Assalamualykum.
Brothers, a site claims that they have found 1000+ mistakes in the Quran. I'm posting a portion of their article bellow containing the alleged 1000+ errors. Please answer their claims in detail.
[A common technique from Muslims also is to go away from a difficult point and answer something which in reality is something else, or to answer just one not too difficult part of a fact or question.
Muslims and Islam all too often and all too easily jump from "This is a possibility", to "This is proved here", "This the reality", or "This is the Truth" - a claim or a not documented something becomes a "proof".
In spite of that Muslims themselves jump from "this is a possible explanation" to claiming it is a proof, they demand mathematical quality proofs (absolute proofs) from all opponents. Remember that empirical proofs (99% proofs) are more than adequate on most points. And remember that it is the Muslim who makes the claims, and thus it is his duty to prove those claims, not your duty to prove them wrong, which may be difficult just there and then. DEMAND THAT HE PROVES HIS CLAIMS BEFORE YOU EVEN START DEBATING WITH HIM/HER - AND REMEMBER THAT THE QURAN IS SO FULL OF MISTAKES, THAT IN MOST CASES A QUOTE OR FIVE FROM THAT BOOK PROVE NOTHING UNLESS THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PROOFS.
This refuter seems to be a trained one, because he uses all these evading techniques, except "You just are a Jew lower".
Well, the result of the scream for help, where he/she could not think and evaluate for him-/herself, were some answers, and as said the one most liked (at least under "Mistakes in the Quran" on Google, Yahoo, and others) by the Muslims you find on
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/refuting-website-1000-mistakes-in-the-quran-2269 . Please read it and weep; this is the best they have to offer - and worse; this is accepted without questions by the Muslims - the only remarks are thanks for the refutations, and some requests for more refutations.
It is not strange that the industrial revolution did not happen in the Muslim world with its unquestioned belief in what their fathers, their surroundings, and their leaders told them, but in the West, where people slowly were permitted to think - and had some training in thinking - themselves.
This seemingly semiprofessional refuter, continued: "I will help you in finding refutation - - -". Quite telling compared to what ought to be the task of a religious scholar, as the result of believing in an invalid religion is so serious, if there is a next life: To try to find out what is really the truth. And further: "I can not access the site since it is blocked here - - -". Which confirms that at least in some Islamic countries one prefers to block difficult questions and information, instead of meeting it. It also confirms our information that our page is so difficult to meet, that it is blocked in some Muslim areas. And likely it places the refuter in Pakistan, as to our knowledge the page only was blocked in Pakistan at the time this refuting was posted on the net (and most informed persons know what some Pakistani Muslims may be like, especially in North Pakistan).
For the sake of convenience we need a name for him - he has not given his name. There are two logical choices: His alias on the net, or his title - here "a refuter", as he himself confirms and promises he is going to refute us, not to try to find the truth. His alias on the net is not his correct name, whereas his title is a correct one, so we choose to use his title: Mr. Refuter - this also will serve to remind the readers of the admitted fact that he is a man who writes his stuff because he has promised to refute things, not a man trying to find the truth.
Mr. Refuter starts his proper answer with a double al-Taqiyya (lawful lie). We quote: "According to the Quran there is no compulsion in Islam".
This is a very normal dishonesty from Muslims. For one thing what the Quran really says, is: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" - it is a wish, not a fact. And for another: This verse - 2/256, which came shortly after Muhammad fled to Medina, and when he still hoped to include the Jews in his congregation - is abrogated (made invalid) by at least some 30 later verses. Both these facts any Muslim scholar knows well - - - but he never mentions any of them and even pretends 2/256 is a reality, not a wish or something and not abrogated, all the same. Not very honest.
Next not documented claim: "- - - they (the mistakes in the Quran*) are just anti Islamic propaganda".
For one thing this is one of the standard Muslim ways of fleeing from difficult debates about points in the Quran: "You are just a Muslim hater, so your facts do not count." For another thing it is not true - the quotes are 100% correct from the according to Islam likely best translator ever of the Quran to English: Abdulla Yusuf Ali. No Muslim has till this day informed us about any divergence from this book, which is most highly recommended by Islam and its scholars. This about enemies of Islam is repeated some lines further down - without any documentations, like quite normal from Muslims in such cases. Not to forget: It is free for anybody to compare our quotes to the original.
Then: "- - - Without checking the truth - - -".
It is extremely easy to check the truth of
http://www.1000mistakes.com . And NO Muslim scholar in a position where he might have to prove his words (f.x. in papers trying to have the page evicted from Internet) has claimed there are untrue quotes in the page - yes, not even that there is hate or enmity in it. But of course when "refuting" on an Internet page, not searching the truth, it is easy to throw accusations around - and it sounds good to readers who wish to believe it is true.
This also is an ironic demand from a Mr. Refuter, who has declared he will refute - not that he will find the truth. And even more ironic, as you further down will see that he does not check on his claims himself. But then it is VERY normal for Muslims, included Islam itself/the scholars, and the Quran, to demand proofs from every opponent, but themselves mainly debates by means of not documented - or in other ways proved - loose claims and as unfunded statements. "A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion". Muslims, included representatives for Islam, not to mention Muhammad/the Quran, seldom live up to that standard. They "forget" for one thing that the basis for conclusions has to be proved, if not any conclusion is invalid, and for another thing they "forget" (or often simply do not know) that for a conclusion to be logically valid, one has to follow the laws for making logical conclusions. (Unlike in the "West", Muslim pupils are not always thought such knowledge. Even more strange for us is that they are thought that there may be more than one truth, even if the "truths" mutually exclude each other, something which is impossible in reality - but necessary for Islam in order to be able to explain away some of the inconsistencies in the Quran.)
Contradictions in the Inheritance Law.
Here we point to the general fact that the splitting of inheritance according to the rules in the Quran, often do not add up to 1 (= the exact value of the inheritance). Here Mr. Refuter uses some clever claims and finds that it is correct. But the interesting thing is that he does not touch the real problem: The well known fact that the Islamic rules for splitting an inheritance often adds up to between 0.33 (one of the samples in verse 4/12) to 1.25 and even 1.50 times the inheritance. Complicated rules for sharing inheritances have given Muslim lawyers good money through the times.
But Mr. Refuter has saved the law of inheritance - at least for those able to believe so.
1000 contra 50ooo years.
The Quran many places clearly states that the language is clear and not to be misunderstood. This is one of the many places in the Quran, where Muslims have to say; 'oh, no! Here Allah has not been able to express himself clearly, so that we clever mere humans have to help him and explain what he "really" meant! Good for Allah to have so good helpers, each time he expresses himself clumsily and unclear.
For good measure the clever refuter tries to explain this with the theory of relativity - which in case would demand that heaven and Allah traveled away from Earth (or Earth away from Heaven and Allah) with speeds approaching 300ooo km/sec. This is the ONLY way to explain so dramatic change of the time by time dilation - - - and in case there quickly would be enormous distance between Earth and the 7 heavens, included the stars fastened to the lowest one, and the moon (and sun?) in between them. And it had been even worse if he had been right about traveling "many times the speed of light".
The Special Theory of Relativity came in 1905. The general one as far as we remember in 1918. In these some 100 years Mr. Refuter has learnt the name of the theory, and not much more it seems. He is using the time dilation as an explanation for a claimed god's different perception of time, without taking into account the consequences - an enormously distant heaven very quickly - and this even though he mention the need for speed. But then it is quite normal to meet Muslims in triumph "explaining" or "proving" things without caring about or being unable to see that other aspects of the case or other facts, kill the "explanation" or "proof".
And he easily talks about speeds far above the speed of light, obviously not knowing that for all known material particles, the speed of light is an absolute and uncrossable barrier. And clearly not knowing that if theoretical particles able to travel faster than light - f.x. the tachyon - should exist, it will not be time dilation anymore, because if you cross the speed of light, you start going backwards in time.
These are elementary knowledge about the Theory of Relativity - so elementary, that as Mr. Refuter does not know this, it shows that he has not the faintest real knowledge about what he is talking about.
As for his claim that this proves that the Quran foresaw the theory and the dilation effect, it is so pathetic - especially as he has proved he does not know what he is talking about at all - that we do not bother to comment on that side of the claim.
But we mention that you frequently meet Muslims claiming - never backed by proofs - that this and that is foreseen by the Quran. But all relevant science says that there is absolutely nothing in the Quran which reliably can be said to foresee anything at all about the future (the future as relative to the time of Muhammad). This is indirectly, but very strongly confirmed by Islam: If there had been even one proved case - f.x. foreseeing time dilation - Islam had told about it in big letters long time ago - but Islam is totally silent on such points (except for some persons like Mr. Refuter here, who claim, but never prove anything. Normally such claims come from persons knowing little about what they are talking about, or from persons using al-Taqiyya (lawful lies) relying on that their listeners/readers do not know enough to see that their claims or statements are lies).
We also mention that in all the Quran, there is not one indication of something even remotely like time dilation. This piece simply is a wishful thought or an al-Taqiyya (lawful lie) from a Mr. Refuter, who already has proved he knows nothing about the Theory of Relativity, but he as a Muslims scholar also has got to know that there is nothing about time dilation in the Quran. (It is clear from his writing that he knows - though sometimes twists a little - the Quran).
One final remark about this point: This is a super example of Muslims jumping from "this may be an explanation" to "this is a proof". Here time dilation hardly in any case is possible to use as an explanation for Allah's claimed different experience of time, and all the same it "proves" that time dilation is foreseen in the Quran! Clever - and nice to hear for naive or not educated believers - but far outside the rules for logical deductions. And far outside physics and science.
How many gardens?
Garden (singular) does not contradict gardens (plural) because in both cases the Quran speaks in general, is the claim. No comment - judge for yourself. We may add that the Quran talks about at least 4, and Hadiths indicate 6 or even a higher number - perhaps much higher.
Then we again meet one of the standard ways of fleeing from difficult points in Islam: The text is not really the text, but claimed to be an allegory. A claim here backed by many words, but omitting that other words many places in the Quran tell that the book uses plain and straight forward language, and that "only those sick of heart, look for hidden meanings (f.x. not announced allegories). Not to mention not explaining why there should be a need for using an allegory for the number of gardens in paradise - everybody understands numbers.
How many groups at the Day of Doom?
One more case of the clumsy god unable to express himself clearly, in spite of his claims that his language in the Quran is most clear and easy, and not to be misunderstood. One more case where the clever humans must explain that Allah here does not really mean what he says, but something else which we clever refuters may explain you to "explain" away the god's mistake. Some omniscient god!
Who Takes the Souls after Death?
At the very minimum here is forgotten that the Quran claims it is using a clear and easy and not to be misunderstood language. Islam/Muslims claim it is so clear, that it is one of the proofs for that it must be made by a god. (Quite an irony, taken into account how often clever humans must intervene and explain what the god "really" meant, instead of the mistakes he made, and in the light of the at least 450 cases where Muslim scholars admit that they cannot be sure about what the book really means, etc. - see "Unclear words in the Quran" in
http://1000mistakes.com ).
The infinite loop problem?
In reality this is not a loop at all: The Quran claims that all the books claimed sent down to claimed prophets/messengers, were copies of the timeless "Mother of Books" created by Allah before the creation of Earth or may be existed since eternity and never created. True copies of the same timeless book must be identical. Or does Mr. Refuter once more want to explain that he can explain things in more clear word than a simple omniscient god?
Then once more one of the standard Muslims claims to flee from problems: "You do not understand". (This in spite of that we have proved we understand the Quran, both by being able to pick out the mistakes, and by being able to understand what those mistakes mean. Not to mention by being able to see the difference between glorifying words - propaganda - and the under-lying realities in the tales in the book. Whereas Mr. Refuter only has showed that he accepts the superficial words of the Quran - accepts, and tries to explain that they must be correct, true or not - but nothing more.
"The (Quran*) has been prophesied in the books of the earlier generations".
This claim is wrong. There is not one place in the Bible where there is a prophesying about the Quran. What is more just here, is that even Islam/Muslim scholars do not seriously try to point to any verse in all the Bible, where the Quran is claimed to be prophesied. For foretelling about Muhammad such claims - claims - exists, but not for the Quran - nothing serious enough to that Muslim scholars bother to mention it at least.
Prophesies about the Quran?
"In every (the Arab word used here, is used only when there are 3 or more*) divine Scripture we are told prophesies of the prophets (wrong, see below*) and the scriptures (wrong, see below*) to follow. The Old Testament contained many prophesies about the coming of Jesus Christ (the OT really did not talk about Christ - that is a Greek, later version of the name - but about Messiah). Similarly the Bible contained prophesies about the coming of a prophet after Jesus who brings a scripture from God."
Here is much nonsense:
Which books? - OT and the Bible is the same book - OT is the first part of the Bible simply (and NT the second part).
The old Jews had many prophets and not one of them was foretold in OT except perhaps Jesus. The prophets were not foretold, except perhaps one of them only.
There is no - no foretelling neither of the NT, nor of the Quran in OT (and no foretelling about the Quran in NT). There are not even serious claims about this from serious Muslims scholars.
There is no foretelling about a prophet after Jesus neither in OT nor in NT, and we must admit we are a bit surprised Mr. Refuter bases his claim about foretelling of Muhammad on John - normally when they claim only one point, Muslims base the claim on cherry-picked words (5. Mos. 18/15+18) in a speech Moses made to his Jews, and which need somewhat less cherry-picking of words, omissions of information, twisting of information, etc. to sound believable at least to persons who want to believe such things. The claim concerning John is so far out, needs so much twisting of the Bible, and "correction" of realities + overlooking of plain proofs for that the claims are wrong, that it normally is not chosen as a lone sample, when they instead can use Moses (they normally only use John because the Quran claims Muhammad is found also in NT, and this is the point in NT which needs least twisting and omissions to make wishful thinkers believe it is a truth). Much more about this other places both in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" and in "1000+ Comments on the Quran".
There is definitely no foretelling in the Bible about a new Scripture after the ones about Jesus (= after NT). And just to mention it once more: There also is no foretelling about NT in OT (not to mention about the Quran). Also these claims you never meet from serious Muslim scholars - not to mention that they never point to where in the Bible such claimed foretelling are claimed to be found, as there are no such foretelling.
But Mr. Refuter claims without documentation that our knowledge of facts like these, is because of one of the Muslim standard ways of fleeing from difficult points: We do not know what we are talking about.
SCIENTIFIC CONTRADICTIONS
The moon between the heavens".
First one correction of Mr. Refuter's quotations of a point in our texts: The Quran says the moon is between the heavens. This we have referred to - not quoted, but referred to - as if it is in a middle heaven. (According to the astronomy of the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, the moon was fastened to one of the invisible 7 heavens - old Greek and Persian astronomy. Do not ask us why Allah used old earthly and very wrong astronomy.) This Mr. Refuter has changed to "the middle heaven", which in case would mean heaven nr. 4, a position neither we nor the Quran has quantified. Honestly done. And then he continues by stating: "That is in your wild imagination" = You do not know what you are talking about - which might have been true if we had written what he has changed our text into. "If you have no wrong facts, make them up and attack them" - a technique often used by politicians.
But it is no piece of imagination - wild or not - that the Quran states that there are 7 heavens (the word "heavens" is used in plural ca. 200 times and "7 heavens" many times in the book), and that it clearly is stated that the stars are fastened to the lowest heaven, whereas the moon is between the heavens. Mr. Refuter conveniently skips commenting on such facts at all, just talks about "imaginary claims" = "You do not know what you are talking about once more", this even though he already now has documented thoroughly that we know quite a lot more about science than he does (we happen to be well informed about many sciences, included astronomy and physics, as you may be understand from what we write.)
The 7. Universes(!!)
Then he goes on without explanation to talk about "the 7 universes". For one thing the Quran talks about 7 heavens - and a proof for that it really means the visible sky as we see it, is that it also uses the word "firmament", a word which directly means "the heaven/sky as we see it" (mostly used about the night sky). A word or an expression carrying the modern meaning of the word "universe", did not exist at the time of Muhammad, neither in Arab, nor in any of the surrounding languages, included in the on scientifical themes much more advanced languages at that time, Persian, Greek, and Latin.
And his claim about 7 universes, one outside the other, is such a scientific nonsense and gobbledygook, that you do not even find it in science fiction novels. But he uses the rubbish with a straight face like it was/is a recognized fact! A lie so big that it goes far on the outside of even the concept "al-Taqiyya" (the lawful lie) - and what here is even worse: It is so well known that universes one outside the other is something entirely unscientific, that his readers have to be extremely badly informed, naive and/or bent on believing anything which sounds like something they wish to believe, to be able to believe it. Not to mention what this fairy tale tells about Mr. Refuter.
And his readers send him "thank you for the refuting and information"! Without checking anything!!
This point of Mr. Refuter’s tales tell volumes about his honesty: There is no learned man on this Earth who does not know that this nonsense fairy tale about one universe inside another - 7 times - has nothing to do with reality or science, and there is not one learned Muslim who does not know that around 630 AD no-one in the Middle East - or in the Quran or among Muhammad's followers - talked about a universe in the modern meaning of that word.
These are so well known facts among all educated people - even just medium educated ones (it belongs in the primary or secondary school textbooks) - that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know about it. In plain words: These facts are so well known, that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know he is lying about this when he pretends it is facts and uses it in his argumentation like this.
And to make the cheating of his uneducated readers - the only possible believers in this scientific nonsense - complete, he continues: "Before clinging to such imaginary claims (to produce correct quotes from the Quran which are wildly wrong compared to scientific knowledge, and not even possible to explain with his made up "7 universes", which may be why he does not try to explain any details*) you (his readers*) may better learn to appreciate so many other verses in the Quran which corroborate the modern finding, which was totally unknown during the time of the prophet". But there is not one point at all in the Quran which truly foretells anything about the future, included future discoveries of any kind. This goes for science as well as for history - a fact so well known, that there is no chance Mr. Refuter does not know about it if he have even middle level education, and a fact thoroughly proved true by Islam and its scholars: If there had been true foretelling, Islam and its top scholars had told about it in huge letters at every opportunity and in university textbooks. There are no such words from them - only claims from uneducated wishful thinkers and from more or less professional refuters using al-Taqiyya (lawful lies), Kitman (lawful half-truths), deceit (lawful in Islam as Muhammad used deceit - f.x. to have opponents murdered), etc. (There are some co-incidences where things he said, happened to come partly true - if there are sayings which came completely rue, Muslim scholars at least have not informed about it - which has to be the case for any person talking much over many years. But for one thing it was not said to be prophesies at the time it was said, for another thing Muhammad himself said in the Quran that he was unable to make prophesies ("to see the unseen"), for a third Aishah said in Hadiths that Muhammad was unable to see the unseen, and for the forth Muslim scholars say that "there were no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the making of the Quran" (tellers of made up stories of miracles connected to Muhammad should remember this) - foretelling is a kind of miracle (to be able to "see the unseen"), and the fifth and perhaps heaviest point: These coincidents are fewer and less accurate than the result of normal pure chance according to the laws of probability should indicate - Muhammad simply had little imagination (which also is easy to see from the texts in the Quran and from quotes in Hadiths - they mainly are old stories "borrowed" from different sources and twisted some to fit Muhammad's new religion).
But using gobbledygook and even lies on points where the scientific facts are so well known that there is no chance he does not know that he is lying if he have at least medium level education, and so well known that it is easy for him to check if his claims are true or not, if he at least knows how to read and write and use books or Internet, tells something about Mr. Refuter.
And the fact that some of his readers are able to accept such scientific imbecility and dishonesty and send him "thank you for the information", also tells something about his readers and their ability to perform critical thinking.
The Sun and the Moon.
Mr. Refuter tells verse 21/33 says: "Each one (sun and moon*) is travelling in an orbit with its own motion". Abdulla Yusuf Ali says: "Swim along, each in its rounded course". Which is something different, and like what Muhammad believed he saw. In 36/40 Yusuf Ali is closer to Mr. Refuter: "Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to law)". But Mr. Refuter forgets(?) to mention 2 facts: One is that the texts in () are texts added by the translator - to clarify or too often in the Quran to adjust it to more scientifically correct text - and are not in the original Arab text. Adjust Mr. Refuter's quote for this, and you see he has transformed the Arab original not a little - a nice little Kitman (lawful half-truth). The other fact he "happens" to "forget" is that the modern meaning of the word "orbit" used in astronomy - a trajectory determined only by the speed of a "body" and by the influence of gravity on it - did not exist at the time of Muhammad. An orbit at that time was the movement of a "body" - f.x. the sun or the moon or the stars - fixed to a crystal clear heaven which was slowly turning (there were 7 such heavens).
These are facts I - the one who writes just this - learnt in secondary school, and there is no chance Mr. Refuter did not know this when he wrote his wrong information, or at least had easy access on Internet to places where he could check if what he believed was correct or not, before he wrote it - and even wrote it in a haughty tone.
But it is very convenient facts to "forget" or "forget to check" if one wants to arrive at dishonest answers. Going for refuting, not for finding the truth.
Big Bang.
This has been one of some Muslims' favorite subjects for some years - most people does not know much about this, except the name and that it was a big explosion, so that it is easy to bluff most of them, and especially naive or little educated Muslims who on top dearly want to believe.
To explain Bib Bang and its resulting astronomy very shortly:
Until some 13.7 billion years ago all matter AND time were gathered in a very small point. This point exploded the mentioned some 13.7 billion years ago into an extremely hot cloud (NB: Cloud, not smoke) consisting only of ionized hydrogen, minor quantities of ionized helium and lots and lots of free atomic particles like electrons and positrons. The explosion also started Time.
After some 300ooo - 360ooo years this cloud had expanded and cooled enough for the ions to start coming together to atoms and molecules. But still there only existed hydrogen - H2 - and helium (He). On the other hand these two existed both as matter and as antimatter - which annihilated each other (may be even before they had left the ion phase). How some matter survived to make our universe, nobody really knows. But remember: Still there only were these two gases, which formed a big cloud - there was no smoke (smoke is miniscule particles of matter normally produced by fire, and to be smoke and not ash, these particles have to drift or float in gas, and there only was gas yet, no condensed matter to make smoke particles).
The next step was that the gas now also grew cold enough for gravity to start pulling together huge "lumps" of it - gas which little by little condensed into stars. And as there was much and concentrated gas, these first stars for a large part became HUGE. In these stars atomic reactions started - reactions which fused together gas atoms to ever heavier atoms. But this process is possible only up to a certain level - up to iron. Then the fusing together stops releasing energy, and instead claims energy for producing heavier atoms. This lack of new energy makes a big star unstable. Such processes goes faster in big stars because of higher pressure and temperature, and because these stars often were from big, via super big, to hyper big, this shortage of energy started already after some 50 million years for the biggest ones. They then became unstable - and when big stars becomes unstable, they go supernova (for a sample look to f.x. Eta Carinae - this is a big star science think is unstable for this reason, and in astronomically near future will go supernova). And in these extreme explosions there was so much energy that the heavier elements were created - created and dispersed into the universe by the explosion.
This was the first cycle of star creation.
Then there was cycle number 2. Now the gas in the universe was more rarified, and the stars became not quite so big. Because of this this cycle took a lot longer time. Also the stars were not made only by hydrogen and helium any more - there were dust and lumps and boulders of other elements in the gas they were made from. But after enough time also the stare made in the second cycle went supernova if they were big enough. And spread more dust and lumps and boulders into the interstellar gas.
And then slowly the 3. cycle started - the 3. generation of stars. Our star or sun - Sol - belongs to this generation. It condensed out of a cloud consisting of a mixture of gases and dust and lumps and boulders and perhaps mini-planets some 4.567 billion years ago. Earth was created from the same cloud - not smoke, but cloud - about the same time, but ended up with much more hard elements and much less gases. But the moon - Luna - was made later. One is not quite sure how, but the dominating theory is that Earth collided with a smaller planet, perhaps the size of Mars (which is a lot smaller than Earth), and then the moon condensed out of the debris from that collation. Originally it was much closer to Earth - we have seen numbers as low as 15ooo km (which in case made it circle Earth a more than once a day). But gravity transferred energy from Earth's spin and slowly made it drift away. It still is drifting away a few centimeters (3.8 cm) a year.
There is no scientist who has found this process described in the Quran. There is no Muslim scholar speaking to educated non-Muslims knowing also the Quran, who tries to claim this process is described in the Quran - but perhaps when they are talking to uneducated Muslims?. But there are a lot of little educated Muslims and a lot of refuters who claim that here is the proof for foretelling in the Quran! From the naive and the not educated it may even be honest wishful belief.
Just try yourself to make this reality fit the Qurans story about first the two parts - the claimed 7 heavens on one side, and the Earth (or 7 Earths, 65/12b) on the other - first come together, and then to be split again.
From educated refuters that explanation is not possible unless they know the tale is not true - they at least know where to check if their wishful thinking may be correct or not. But then dishonesty - f.x. al-taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. is not only permitted, but advised in Islam "if necessary" to defend or promote the religion.
We think this point needs no more comments, except that we dare any Muslim - included Mr. Refuter - to tell us where in the Quran the Big Bang and the following creation of our planetary system really is described. And Mr. Refuter: Before you try another bluff, remember that I who write just this know a lot about those things - as you perhaps understand from what I write. Also remember that in spite of your haughty standard words about "he does not know", I know the Quran better than most Muslims - which you also see from our work on the Quran - and I understand the Quran better than most Muslims; so well that I am able to see the difference between what the Quran really says and means, and the ways things are explained away by refuters, and also I know enough about psychology and about human nature to often be able to read what the Quran really says behind the glossy words. There often is a big difference between the glorifying words in the Quran, and the facts it really tells. Because of this my knowledge a bluff has to be very good to make me believe in it. And if you now jump up and scream "boasting", come down to earth: It does not take so much knowledge that there is a reason for boasting, to see these things, not to mention how easy it is to see many of the mistaken facts in the Quran.
That is to say - if one is not going all out to refute (like you promised your questioner) instead of trying to find out what is true and what is not. Then everything one wants to be difficult, is difficult or impossible.
And remember: I dare you and any other Muslim prove to me where the scientific process of Big Bang and the creation of the Sun and Earth is described in the Quran. But proofs, not just claims like one too often meet from Muslims.
The spinning of the Earth
Mr. Refuter claims 39/5 says: "He (Allah*) coils the night onto the day and the day onto the night", and claims this proves that the Quran speaks about the spinning Earth. For one thing a coil is not a spin, and it talks about "movement" of day and night, not of the Earth. But worse is that what 39/5 really says, is: "He (Allah*) makes the Night overlap the Day, and the Day overlap the Night - - -".
The bluff - or al-Taqiyya(?) (lawful lie) - dismissed.
Solomon and the ants.
First we remind you that the Quran several places states that the book has a clear and easy to understand language, and that only the "sick of heart" look for hidden meanings - anomalies, etc. - they are for Allah if not otherwise is said. All the same one of the most often used ways to flee from difficult problems in the Quran, is to claim that "the god was not able to express himself clearly, so that this means something else than what is said - it is a similitude or analogy - and intelligent me will explain to you what the clumsy god was unable to tell himself - - - something entirely different from the mistake he made".
That ants were speaking in the Quran, so obviously is wrong, that there is no other solution than to try to explain it away - so Mr. Refuter uses this well worn claim: "This really means something else than what the omniscient, clumsy god said, and wise me will explain away his mistake". Thus the ant did not vocalize what he said, but transmitted his words in other ways Mr. Refuter does not specify, but he likely meant by smell, as that was mentioned (also it is the only remaining possibility, as there only were 3 possible ways of transmitting information: Sound (impossible here), sight (but ants do not use visible signals for transmitting information), and smell). But he bumps into 3 mistakes: For one thing ants still have too small brains to verbalize - even by smell - coherent sentences. For another when animals - often insects - communicate by means of smelly molecules - pheromones - they only are able to transmit rudimentary messages like "I am here", "I am ready for sex", etc. And finally: Man is not able to smell the pheromones except a few of them, and also then only if there is much of it - and insects do not produce much "smell", but have an exquisite "nose" for their own art's pheromones. (There are insects which can smell one single molecule of a relevant pheromone, and male butterflies which can smell a female "in heat" 10 km off. The human nose is not of that quality and not geared for insect pheromones. Solomon would be totally unable to smell it, and even if it had been possible, no coherent message could have been transmitted.
Fast talk and bluff dismissed - and I dare Mr. Refuter to prove that he is right if he disagrees - proofs, not just cheap words and easy and wrong claims.
The creation of a baby.
Here he first skips the fact that the Quran takes the semen from inside a man's body - like in f.x. Greek science of that time - not from the scrotum. Then he skips the fact that the baby is created when the semen cell and the egg cell fuses together to a zygote. He only starts when this zygote - now a few cells big - inserts itself into the maternal uterus. Because here by accident - or more likely from old knowledge - there is something in the Quran which partly is correct (The old Arabs to a large degree lived mainly or partly from animal production, and from slaughtering they knew a lot of what was and happened inside animals - and humans. Egg cells, semen cells, and early zygotes were too small to be seen in the blood and gore in a carcass, but what happened in the uterus after some time, they knew.) As they knew what happened in the uterus, there is no miracle to that the Quran describes roughly the evolving of a fetus. What is more strange is that in spite of this knowledge, the Quran for one thing reports that the fetus grows in stages, just like f.x. Greek medicine believed - this was the dominant medical "science" at the time of Muhammad - and for another it refers the development of the fetus wrong: It says that an early stage was a clot of blood (though there are translators saying something like Mr. Refuter - a leech-like clot - or things like that, either from another understanding of the indistinct original Arab alphabet - it lacked a number of vowels and points, so one often has to guess the meaning - of from "adjusting" the text to fit modern knowledge) and then it unmistakably says that the bones were made and then clothed with flesh - it is the other way around: The bones grow and solidify inside the flesh.
Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
This is a strange fish in the pond. He read not a little, but his brain was a bit special, to say it like this. His conclusions all too often had little to do with normal evaluation of facts or with the laws of logic. Normal scientists mostly either smile or shrug their shoulders from many of his thoughts and ideas and conclusions. One of the few things which are sure about him, is that persons having to resort to quoting him, tell a lot about themselves and about their lack of real arguments or facts. It also tells not a little about Islam that Muslims quite often quotes him - and without mentioning one word about his reputation, except using his impressive title: Dr. It also is ever so dishonest by you and by each and every Muslim we have met using dr. Bucaille, to use his title as a mark of expertise, without mentioning one word about the fact that he was a doctor of medicine, not of science or astronomy or of anything relevant. He was the family physician of King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, and the physician of other high Muslims. In science he just was an amateur dabbler - which no Muslim mention. As for your strong claim that he was not a Muslim, and that he thus was more reliable, Wikipedia dryly remarks: "Some sources claim he was not a Muslim".
Your refuting of our correct remarks about mistakes in the Quran, also here shows an impressing degree of honesty and reliability.
Anyone is free to check on this information. We do not think quotations from Mr./dr. Bucaille need or deserve any more space. The same really goes for refuters needing to use that kind of "proofs".
Sunup and sundown.
We quote Mr. Refuter: "- - - I find it ludicrous to even contemplate these passages in a literal sense". Then he cannot be much of a Muslim - not even knowing that the Quran several places most clearly states that the language in the book is clear and to be understood like it is said - to search for hidden meanings only is for "the sick of heart" and only for Allah to understand. But as we have mentioned before: To claim that others do not understand is one frequently used way to flee from explaining unexplainable points and mistakes in the Quran. To claim that the clumsy god was unable to express what he meant, is another - in spite of Muhammad's stating that the Quran is "the book which makes things clear", and then to claim Allah's real meaning is something entirely different and hidden in an allegory or something, and that clever refuters wants to correct the mistake the omniscient god made in his unlucky chaise of words - well, this is normal for Muslims (though they say it in less clear words).
Dear Mr. Refuter, we are able to read plain language. We also know how Muhammad's contemporaries understood these verses - and it was not as poetry or mysticism.
Fast talk - and in this case not even good quality, as the mistake is so obvious, that it takes a lot more - and more reliable facts - to explain it away.
As for the "hundreds of verses in the Quran wherein the movement of the sun and other scientific facts are clearly discussed": They are not there. For one thing this is a bluff - there are not hundreds of verses about such topics in the Quran. But worse: If this undocumented claim had been even partly true, we had read about it in scientific textbooks in university. But it only is to be found among little educated Muslims and among Muslim refuters on f.x. Internet. Give those "hundreds of verses" to us, and we will pick them to pieces or explain the scientific reality about it to you - and remember that we know the Quran, so we know what quality we are talking about. Bluffs like this do not impress us.
Why Stars were Created.
Here Mr. Refuter's argumentation so obviously just is fast-talk + the standard claim that the omniscient god believing he used clear language like the Quran many places states, was unable to express himself, and clever humans have to call it a metaphor or something, so as to explain away the silly story - this is so obvious and easy to see, that we do not squander time on it. Yes, and plus the standard: "You do not know or understand" (a small irony here: I who write just this have a measured IQ for what it is worth of 160, and I am widely read as you perhaps have noticed. I understand some things.) Read Mr. Refuter's tale yourself and see. Laugh if you want, though it is impolite.
It at least seems that we - our group - understand the Quran and its clear language much better than Muslims, who in spite of Allah's direct words about that the book shall be understood like it is written if nothing else is indicated, are unable to read the plain text like the Quran itself says, but claims that large parts of the book are allegories, and not mistakes. Are Muslims the "sick at heart"?
The Sun and the Moon are subject to humans?
There is a lot of wrong science above, and here follows even more:
First to clarify something: One thing is that even if Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali also sometimes "stretches" his translations a little to adjust the Quran to modern science and knowledge, he mostly is reliable, and according to Islam/its scholars he also is "one of the three best translators of the Quran to English - perhaps the very best". We also have a Quran with comments in Swedish, translated by a Swede converted to Islam, but still with his old Scandinavian respect for the real truth and for scientific accuracy, so that when there are points where the translation is unsure, he for one thing gives the alternative possible translations, and for another often gives the exact literal translation - also here with alternatives if there are more than one - which there often is in the Quran, as the original Arab alphabet was incomplete (it was not completed until around 900 AD, whereas the Quran was written around 650 AD). We believe more in Mr. Yusuf Ali than in a person who has promised to refute texts many Muslims do not like. We also trust the Swede more - he has proved he mostly is honest. And especially if those two have more or less similar translation, we trust them more than the translations from the mentioned refuter - especially as the refuter on top of all already has showed he uses dishonesty, and for another clearly has proved that in all too many cases he does not know what he is talking about, and all the same has not checked his claims and statements to see if they are true. Or perhaps everything is al-Taqiyya/Kitman? At least some of what he says is impossible he does not know is wrong or does not know he should have checked on it, if he has at least some education - the facts in some cases are too widely known for him not at least to have heard about them.
Thus we believe more in Mr. Yusuf Ali's translation here than in Mr. Refuters - or in Mr. Refuter's choice of translator (there are/have been more than 60 translations to English of the Quran - not all of them good or reliable).
Exact distance from the sun essential?
Then Mr. Refuter gives more wrong scientific information. The sun, Earth and Moon have been ordained to very precise specifications to fit mankind:
If Earth was much closer to the sun than 93 million miles (150 mill. km), the temperature would rise sharply and exterminate all life, he claims. Wrong. The field of possible life around our sun is quite wide. If Earth - Tellus - WITH OUR ATMOSPHERE was placed where Venus is today, the result would be a tropical planet - too hot for comfort at equator, but ok at high latitudes (the reason why Venus is a hot Hell, is not the distance from the sun itself, but that its atmosphere is full of CO2, which retains the heath). And if we placed Earth where Mars is now, still with our atmosphere, it would become an arctic planet, but a wide belt around equator would be habitable.
This is how sharply the temperature would rise or fall, and how exact the distance from the sun has to be.
A "somewhat" smaller Earth?
"If the Earth were somewhat smaller - - - say the size of the moon". Then the Earth would not be "somewhat" smaller, but MUCH smaller - the moon has about 1/16 of the volume of Earth or a bit less, and measurably less than that of the weight (as it has much less of heavy elements), a fact which counts a lot, as there is proportionality between its weight and is gravity. Earth then was no planet any more, but a mini-planet. The claimed effect would be correct, but as a result of a very dramatic reduction in size. The other way life is much more though when it comes to high pressure: It can stand pressure at least up to 1ooo atmospheres (there is life even at the bottom of our deepest oceans, and there the pressure is nearly 1ooo atmospheres). An atmospheric pressure of 1ooo times the one on Earth, indicates a much bigger Earth with a dramatically much deeper atmosphere. So much for the exactly correct size of Earth and the pressure of its atmosphere. And for the indication that the atmospheric pressure relies on the gravity - it relies as much or more on how deep the atmosphere is (forgotten by Mr. Refuter).
A closer moon?
If the moon was closer - tides would destroy the possibility of life. In case it had to be dramatically much closer. The power of gravity falls by the second power of the distance, so that the distance did not have to be all too big before the tide just were an inconvenience, not a prohibition to life on Earth. This fact also is demonstrated by the fact that the distance between the moon and Earth varies from some 363ooo km to some 405ooo km because it is not travelling in a circle - varying more than 40ooo km - without most kinds of life register any difference at all. And if the moon disappeared today, it would have limited effect on the oceans and seas - the tide for one thing just pulls the water a bit back and forth - it is the winds, and salt gradients and temperature gradients in the seawater which drives the great streams in the oceans and seas. Besides there still is the sun to make tides - it just would be once a day instead of twice a day.
Mr. Refuter should avoid topics he does not know - or at least he should check if his beliefs are correct. "These very precise measurements - - -". Well, at least he gives people who know about such things, some good laughs.
A not spinning Earth.
"If the Earth did not spin, it would empty all its waters - - -". Why? Where to?
A fast spinning Earth.
"If the Earth spun much faster (than once in 24 hours*) it would empty its water into space". When the Earth was young, it spun once in every 5 - 6 hours. The oceans still are there. Worse: To launch something into space from Earth, it needs an initial velocity of ca. 11,2 km/sec. + margin for being retarded through the atmosphere. Earth's velocity even at equator is some 1600 km an HOUR = ca. 0.45 km/sec. To get a velocity of 11,2 km/sec. even at equator, Earth must spin roughly once an hour. And the picture is even bleaker, at it only could throw things - included water - tangential to itself ("parallel" to itself at the point of launching to say it like that), and to throw things off tangentially, you need more initial velocity than when it starts vertical to be able to throw it off the planet.
So much for these "narrow margins".
Coils are not spin.
"- - - coils - - -". This wrong claim is commented on further up in this page (coils actually are cork-screws).
Earth's rotation and tilted axis.
About the only correct thing here, is that Earth orbits the sun in a year. The tilting is wrong - it is far below Mr. Refuter's 33 degrees - the correct is 23.5 degrees at present, but it varies slowly over the years. The effect of no tilt is wrong, too. It would give stable temperatures in belts around the globe and larger ice caps at the poles, but in principle that is it. Also remember here that large and thick concentrations of ice are not stable - they float slowly downstream - in these cases towards lower and hotter heights and latitudes and towards - for large areas on Earth - the sea. All water at the poles therefore had not been an option.
Thicker crust.
This claimed danger is dependent on so many "ifs", that I will ask Mr. Refuter to specify under which conditions this is likely to happen? Also: The part which could solidify, is the magma just under the crust. Will he please document that normal magma binds oxygen when it solidifies?
AS YOU SEE ALL THESE POINTS ABOUT LOCAL ASTRONOMY, ETC. ARE SERIOUSLY WRONG - LIKE THE REST OF HIS LACK OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. IT IS TOO TYPICAL FOR MUSLIMS JUST TO THROW OUT CLAIMS AND PRETEND THIS IS THE FULL TRUTH - YOU MEET THIS TECHNIQUE FAR TOO OFTEN. THEN IF THEY ARE PROVED WRONG, THEY JUST DROP IT AND LEAVE, OR DROP IT AND LAUNCH NEW NOT DOCUMENTED CLAIMS. THE BAD THING IS THAT NAIVE OR LITTLE EDUCATED PERSONS OR WISHFUL BELIEVERS OFTEN BELIEVE THEM. AND ALSO: IN ISLAM SUCH LIES ARE NOT SINS - IT IS HONORABLE AND RIGHT TO LIE TO PROMOTE OR DEFEND ISLAM (CFR. AL-TAQIYYA AND KITMAN) "IF LIES ARE NECESSARY OR GIVES A BETTER RESULT" - TO INCLUDE THE BREAKING OF EVEN OATHS ABOUT SPEAKING THE TRUTH.
We further quote Mr. Refuter: "All these precise specifications were referred to in - - -: 'It is He (Allah*) who created the heavens (there are no 7 heavens*) and the Earth in true proportions". One thing is that it is not documented that this - or all this - is what is referred to; it only is a claim. As bad is: As all the references are wrong, what does then this verse prove?
And more: "In that respect, it is evident how the sun, earth, and the moon are ordained by Allah to very precise attributes in service of mankind". But what is it then really evidence of, as all the claimed "very precise attributes" are ever so wrong?
Why mountains were created.
We quote Mr. Refuter: "Only crude hermeneutics would inspire the kind of objections has been raised here - - -". And then he goes on to debate how mountains are made - which is no secret for most educated people. (Though it is a fact that the Quran says they are set down). But the question was "why" - which he just touches, but do not answer: The Quran tells it is to stabilize Earth, and he does not explain one millimeter about how it stabilizes it - fact is that in special cases mountains can be slightly destabilizing.
When you do not like the question, answer about something else.
He also scolds "literalist" reading of the Quran - forgetting that good Muslims several places in the Quran are told that the texts are clear and shall be understood like told = literally. Only those "sick at heart" looks for hidden meanings - analogies, etc. - according to that book, if something else is not specified.
The Moon's light.
Here Mr. Refuter uses a number of words - plus dr. (of medicine) Maurice Bucaille - to explain what is not necessary to explain: That the sun and the moon are different. This even Muhammad saw, and used different words for their effect. But the essential point is that the Quran tells - like Mr. Refuter confirms in his quote of 25/61 - that the moon is "giving light". (We may add that there are worse refuters than Mr. Refuter, as we have met the ones claiming the Quran says the moon reflects light, but such an expression does not exist in the original Arab Quran at all). A god trying to use a clear and not to be misunderstood, precise language, like the Quran claims the language is in the book, and like Muslims claim is a proof for that the Quran is made by a god ("the language in the Quran is so clear and impossible to misunderstand, that only a god can have made it" - such claims you meet every now and then from Islam and its Muslims) - if an omniscient god had written this trying to make such a clear language, he had not here used a word normally used for light sources, but one for reflected light. "Giving light" in normal speech means producing light.
Dr. Bucaille once more.
As for dr. Bucaille - and for the ones so short of witnesses and arguments and facts that they have to use him, not to mention have to use him often - We have clarified his position in the scientific world, and his religion, further up in this page.
Everything created in pairs?
This honestly is a funny one. First Mr. Refuter drops half of the sentence: "- - - that ye (Muhammad and his followers*) may receive instruction" - words which show Allah talks about things Muhammad & Co could learn from (the Quran talked about living things on Earth), and then he drops our whole question/comment, which was about the topic the Quran talked about: Living things on Earth, and their always being in two sexes (which is wrong). Then he starts debating elementary particles in physics, claiming they always come in pairs - particle and anti-particle. Even if this had been true, it had not proved that "everything is created in pairs" and it had told nothing about what Muhammad spoke about; plants and animals, etc. Unluckily for him he does not know much about particle physics, too. We dare him to find an anti-graviton (gravitons transfer gravitation), or an anti- magnet (no, we do not mean + and - magnetism, as those are two effects of the same particle - mono-magnets do not exist. We mean the particle which transmits anti-magnetism. Or what about anti-Higgs boson (well, to be a little fair, also not the normal Higgs boson is found).
A well known technique of debate: If you have no answer, debate something else.
But as we have indicated, we are little impressed by bluffs. And this even more so when the man clearly shows he does not know what he is talking about. Not to mention a man so "smart" that he leaves the relevant subject for another, not relevant, but cherry-picked subject which in no case can prove the original point - - - and then on top of all stumbles head along into blemishes from lack of knowledge even about his cherry-picket subject.
He produces strong profs for the Quran, yes; but for that it is wrong, not for that any points - even his chosen points - are right.
Matter/anti-matter.
And as if his revealing lack of knowledge about quantum physics was not enough, he stumble as much head along in normal physics. He gives a correct description of the main properties on matter and anti-matter - except that not for all particles there has been found an anti-particle. But then he continues that anti-matter until recently only was theoretical stuff, as it never was produced in laboratories. Anti-matter has been a physical reality for at least a couple of generations - and produced and measured in many a cyclotron many places in the industrialized world, and for all we know also in less industrialized parts - it is daily food in advanced physical science and has been for a long time (we think the first was produced in 1932). The only thing which is new, is that in this new and very big and international machine on the border of Switzerland and France, one now are able to produce not only atomic particles of anti-matter, but full anti-hydrogen atoms (hydrogen atoms are the smallest of atoms) and even anti-heliom4 (helium 4 = normal helium). That is to say, they have for some years been able to produce anti-hydrogen, but have been unable to stabilize it, and it has been annihilated at once. Some time ago they for the first time were able to stabilize we think it was 38 molecules - out of some million created ones.
The claim that 51/49 talks about quantum physics, is so far into fairy tale land, that we do not bother to comment on it. Especially as the claim comes from a stated refuter who thoroughly has proved he knows more or less nothing about quantum physics.
The Samaritan.
First thing first: Mr. Refuter jokes about the "mistake" that the Bible can be more reliable that the Quran, and that the fact that it is much older can have any weight. If Mr. Refuter had known anything at all about historical science, he also had known that age may count much for the reliability of a historical book. The reason is that the written word is much more stable than memory and the spoken word. And if something is written down shortly after it happened, it is far more likely to be correct, than if it was written down 100 or 1000 or 2000 years later. And coincidence did that the first written Jewish books were written around or a bit before the time Samaria was founded - around 800 BC, and Samaria was founded a small century later, and as it was founded by a king, it was written down in the books: King Omri of Israel (the northern country) founded Samaria in 722 BC. That there are speculations about if the year is correct, is a fair deal, but there never was a reason to falsify it (only Muslims have a reason for doing that - to make the Quran lose one mistake). Also if Mr. Refuter wants to claim the year is wrong, it is for him to prove it - but prove, not only throw around claims like he does here, like he does other placed, and like is one of the standard ways for Muslims to debate, especially when they want to explain away mistakes in the Quran - we meet the method all too often.
And what is absolutely sure is that the relevant claimed Shamari in the story about the Exodus in the Quran, was not from Samaria. For one thing it happened 600 years too early according to the books, and that much the writers were not wrong (Islam even wants Exodus to have happened earlier to camouflage another mistake in the Quran - Pharaoh Ramses II did not drown). And for another they were refugees coming out of Egypt, not from Israel (or Canaan to be correct - there were no Jews there yet). Mr. Refuter also states - likely correct - that people lived in the area before that. But his is irrelevant for the point, because the point is that the name Samarians could not exist until the name was coined - there existed no Samarians until Samaria got its name.
Gospel at the time of Moses.
For once it is possible you are right on a point. This part of the Quran is about Moses, but the Quran is so helter-skelter constructed, that there suddenly can be a verse about Muhammad in another context. We will look into this when we make the last look into
http://www.1000mistakes.com next year. If it is wrong, it will be corrected - and congratulations to you in case, because it in case is the first mistake Muslims and Islam has found in "1000+ Mistakes in the Quran" except wrong spellings, etc. Luckily it in case only is a historical detail, not anything of any religious consequences.
It also is interesting to see that you claim the correct translation is not "unlettered" (Muhammad hardly was unlettered according to science and also according to Hadiths), as Muslims often try to use the claim that Muhammad was analphabetic to "prove" he could not have made the Quran (nonsense as a proof anyhow). There is a difference between "unlettered" (= analphabetic) and Gentile (= non-Jew). But like always we will have to check it - it is a nice point - as Muslim sources too often "bend" the truth to make the Quran sound true. And in this case the source already has proved such tendencies and more.
That it is confirmed in 7/158 counts little - too much is wrong in the Quran (f.x. what you mention that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible - the only place where he is mentioned in the Bible, is in the Quran).
Haman.
The general agreement in science is that Haman of Pharaoh Ramses II of Egypt (ruled ca. 1279 to 1213 BC) is the same person in the Quran as Haman of Xerxes I of Persia (ruled ca. 486 to 465 BC) some 700 - 800 years later. If you disagree, please
