I apologise beforehand for any unintentional mistakes that I may make in the following posts.
@Brother Osama,
I appreciate the link, it provided me with possible refutations to the claims of some Islam critics.
@StardustyPsyche,
I stayed away from commenting because I don’t believe there is much I can do to convince you.
- “… I did not notice you make any specific claims of a scientific miracle in the Qur'an.”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “An extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment”
Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracleI belong to the group of Muslims who believe that the primary “miraculous” thing about the Qur’an, in the context of Science, is that modern science sustains the claims made in the Qur’an and does not contradict them. From what I know, no ancient text does that. The individual “scientific” claims are of a secondary nature because the Qur’an was never claimed to be a book of Science but rather a book of “signs”. For some people they are enough to validate Islam and for others, at the very least, they serve as points of interest or curiosity to make people perform deeper research into the religion.
- “What is a scientific miracle in an ancient text?
First let me say what it is not:
A statement that could have been a simple observation available at that time…”
Who is to say what was a “simple observation” and what wasn’t? This is an especially subjective requirement. If it cannot be proven or disproven that a particular statement was a “simple observation”, the next step is to determine how likely it would’ve been for a person to make that “simple observation”. The discussion becomes a matter of probabilities.
As I mentioned before, all life created from water is not a simple observation. The observation that species known to 7th century humans, required water to survive does not naturally lead to the claim that all life is created from water.
- “… A vague statement that is open to multiple interpretations as may be conveniently fit into facts found out later, as is commonly a tactic used by so called psychics…”
All living things are created from water, as I mentioned before, this is not a vague statement. From what I understand, probably the only two things it can mean is that either all living things have water as a constituent of their physical bodies or in some distant past water, probably along with some other constituents, was the starting point of life. The former point is proved by the existence of water in all living cells, the later possibility is something, if I understand correctly, the theory of evolution indirectly states (I’m among those Muslims who don’t see Islamic doctrine to be contradicting evolution, at-least not unequivocally).
Just in case, you still try to argue that this particular claim is vague, you will be committing the Special Pleading fallacy because you had no problem with its “vagueness” when you were trying to push it as a scientific mistake in the Qur’an. In other words, it would mean that the Qur’an is only vague when it confirms Science but not when it appears to contradict it.
- “… Statements that are incorrect in their most direct meaning and can at most be considered possible if a very broad interpretation is used…”
What exactly is the “most direct meaning”? Again a very subjective requirement. If Islamic traditions are cherry-picked then I’m sure hundreds of “contradictions” can be found. This is not a fault with the Qur’an but with the subjective reasoning of the people trying to interpret it with their recognized or unrecognized biases.
As with the water example, the “most direct meaning” for some people is indeed a scientific mistake but for students of critical reasoning and logical arguments fallacies, it isn’t.
- “… A statement written as a prediction but actually addressing events prior the writing of the earliest extant copy of the alleged prediction.”
This requirement has more to do with subjectivity in the present context than to being an objective requirement in all situations. The non-existence of the first copies of the Qur’an today does not mean that the Qur’an simply didn’t exist in that time. For example, if two editions of a book come out with a difference of a decade and after some time all the first editions are lost or destroyed and only the second edition remains in circulation it would be a fallacious argument to claim that the first edition never existed or that the author’s ideas belonged to the time of the second edition and not the first.
One has to have extensive knowledge on this issue before he/she can claim that the Qur’an came after the predicted events. Numerous arguments have been made in support of the concept of preservation of the Qur’an. A huge amount of literature has been penned down regarding it, so I won’t get into that. I will just quote Assistant Professor Joseph E. B. Lumbard on this:
…For the Sana’a manuscripts, it reveals occasional variations in the ordering of the sūrahs (or chapters) of the Quran, and slight variations in reading that correspond to the variations that had been preserved in the extensive Islamic material detailing variant readings of the Quran. But all of these variations had already been and recorded in the Islamic historiographical tradition. In other words, analysis of the “under text” confirms the accuracy of early Islamic historiography.
This changes the field of Quranic Studies because it provides empirical support for the accuracy of the traditional Islamic accounts that many western scholars have previously claimed to be anachronistic and unreliable, such as the existence of variant manuscripts of the Quran before the collation of the text in 650. Furthermore, statistical analysis of the variants within the earliest manuscripts suggests that the final version that came to be the accepted text of the Quran “is overall a better reproduction of the common source.” Even minor textual variations that were reported by early Islamic scholars and transmitted in the Quranic commentary tradition find substantiation in the “under text” of the earliest manuscripts of the Quran.
In addition, recent studies have demonstrated that the earliest Islamic literature on variant readings of the Quran is for the most part reliable and that the historicity of the received data is, as Michael Cook of Princeton University observes, “a testimony to the continuing accuracy of the transmission of the variants.” Such findings correspond with the most recent anthropological studies that confirm the historical reliability of oral transmission traditions.”
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-e-b-lumbard/new-light-on-the-history-_b_7864930.htmlWhen you later on forwarded the idea that the Qur’an might not have been preserved, I was kind of astonished that, the reasoning you gave for this assertion is that this is a circular reasoning. Seriously? Do you actually believe that the only reason – billions of Muslims throughout the centuries have, and still do, believe in the preservation of the Qur’an – is just because the Qur’an says so?
As I said above, a huge amount of literature and scholarly work has been done on this, go through that before flat out rejecting things.
- “… A numerological association that could have been intentionally constructed by human beings deeply dedicated to such a task.”
As I mentioned before, pretty much any numerical association that can be discovered can be claimed to have been intentionally inserted by humans, there isn’t much that can be done about that. In such cases, it becomes a matter of how likely such a happening was, in which case a higher level of understanding of surrounding factors is important. The ones I’ve mentioned already in addition to several others, in my opinion point towards these associations being: “An extremely outstanding or unusual event”.
Additionally, as Brother Osama pointed out the present Qur’anic text that has been used to calculate these numerical associations didn’t exist fourteen centuries ago. How could’ve Prophet Muhammad been able to insert sensitive numerical associations, like the ones based on the number of letters, in a text that was going to evolve over the centuries.
An example regarding this evolution of written text is in the obsolete spelling of the English word “sonne” for either “son” or “sun”.
Source:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sonneAs you can see the pronunciation and the meaning of the word remained the same but the spelling or the number of characters in the word changed. If I remember one particular article correctly, a similar evolution was also observed for the Arabic written text. The worst-case theory is that this is just a co-incidence which in-turn is contradicted by the fact of huge quantities of these associations. I personally haven’t compared the different written scripts so I can’t discuss how likely or unlikely is the “950 letters” association.
- “Here are a few examples invented for the purposes of illustration:
Gabriel told me today to recite for all the world to hear that there are 92 fundamental atoms to be discovered on this Earth, and 5 of them are essential to the construction of a structure within our bodies too small for us to see, yet it contains the instructions needed to construct each of us.”
First of all, from what I’ve read and if I understand you correctly, there are definitely more than 92 fundamental (which I’m assuming means naturally occurring) elements on Earth. Regarding your point, whatever the number God would have told the Prophet it would’ve remained unprovable until all material from all over the world had been scientifically analysed which if I’m not mistaken is pretty much impossible at-least up till now. Also, again the argument could’ve been made on what is the definition of “essential” in the above paragraph. Does it include only elements that contribute directly, or are indirectly contributing substances also incorporated? Additionally, as we know that because of fission through the process of “Nuclear transmutation” atoms of one type can change to a different type, it can be argued that technically, in essence a lesser number of elements or even just one is “essential” for this purpose.
Furthermore, it can also be easily claimed that because all animals and plants come from previous animals and plants respectively, it was, what was that term you used, “a simple observation available at that time”.
- “Gabriel told me to tell you folks that diseases such as smallpox and the common cold are caused, not by demons, but by tiny creatures that are too small for us to see. When these tiny unseen creatures invade our bodies we become sick.”
First of all there is enough evidence to show that Prophet Muhammad didn’t believe diseases were caused by demons and neither did, at-least the majority of, his companions.
Abu Hurayrah narrates that The Prophet pbuh said:
“There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its remedy.”
Bukhari 7.582
Usamah ibn Shuraik narrated:
“… ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Should we seek medical treatment for our illnesses?’ He replied: ‘Yes, you should seek medical treatment, because Allah, the Exalted, has let no disease exist without providing for its cure, except for one ailment, namely, old age’.”
Tirmidhi
Source:
http://www.fiqh.org/2009/04/every-illness-has-a-cure-the-islamic-perspective/And it is interesting that you talked about smallpox because Muhammad ibn Zakariya ar-Razi (Rhazes) a Persian scientist’s “work on smallpox and measles was one of the first scientific treatments of infectious diseases.”
Source:
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/smallpox-12000-years-terror.htmlMoving on to your point, once again the argument of “a simple observation available at that time” can be made. A tapeworm in a human can range in length from 1/250 of an inch (.0063 cm) to an incredible 50 feet (15.23 meters).
Source:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/27/the_odd_body_tapeworm/Furthermore, their eggs also find their way out of the bodies of animals through excretions. So, all a person had to do was examine the insides of some animal or their excretion to be able to deduce that tiny organisms can invade our bodies and make us sick. And using the incorrect inference fallacy, your “scientific miracle” would actually be a mistake because “when these tiny unseen creatures invade our bodies” it is not necessary for us to get sick. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t.
- “Gabriel told me to say to everybody that the points of light in the night sky are just like our sun, but a thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand paces distant, except the wandering lights that shine with a steady light, which are actually worlds like our own Earth. All these worlds and our earth move around the sun in orbits with the fundamental shape of a curve that is expressed as x divided by a times x divided by a plus y divided by b times y divided by b all to equal one.”
Once again, I can claim things faraway look smaller and it would’ve been “a simple observation available at that time” to claim that stars are faraway “suns”. That there is a difference between the “twinkling” and “non-twinkling” dots in the night sky was also “a simple observation available at that time”.
“Planets, on the other hand, are observed to move in very complicated paths with respect to the background stars, sometimes even appearing to go "against the grain" and reverse their directions. Therefore, they are easily distinguishable from stars if you look at the sky night after night.
There are other observational differences between planets and stars too, by the way -- such as the fact that planets almost never twinkle.”
Source:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/58-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/planet-watching/255-what-is-the-observational-difference-between-a-star-and-a-planet-beginnerBrother Osama believes that the Qur’an does talk about the curved path of heavenly bodies in his article:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/detailed_meanings_of_scientific_words_in_verses.htm- “Gabriel gave me another message for you folks that energy equals mass times the speed of light times the speed of light. I have no idea what that means but he said one day humanity will understand it and use it to build weapons of terrible destructive power.”
First of all God doesn’t have to include any scientific prediction in the Qur’an, as I mentioned before it is never claimed that the Qur’an is a book of Science. Besides even if this was included there would’ve still been lots of people who wouldn’t have believed.
Coming back to your point, this contradicts your own understanding of the Qur’an when you wrote “…the notion that Allah was presumably speaking eternal truths for all men of all times to come”. If people had absolutely no idea of what was being talked about wouldn’t that go against the concept of “for all men of all times”?
- “As for what convinced me there is no god I would like to emphasize your well-chosen words, that I am convinced. I do not make the strong claim of being able to absolutely prove there is no god, since I am unable to prove the universal negative… I was 12 and in the many years since I have continually reexamined my adolescent self-realization of the absence of any god…”
Atheism:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “A disbelief in the existence of deity” or “The doctrine that there is no deity”
Oxford Dictionary: “A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods” or “A person who believes that God does not exist”
Sources:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheisthttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/atheist Agnostic:
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “A person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not.”
Therefore, if you cannot prove that there is no God then, strictly speaking, logic dictates, if I’ve got my definitions correct, that you define yourself as more of an agnostic than an “atheist”.
- “I am not sure if As'salamu Alaikum is the correct form as a valediction so I will close in my own vernacular…”
"Assalamu alaikum" means "Peace be with you". It is an Arabic phrase, from what I understand, there is nothing wrong in its use by non-Muslims.
