the two theories about your Qur’an that I presented throughout this text?

Your “theories” doesn’t stand to the merits of logic


One more important concluding remark is the following: you must have noticed, after reading this article, that the points in which the Qur’an appears to falter are not just one or two, but several. (E.g., what with muddy springs, seven heavens, wrong orders of creation, wrong durations, wrong biology, wrong geology,...) The crucial observation is that, because the Qur’an is supposed to be the outcome of Allah’s wisdom, and since Allah is all-wise, all of those troublesome points must be answered by you to your satisfaction. That is, it is not sufficient to answer (or think that you answer) one of them, and then feel happy, thinking that you succeeded in confronting this article. You must answer all of the troublesome points, because an all-wise mind such as Allah’s should not produce a text that’s debatable at all.


Yes Muddy water, seven heavens, order of creation, duration, biology, geology all of which have been refuted above Mr. Harry
Let me ask you if your claims above and the alleged errors are true, why not then Islam is dead and compromised? Yes there are Muslims who left the religion do to similar issues including the ones you mentioned (I’m one of them who later reverted back after years of investigation) but you have to understand that Muslims do look at things objectively, and investigate through the premise of your claims, and put it under the microscope, do you think your claims stand to the merits if they were subjected to scientific research

My censer hope for you:
After all you might claim I was rude and cruel in my response to you, but let me ask you
Aren’t you the one who started it? Aren’t you supposed to be professional in your article?
If you were I won’t bother with mockery and my sarcastic tone to your article, if you were sincere in search for truth you won’t be acting like a child in this article of yours
All what I did is eye for an eye
You mocked my religion and mocked the Muslims so expect mockery from me




[1] http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm
[2] Ibn Kathir Arabic Tafsir 4/494
[3] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2709&Itemid=73
[4] http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/did-sun-set-in-muddy-pool-according-to.html
[5] http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/does-quran-teach-that-earth-is-flat.html
[6] Majmo’ Al-Fatawa By Ibn Taymia Vol 25 Page.195
[7] Ibid Vol.6 Page 586
[8] Al-Fasil Fi Al-Malal wa Al-Ahwa Wa Al-Nahil Vol 2 Page.78
[9] Nour Aladarib Fatwa (source only available in Arabic)
[10] Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.200, emphasis added
[11] At-Tabari (d. 923CE)] (fn. At-Tabari 24:208). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 350, emphasis added
[12] http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/
[13]https://books.google.iq/books?id=eSjLBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=After+loss+of+the+hydrogen,+helium+and+other+hydrogen-containing+gases+from+early+Earth+due+to+the+Sun%27s+radiation,+primitive+Earth+was+devoid+of+an+atmosphere.+The+first+atmosphere+was+formed+by+outgassing+of+gases+trapped+in+the+interior+of+the+early+Earth,+which+still+goes+on+today+in+volcanoes.&source=bl&ots=l0vb1UNXGH&sig=EC2mWTvZGYCqei1y7NszT2dlbX4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI0tm-r7GrxgIVSz4UCh3QOADN#v=onepage&q=After%20loss%20of%20the%20hydrogen%2C%20helium%20and%20other%20hydrogen-containing%20gases%20from%20early%20Earth%20due%20to%20the%20Sun's%20radiation%2C%20primitive%20Earth%20was%20devoid%20of%20an%20atmosphere.%20The%20first%20atmosphere%20was%20formed%20by%20outgassing%20of%20gases%20trapped%20in%20the%20interior%20of%20the%20early%20Earth%2C%20which%20still%20goes%20on%20today%20in%20volcanoes.&f=false
[14] http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/archean3.html
[15] Richard D. McKirahan, Philosophy before Socrates, Ch 5, 32–34
[16] Wikipedia Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption (II, 5)
[17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0qi1xZFH4g
[18] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2490&Itemid=77
[19] http://sunnah.com/muslim/50/17
[20] http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/six_or_eight_days_creation__
[21] http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%85
[22] http://islampapers.com/
[23] http://quran-errors.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/requran-scientific-error-mountains-as.html
[24] The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran, p. 5.
[25] The Geological Concept of Mountains pp. 44-45

62 comments:

  1. This blog is epic fail.
    I'll point out just one mistake.
    There are only 5 atmospheric layer, not 7

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your comment is an epic fail, i'll point out just one reason, you didn't provide any evidence
      plus didn't counter my argument regarding earth crust layers

      Delete
    2. Just a Google search is enough to figure out that there is only 5 atmospheric layers. And about earth layers. There is only 4. Crust, Mantle, Outer core and inner core. If you make Mantle as upper Mantle, lower Mantle and slightly lower Mantle, slightly upper Mantle you can go on and on,and make the number or earth's layers into 7, 15 or any number you want.
      Then you said earth is also heaven. I've read many verse which says heaven and earth, but not earth is heaven. If earth is part of heaven, why do Allah say the following in
      Qur'an 21:30,"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing?" (Translation: Sahih International)
      Why did he say he separated earth and heaven, if earth is part of seven heavens?

      Ps: I was a Muslim, but I still had doubts, foundalis blog made much sense, while this didn't. This blog made me reassure that Islam is false and Quran is a Joke.( maybe not for bedouins of Makkah).

      Delete
    3. Don't come up to me with the (Google it) card
      The burden of proof is on you, all what have you provided was anecdotal claims backed up by no evidence no sources at all
      I never said that the earth crust core are the seven heavens, I said they could be the seven heavens you strawmaned my argument
      "verse 65:12
      {It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them. [His] command descends among them so you may know that Allah is over all things competent and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge.}"
      "Allah says telling us from his Great power and total control (it’s Allah who Created the Seven heavens) like his verse about Noh that he said to his people (Do you not consider how Allah has created seven heavens in layers) and his words (The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [ Allah ] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever forbearing and forgiving.) and his words (seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them.) means seven of earth layers"
      So why the above verses state and earth is like the seven heavens? Meaning that earth contain seven layers like the heaven
      This could mean either atmospheric layers or crust layers
      I never said this is exactly crust layers but you seam to love to strawman what I said
      I never said earth is also heaven I said earth contain seven layers

      And you say that blog made more sense when you can't even quote me properly?
      So again earth is LIKE the heavens not The heavens
      So you strawmaned the verse

      This is 3 strawman fallacies in a raw and you say that this blog made more sense?
      This is my full quote that you misrepresented
      "the earth contain the seven heavens, Tafsir Al-Tabari Go further and claim “يعني سبع أرضين” translate into “which means the seven layers of earth, so from the seven heavens there is earth layers"
      And you say his blog made more sense ?
      You can't have 15 as number of earth layers I provided sources you will have to do better job and countering my sourced
      You have completely neglected the mesosphere and lithosphere as layers both are scientifically recognised

      I was a Muslim aswel then left islam like you but unlike you I did more impartial research and did academic research instead of relying on idiotic polemicists who has no academic credibility like the author of the blog
      So don't come to me with the card (I was a muslim) like that supposed to make you special

      Next time try be more respectful in your reply

      Delete
    4. Well, from where did you come up with this 'homosphere' as one of the atmospheric layers?? I've searched everywhere and no homosphere is ever mentioned as one of the atmospheric layers. Also ionosphere is not an atmospheric layer at all! It is a condition within the mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere layers, in which gas molecules are being ionized, hence the name.

      Delete
    5. https://www.britannica.com/science/homosphere
      http://web.ccsu.edu/faculty/kyem/GEOG272/Chapter2/Chapter2B.htm

      "Also ionosphere is not an atmospheric layer at all! It is a condition within the mesosphere"
      read my quote carfully
      "As for the atmosphere layers we have to understand the subcategories are counted here, for example, the earth core contains two layers the liquid and the solid, but in general, it’s counted as one layer
      We need to be more precise about this and count every layer as one
      Atmosphere layer:
      1- Exosphere
      2- Thermosphere
      3- Mesosphere
      4- Stratosphere (contain also the ozone layer)
      5- Troposphere (counting The planetary boundary layer as in it)
      6- Ionosphere
      7- The homosphere
      As we can see in Total there are 7 layers of earth if we count them more precisely
      Mr. Harry, it’s not going so well for you now is it?"

      https://www.britannica.com/science/ionosphere-and-magnetosphere

      Delete
  2. Oh my God! Homosphere consists of troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and the lowest part of the thermosphere, where the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not depend on molecular weight because the gases are mixed by turbulence, hence having homogeneous nature as reflected in the name. While in the heterosphere, which includes the exosphere and most of the thermosphere, the chemical composition varies with altitude, hence having heterogeneous nature. Again, like ionosphere, these spheres are not layers, but rather conditions. Moreover, if you want to count homosphere as a layer, then to be consistent, you need to include heterosphere as well. By then, you will get 8 atmospheric layers, instead of 7...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Again, like ionosphere, these spheres are not layers, but rather conditions."
      they are not conditions, they are regions within the atmosphere can be considered a
      combination or separate reign, the conditions you are taking about are events that occquire within the homosphere, not they are the homosphere itself heterosphere is the above portion of the atmosphere layers while the homosphere is the bottom one, they are not an event of condition by any means at all, they are terms given to a reign or group or a layer, read the sources i gave you instead of making claims not backed by evidence

      Delete
    2. Like I said before, if you regard homosphere as a layer, then for consistency, heterosphere must be included as a layer as well. Et voilà, you got 8 atmospheric layers!

      Delete
    3. That is not constant, Heterosphere is the combined region that contain thermosphere, so it's basically another name for heterosphere, it seams you think since it has the word "sphere in it" therefore it must be a region according to my assessment, this is a strawman, i don't count them based on the word "sphere", the homosphere is the bottom where it's considered the very first region of the atmospherer up to the heterosphere which is another name for thermosphere

      Delete
  3. Is Ibn Authaimin the same as Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Saalih ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Abd Al Rahman Al Uthaymeen Al Tamimi (Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen) ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. please, answer me, just to know if it is the same guy.

      Delete
  4. Verse 37:6 doesn't mention light at all, but it mention planets.
    67:5 mention lamps in the lowest heaven and their use as devil-killer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Verse 37:6 doesn't mention light at all, but it mention planets."
      Indeed, We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment of stars

      Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
      Allah tells us that He has adorned the lowest heaven with the heavenly bodies for those among the people of the earth who look at it. The stars and planets in the sky give light to the people of earth, as Allah
      "The stars and planets in the sky give light to the people of earth,"
      http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1941&Itemid=93
      37:6 talks about the light (stars) nearly every tafsir agree on that
      67:5 is already addressed countless of times
      https://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-masked-arab-is-masked-falsehood.html

      Delete
    2. All your sources states that the pronoun means "from the star" , this seems to me a obvious reinterpretetation owning to to the observable fact that the number of stars does not decrease. The Qur'an could have been more explicit by inserting the arabic "from" in the text. But if I gave you this verse it's because it place the lamps and missiles in the lowest heaven, when science states that shooting stars starts to burn in the mesosphere and are destroyed in the stratosphere if they don't hit the earth.
      Also, these meteorites are not from stars or lamps.

      Delete
    3. "All your sources states that the pronoun means "from the star" , this seems to me a obvious reinterpretetation owning to to the observable fact that the number of stars does not decrease."
      what are you talking about? no where did i said number of the stars decreases
      "The Qur'an could have been more explicit by inserting the arabic "from" in the text. But if I gave you this verse it's because it place the lamps and missiles in the lowest heaven when science states that shooting stars starts to burn in the mesosphere and are destroyed in the stratosphere if they don't hit the earth.
      Also, these meteorites are not from stars or lamps."
      i have already addressed the issue of lamps and missiles, please stop repeating statements already debunked
      also what do you mean more explicit?
      the shooting objects are heat rays emitted from the sun, and not the sun itself, read the link above i cited

      Delete
    4. I found no mention of those "heat rays" in your link, and even if you choose to say that they are the missiles it changes nothing about the fact that the lamp and the missiles are in the lowest heaven. Compare your heat rays with what your prophet said http://quranx.com/Hadith/Muslim/USC-MSA/Book-26/Hadith-5538/

      Delete
    5. look in the comment section and the issue before the conclusion where i address the issue
      "Compare your heat rays with what your prophet said http://quranx.com/Hadith/Muslim/USC-MSA/Book-26/Hadith-5538/"
      and what did he said that contradict what i said?

      Delete
    6. He identified the missiles with the meteor he was seeing.

      Delete
    7. Missiles or meteors here are shahab the same shooting stars I addressed
      This hadith simply narrate the same stamtents the verse I address state

      So how does that refute me?

      Delete
    8. You said "the shooting objects are heat rays emitted from the sun" but the hadith say that the shooting objects are meteor.

      Delete
    9. Meteors are modern translation
      You really thinj 7th century Bedouins know how meteors look like
      The Arabic word is more refelcting of shahab rather than naizak which is what meteor means

      Delete
    10. They probaly spend the evening outside looking around them in the coolness, they probably where aware of meteor/falling stars but where probably unable to differentiate them. Even I have seen some. Regardless those are different that heat ray with are invisibles.

      Delete
  5. "The stars and planets in the sky give light to the people of earth," This prove that the stars are in the lowest heaven and that they gave light ( but the word "light" is not in this verse ), it is never mentioned that the light is alone in the lowest heaven.
    And some translation states that the word in this verse mean "planets" specifically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kawakib means Heavenly bodies (objects of space) which include stars and planets
      planet is a more moderen not classical translations, the proper translation is heavenly bodies which include moon planets and stars since even planets and moons reflect light
      as for the lowest heaven it does, go a page back and you will see this is a commentary on verse 37:6

      Delete
    2. Where is the "light alone in the lowest heaven "part ? I see only light associated with lamp." Allah tells us that He has adorned the lowest heaven with the heavenly bodies for those among the people of the earth who look at it."

      Delete
    3. "Where is the "light alone in the lowest heaven "part ?"
      read tafsir ibn kathir that i just linked to you, he literally says that in explanation to the verse you cited
      this is the third time i say that

      Delete
    4. from my blog since you are not gonna read the link i gave
      " “وقيل : إن الضمير راجع إلى المصابيح على أن الرجم من أنفس الكواكب ، ولا يسقط الكوكب نفسه إنما ينفصل منه شيء يرجم به ، من غير أن ينقص ضوءه ولا صورته "”[33]

      Translation:
      the pronoun that is in regards to the shooting stars that it shoots out from itself, and not the star itself, but rather a part of it separate and thrown at without losing any of its light or image
      “" عاد الضمير في قوله : ( وَجَعَلْنَاهَا ) على جنس المصابيح لا على عينها ؛ لأنه لا يرمي بالكواكب التي في السماء ، بل بشهب من دونها ، وقد تكون مستمدة منها ، والله أعلم " “[34]

      Translation:
      the pronoun in his words {we made it} in regards to part of the shooting stars, not themselves because the star itself is not thrown, but something out of it disconnects, and it might be from it, and God knows best
      now what follows are words from Ibn Abbas himself, a relative of the prophet his cousin
      “فأتبعه شهاب ثاقب أي مضيء ، قاله الضحاك والحسن وغيرهما. وقيل: المراد كواكب النار تتبعهم حتى تسقطهم في البحر. وقال ابن عباس في الشهب: تحرقهم من غير موت. وليست الشهب التي يرجم الناس بها من الكواكب الثوابت. يدل على ذلك رؤية حركاتها ، والثابتة تجري ولا ترى حركاتها لبعدها”[35]

      Translation:
      Then a shooting star followed it meaning after it, Thahak and Hasan and other said: what is meant here by shooting star is that fire follows it until it falls into the sea, Ibn Abbas said regarding the shooting star it burns them with no death, and the shooting star itself is not a stationary celestial object, evident by its movement, and the stationary fixed ones are not because they don’t move and can’t be seen moving duo to its large distance

      “وجعلناها رجوما للشياطين أي جعلنا شهبها; فحذف المضاف. دليله: إلا من خطف الخطفة فأتبعه شهاب ثاقب. وعلى هذا فالمصابيح لا تزول ولا يرجم بها. وقيل: إن الضمير راجع إلى المصابيح على أن الرجم من أنفس الكواكب ، ولا يسقط الكوكب نفسه إنما ينفصل منه شيء يرجم به من غير أن ينقص ضوءه ولا صورته”[36]

      Translation:
      And we made it shooting star meaning we made it Shahab: so the insertion was removed, evidence: Except one who snatches [some words] by theft, but they are pursued by a burning flame, piercing [in brightness]. And those stars don’t go away and are not thrown by itself, it was said that this means that the shooting star eject something from it, and the star itself doesn’t fall only something is separated from it and is used to shoot without losing its light and image"

      Delete
    5. "the pronoun that is in regards to the shooting stars that it shoots out from itself, and not the star itself, but rather a part of it separate and thrown at without losing any of its light or image" and others only talk about the missile part, but the first part of the verse (And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps...) specify that the location is in the lowest heaven, the same place that the missiles.

      Delete
    6. The location lowest heaven is a red herring fallacy
      As I stated time and time again and I won't repeat myself
      This is the location
      Verse 37:6 talks about decorating space with celestial objects insulting stars
      Ibn kathir comments on the location of those celestial bodies are in the lowest heaven (our universe)
      With in the commentary of 67:5 you find the lowest heaven refer to our universe
      Ibn kathir spacificly mention it in his commentary ,Oxford classic Abdul haleem also mentioned it

      I have no clue what you are rambling about
      The verse expliclty states it's the lowest heaven as location and shahab as objects which eject something from itself at devils the objects themsleves are not thrown

      Delete
    7. *celestial objects shooting stars 

      Delete
    8. "Verse 37:6 talks about decorating space with celestial objects insulting (including ?) stars
      Ibn kathir comments on the location of those celestial bodies are in the lowest heaven (our universe)"
      If you say that stars are in the "lowest heaven", there is no difference in our points of view.

      Delete
    9. That is not what I said that is what commentators say

      Delete
    10. Do you agree with those commentators ?

      Delete
  6. So you agree that these celestial bodies/ stars are in the "lowest heaven", thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The lowest heaven is more likely our universe here.

      Delete
    2. Then you should modify your article and modify "the verse 37:6 merely mention the light of the stars it doesn’t suggest that they are in the lowest heavens," since you agree with the commentators and me that they are, and simply state that this "lower heaven" is our universe in general.

      Delete
    3. The author I was responding to seamed as he was associating the lowest heaven of earth atmosphere to make up a scientific error
      Hence why I said it's not on the lowest heaven

      Delete
    4. I noticed, but since you agree that they are in the lowest you should redefinite the term "lowest heaven" rather that denies this location. I would be more honest.

      Delete
    5. *It would be more honest.

      Delete
    6. no need to if you already said you noticed it, so if you did anyone who read it will know i was talking about how the author was associating (lowest heaven) with earth atmosphere instead of space to make up a scientific error.

      Delete
  7. "They can mix, but they also don’t mix this is all dependable on the level of air winds, this is a Fact even Recorded by hundreds of scientists on NASA" But they always mix, at variable rate, due to osmotic pressure. So why speaking of an "formidable, inviolable barrier" when you said that scientist recorded they mix in variable circumstances ? And note the general statement, it didn't limit geographically the barrier at one or two place in the world. Rather it give a general statement that goes against estuary circulation studies that prove that mixing is always present at some degree.
    http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ceknowle/Envisions/chapter12copy/graphics12/fig1230.gif

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A cross section from an academic website "http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ceknowle/Envisions/chapter12copy/part3.html", yes. You can also read "Wolanski, E. (2007) "Estuarine Ecohydrology."" and "Kennish, M.J. (1986) "Ecology of Estuaries. Volume I: Physical and Chemical Aspects."" that give you the sames information in text format.

      Delete
    2. "An estuary is a semi-enclosed basin of water in which fresh water mixes with, and significantly dilutes, coastal ocean water"
      do you know what that means?

      Delete
    3. yes, it's mean that they are no barrier between salty and fresh water. Why ?

      Delete
    4. No, it doesn't even mention Barrier, now seams you didn't focus on that title which explain the whole article and what it aim at
      "and significantly dilutes, coastal ocean water"
      Dilutes means thinner or weaker, by essence the two bodies of water discussed here are not equal in proporations as Quran make it out to be, Quran talks about two seas here we have estuary since you didn't bother to look up what that word means estuary is the tidal mouth of a large river, where the tide meets the stream.
      https://www.google.iq/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiZkeTVsvrbAhXEwBQKHWU7DZUQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEstuary&psig=AOvVaw3CEkIB7amQW7HrikN-Ovdt&ust=1530414024660003

      where you have as stated above two bodies one is not weak and not thin the other is, so of course it will mix, since one body contain large proportion and is thicker than the other

      Quran states the following "And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition."
      the example provided by your link is not two seas, but two bodies unequal in proportion and properties which is in contrast to what the quran is describing

      this is exactly how richard dawkins in his silly example (bring one cup of fresh water and one cup of salty water mix them together and see what happens) the quran talks about two seas not not cups of water or an estuary

      so please next time bring an example relevant to quran of two seas equal in proportion, not an estuary or cups of water as Dawkins so foolishly does.

      Delete
    5. Of course it didn't mention barriers because there are none. I used estuary because it is the closest thing of two seas since there is no sea of fresh water on earth ! Seas are by definition salty... The article also used estuary and you didn't criticise it. And you didn't reply about the osmotic pressure that will force mixing (after some time) regardless of volume. And why do you criticise dawking? After all what he brought was egal in proportion and property, not in volume, but small scale testing are routinly used in fluid dinamics (Google windtunel to see small scale being used to design large scale ).

      Delete
    6. "Of course it didn't mention barriers because there are none"
      citation needed
      "I used estuary because it is the closest thing of two seas"
      no it's not, estuary combines two bodies of water neither of them are near equal in properties, two seas can meet without the need for estuary
      "since there is no sea of fresh water on earth ! Seas are by definition salty"
      two problems, first yes there is look up The Sea of Aral (although to be fair this one is a lake) mostly they are considered lakes, but they are large bodies of water nevertheless rivers can be located near freshwater lakes and often rain replenish their freshwater
      secound by that argument your entire objection fall apart
      "The article also used estuary and you didn't criticise it"
      what? you strawmaned the article and made the assertion that it's talking about two larg bodies of seas when it was not, your use of the article is unjustifiable
      "And you didn't reply about the osmotic pressure that will force mixing (after some time) regardless of volume"
      because the premis of the article is directed entirly on estuaries, not general meeting between fresh and salty water, also there is no "osmotic pressure" mentioned in the article
      "And why do you criticise dawking? After all what he brought was egal(logical?) in proportion and property"
      no he literally said to bring two cups of water, strawming the Quranic verse that strictly talks about seas, infact the verse has been repeated 3 times in quran each time talk about seas not estuary not cups of water, pressure on cups of water is different than the pressure of large bodies of water like a sea, Dawkins example (which resemble your objection hence why i brought him up) is a complete strawman on the verse
      "but small scale testing are routinly used in fluid dinamics (Google windtunel to see small scale being used to design large scale )."
      false equivocation fallacy, wind tunnels are application testing, salt water is not, you can't compare two, in testing high pressure of water you need to go deep under the water you can't simulate that in lab.

      Delete
    7. "citation needed" Providing a citation about the non existence of something is quite hard, if it was here ,it would be mentioned.
      "two seas can meet without the need for estuary" give me an example of a freshwater sea meeting a salty one without an estuary and i will remove this argument.
      " first yes there is look up The Sea of Aral (although to be fair this one is a lake) mostly they are considered lakes" So they exist but to be fair, they don't exist...
      "by that argument your entire objection fall apart" the problem in that case is that since they are no applicable situation on earth the verse could talk about unicorns, it would have the same impact.
      "what? you strawmaned the article" i was talking about your article : at no point you opposed foundalis use of the river system.
      " there is no "osmotic pressure" mentioned in the article" this is another argument , it is not mentioned in the article, i never said it was. But we know that "in simplistic terms the concept that a solute will move from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration across a concentration gradient" Fick law, prove the phenomenon of diffusion of salt across water and "Osmotic pressure is the minimum pressure which needs to be applied to a solution to prevent the inward flow of its pure solvent across a semipermeable membrane" note that in that case you have to put a semipermeable membrane and pressure to force the salt to stay on one side of the experiment, and salt literally raise the water like Moses (http://www.bluspr.com/reverse_osmosis_introduction_images/wwb_img1.jpg (this time it's a jpg so you should be happy)) so it can be less concentrated. Wikipedia give you the same infos.
      "pressure on cups of water is different than the pressure of large bodies of water like a sea" pressure is only dependent on height, not on the volume at all. You where talking about little freshwater in large amount on salty one , so i said in his example they are equal. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/WindTunnel/Activities/fluid_pressure.html that show you the pressure only depend on height ( just for the fun notice the article is in the "WindTunnel" category )
      "false equivocation fallacy" you can easily simulate the first few meter (or 10cm in dawking case) in the lab, also even if you meeting of the sea is 1000m deep, it only result in a pressure of 100bar, the same of a normal pressure washer, something that is "easily" managed in the lab.

      Delete
    8. https://pastebin.com/RUP2rxeW

      try and provide better sources next time than Wikipedia or some website like bluspr please

      Delete
    9. I will only reply to the end since you (voluntarily ?) seems to miss the point :
      "since the verse require two equal in properties bodies of water that are not equal in matirials" if you are saying that the fresh sea should be in equal salt concentration than the salty one there is noting left to say.
      "the sources you provide require a less concetrated side of the solvet that breaks the already formulated membrane to proceed the corssing" fresh water is less concentrated in salt that salty water, the membrane is a no point broken, and i said "note that in that case you have to put a semipermeable membrane and pressure to force the salt to stay on one side of the experiment" to show you the way you have to act to slow the impetus of the mixing. Note your " concentration of solutes outside the cell is equal to the concentration of solutes inside the cell" in that case the two salt concentration are equal and the system is stable and well mixed. " sometimes they don't mix if they meet equal properties" source "for they don't mix" ? They can mix slowly but at the end they mix. "your source confirms me" how ? Last thing : "The denser the fluid above it, the more pressure is exerted on the object that is submerged, due to the weight of the fluid." so if we are at the bottom of the sea (1000m for example), in the point where the water are, salt water on the left , freshwater on the right, we have a pressure of 102.5bar on the salty side on 100 bar on the fresh side ; so it means that we have a difference of pressure of 2.5 bars , that would make salty water immediately rush into fresh one to equalize the pressure, pushing us with it, mixing them both at some scale at the end we would have mostly salty water at the bottom and mostly fresh one at the top and salt diffusing slowly from the bottom to the top. wiki:" Fick's laws of diffusion" (notice the nice first gif ^^) As soon the barrier is removed mixing start, no spontaneous new barrier formation here ( i know it is no the good scale but since i didn't read about emerging properties of water that affect us in very large volume, it's good enough for me )

      Now if you think that the verse only speak about an hypothetical situation that doesn't exist on earth and if we where somehow create it, your god will use his powers to overrule physics laws to prevent the mixing, i have no counterarguments.

      Delete
    10. "I will only reply to the end since you (voluntarily ?) seems to miss the point :"
      first you accuse me of voluntarily ignoring your arguments (which i didn't and i addressed everyone of them including your use of wikipedia) then later you ignore my arguments and focus on the end?

      "if you are saying that the fresh sea should be in equal salt concentration than the salty one there is noting left to say."
      not me, that is how the verse is interpreted.

      "fresh water is less concentrated in salt that salty water"
      strawman, no where did i said fresh water has to be equal in concentration of saltiness to salt water

      "the membrane is a no point broken"
      no it's not, i explained that in Isotonicity

      Depiction of a red blood cell in an isotonic solution.
      A solution is isotonic when its effective osmole concentration is the same as that of another solution. In biology, the solutions on either side of a cell membrane are isotonic if the concentration of solutes outside the cell is equal to the concentration of solutes inside the cell. In this case the cell neither swells nor shrinks because there is no concentration gradient to induce the diffusion of large amounts of water across the cell membrane. Water molecules freely diffuse through the plasma membrane in both directions, and as the rate of water diffusion is the same in each direction, the cell will neither gain nor lose water.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonicity#Isotonicity

      which you completely ignored

      "and i said "note that in that case you have to put a semipermeable membrane and pressure to force the salt to stay on one side of the experiment" to show you the way you have to act to slow the impetus of the mixing. Note your " concentration of solutes outside the cell is equal to the concentration of solutes inside the cell" in that case the two salt concentration are equal and the system is stable and well mixed. " sometimes they don't mix if they meet equal properties" source "for they don't mix" ? They can mix slowly but at the end they mix. "your source confirms me" how ? Last thing : "The denser the fluid above it, the more pressure is exerted on the object that is submerged, due to the weight of the fluid." so if we are at the bottom of the sea (1000m for example), in the point where the water are, salt water on the left , freshwater on the right, we have a pressure of 102.5bar on the salty side on 100 bar on the fresh side ; so it means that we have a difference of pressure of 2.5 bars , that would make salty water immediately rush into fresh one to equalize the pressure, pushing us with it, mixing them both at some scale at the end we would have mostly salty water at the bottom and mostly fresh one at the top and salt diffusing slowly from the bottom to the top. wiki:" Fick's laws of diffusion" (notice the nice first gif ^^) As soon the barrier is removed mixing start, no spontaneous new barrier formation here ( i know it is no the good scale but since i didn't read about emerging properties of water that affect us in very large volume, it's good enough for me )"

      Ok you are confusing me as hell i have no clue which part is your comment and which part you are quoting me apart from the end, Organize your sentences and paste your arguments again.

      Delete
    11. Because i simply didn't found anything worth mentioning in them, some are burden of proof ping-pong , some are simply unrelated or citing thing that i am already aware, some i used in my last reply and in one you claim to be able to read my mind.

      "not me, that is how the verse is interpreted." the verse literally speak of salty and sweet not mixing, if you (or other) interpret it as the salty mix there is nothing left to say.

      "no it's not, i explained that in Isotonicity" if you had said "crossed" i wouln't have wrote that, i wanted to be sure

      "which you completely ignored" i literally cited it and commented "in that case the two salt concentration are equal and the system is stable and well mixed" showing you that in that case there are no salty/fresh, all is brackish, like if no barrier were present.

      "strawman, no where did i said fresh water has to be equal in concentration of saltiness to salt water" strawman : i never said that you said that...

      and i said "note that in that case you have to put a semipermeable membrane and pressure to force the salt to stay on one side of the experiment" to show you the way you have to act to slow the impetus of the mixing.

      " sometimes they don't mix if they meet equal properties" source ? what "meet equal properties" means ? If the meeting conditions (current speed, wind, lunar phases, temperature) act against a fast mixing ?

      "for they don't mix" source ?

      "your source confirms me" confirm what ?

      "The denser the fluid above it, the more pressure is exerted on the object that is submerged, due to the weight of the fluid." So if we are at the bottom of the sea (1000m for example), in the point where the water are, salt water on the left , freshwater on the right, we have a pressure of 102.5 bar on the salty side on 100 bar on the fresh side ; So it means that we have a difference of pressure of 2.5 bars , that would make salty water immediately rush into fresh one to equalize the pressure, pushing us with it, mixing them both at some scale at the end we would have mostly salty water at the bottom and mostly fresh one at the top and salt diffusing slowly from the bottom to the top. Wiki:" Fick's laws of diffusion" (notice the nice first gif ^^)
      In this model as soon the barrier is removed mixing start, no spontaneous new barrier formation here ( i know it is no the good scale but since i didn't read about emerging properties of water that affect us in very large volume, it's good enough for me )

      You will probably reply "red earring" but i also found "During the experiment we kept the high-pressure aquaria environment at a ‘site-alike’ pressure of 125–130 bar, constant temperatures (0 °C), constant pH (7.9)," scientist got some animals (Foraminifera) and sediments from 1300 m deep and let they live at high pressure at the surface to study them, no need for a 1300m height lab for them. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377839815000341

      Delete
    12. "Causing "Water molecules freely diffuse through the plasma membrane in both directions, and as the rate of , the cell will neither gain nor lose water"
      which is exactly the scenario the verse is talking about" so for you the verse with an "immovable barrier" speak about water water freely diffusing across the barrier, if straw man, explain it better
      In that case since "A solution is isotonic when its effective osmole concentration is the same as that of another solution" how could it be since one side is salty (high osmolarity) and the other is fresh (low osmolarity), if straw man, explain it better.
      "that case is applicable when one side as unequal concentration or density to the other side as i said many" do you tinks that f/s water have the same concentration of salt and density? If strawman explain it better.
      "assuming we have a pressure scale of 100 bar of salty water and 100 bar of fresh water, by that condition no pressure will be capable of crossing materials of salty water to fresh water" not physically possible since in that case we would have a watercolumn of 96m on the salty side and 100m on the fresh side, that would create a 3 meter tall wall of water on the top that will immediately collapse on the salty side as the salty push to occupate the bottom, owning to its higher density, recreating the same situation as I mentioned.
      "the examples you provided and the links you cited states on Nonequal proportion one side having more density pressure or concentration than the other, then of course on that condition the two waters mix" But different salt concentration is what the verse is talking about, different density simply follow different concentration and I already explained pressure whose variables come from height and density. If straw man explain it better.

      Delete
    13. *1000m and 965m for the water column and a 35 m tall waterwall.

      Delete
    14. If you are really into this "Isotonicity" we can calculate it to see if it apply to sea/fresh water "In biology, the solutions on either side of a cell membrane are isotonic if the concentration of solutes outside the cell is equal to the concentration of solutes inside the cell" :
      First note the cell membrane , this organic structure is not present at the sea water interface ( because ocean is not a living cell) , but for the sake of argument i will do as if it was.
      Osmolarity of seawater (i will do as if the only solute is Nacl since it's very prevalent) : osmolarity=activity coeficient *molarity *number of solvated ions => =0.95*0.599*2= 1.13 Osm/l ; Harward give us 1000 mOsm/l , pretty close.
      Osmolarity of freshwater : Fresh water is less than 500mg/l of solids, i will say that it is only salt because even if heavier ions have high valences they mass means that they are less numerous whereas sodium is monovalent but it is relatively light. 500mg/l =>0.5/58.5=0.0085mol/l osmolarity =1*0.0085*2=0.017 Osm/l
      As you can see 1.12 Osm/l >>0.017 Osm/l ; now "A solution is isotonic when its effective osmole concentration is the same as that of another solution" This is not the case with a fresh /salt water interface and its the reason why most fish live only in one type of water.
      One more thing "An iso-osmolar solution can be hypotonic if the solute is able to penetrate the cell membrane. " In that case since water is able to penetrate the membrane, if you want to argue that salt can cross it too , the barrier is effectively not present since it stop neither the solvent nor the solute.
      If this is a strawman, please explain me why you always goes back to "Isotonicity".
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_concentration#Definition
      pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2010/cp/b924735a
      http://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?&id=100802&ver=0
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonicity#Isotonicity

      Delete
    15. I noticed i forgot to give you source for the density of water with salt concentration : https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sodium-chloride-water-d_1187.html the second graph.
      Density follow salt concentration, i didn't chose to change it, i did so to reflect reality. Pressure follow density (the formula pressure=height of water*density*gravity constant). The height can be arbitrary, this don't change the ratio between the salty water pressure and the fresh water pressure because the same formula is used for both, so the two are affected proportionally. And to respond to why the formula doesn't mention salty or fresh it's because you can use it for any fluid (gas are specials because you have to integrate the variations of the gas density in that case (those are negligible for most liquids : 0.46% increase for seawater per 1000m and 0.48% for freshwater per 100bars). The formula works regardless of the composition. Water, saltwater, oil, mercury all use the same formula. So i think you see why i used different values in my calculations, simply to better reflect reality, i assumed that the two water-volumes are at the same height, temperature, atmospheric pressure... because those are not governed by the salinity when salt concentration (yes.), density and pressure are.

      Now if you think that the verse only speak about an hypothetical situation that doesn't exist on earth and if we where somehow create it, your god will use his powers to overrule physics laws to prevent the mixing, i have no counterarguments.

      Delete