In response to Ali Sina’s article “The World’s Greatest Showman”: “World's Greatest Jester”.

…grammatical errors of his book.

Answer:

Readers! First of all it is very inane to solicit a proof of an event or a miracle that had occurred in the past. We could only find such claims in history or in books. We cannot carry out those miracles in modern age in order to defend our claims. The only imperative thing for Ali Sina to discern is people practicing major religions have faith in miracles. Also he does not have any proof to show that miracles were not transpired in the past but just only to provide what his minuscule mind deems and what science has to say. I am posing him a counter question if he can endow me with a proof where he can illustrate us that miracles were not happening in the past. I would advise him just not to utter straight that miracles are nothing but fairy tales without any “EVIDENCE”.

Secondly, miracle may not be an assessment if a person is authentic or not since they were performed by loads of people in many religions like Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. Similarly, how can one verify a person, genuine, if he is performing miracles?

We Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) performed many miracles. However, we do not boast about them since the only verification we can provide you, are from the Holy Scriptures upon which people like Ali Sina do not have reliance. The only living miracle we boast about is the Holy Quran. And I will not ask him to outdo the Quranic challenge of producing a some what similar chapter like Quran, because I do really think that he is not competent enough. However, challenge is still open for the whole humanity.

Christianity and Islam are the two major religions in the world and they both have their beliefs in miracles, and from some where in the dark, populace like him roll up alongside and start disseminating in opposition to miracles. Isn't it fooling enough that he is negating something on "NO EVIDENCE" in hand. Let him produce the proof if he is authentic. Prove me miracles do not exist?

I will later rebut his article on “Muhammad disclaimed being able to perform any miracles.”

Insha Allah, I will ascertain Quran to be the word of Allah by His blessings and grace in this paper.

Yet again that is Ali Sina’s postulation that non-Muslims do not aver Quran to be the finest Arabic literature and he supposed that if they believed in this why they don’t convert. For example; if I declare that King James Version of the Bible has the very best English Literature, does it mean I believe in Christianity or I am a Christian? Answer is “NO”. And it is true that I take pleasure in reading King James Version and in my outlook it is much superior in terms of literature than any other versions of the Bible. Similarly the non-Muslim Arabic speaking people can find Quran to be the best Arabic Literature. What so astounding about it? We are not imposing them to adapt Islam first and then testify the Quranic Literature. That’s mere stupidity from Ali Sina.

And on what scale he is concluding Quran to be not the best of Arabic Literature. Does he have any other High-Rank Arabic Literature available from where he can judge Quran’s Arabic? If he produces such a book he will be able to trounce the challenge of Quran where it inquires for a some what similar chapter like it’s.

If he has it, then present it? Because of some imprudent non-Arab non-Muslims allegedly found some grammatical mistakes in Quran, he is pronouncing that Quran does not have best of Arabic Literature. That’s mere idiocy again from Ali Sina.

I am posting here a few quotations from non-Muslims admiring Quran to be of the best Arabic Literature.

- Goethe – quoted in T. P. Huges “Dictionary of Islam”, page 526:

“It soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence... Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand - ever and always, truly sublime - So, this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence."

- G. Maragliouth in his Introduction to J. M. Rodwells - `The Koran`, New York - `Everyman’s Library, 1977, page VI:

“The Koran (Qur'an) admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though it is the youngest of the epoch making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of Muslims world wide which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the East have to reckon with today."

- Dr. Steingass quoted in T. P. Hughes - `Dictionary of Islam`, pages 256-257:

“A work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotions even in the distant reader - distant as to time, and still more so as mental development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance which he may begin its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admiration, such a work must be a wonderful production...
indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of the destinies of mankind."

“Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen.

If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history"

- Dr. Maurice Bucaille – author of `The Bible, the Quran and Science` 1978, page 125:

“It is impossible that Muhammad, peace be upon him, authored the Qur'an. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?
How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human-being could possibly have developed at that time, an all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"

- Arthur J. Arberry - `The Koran Interpreted`, London: Oxford University Press, 1964, page x:

“In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind..
This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony', as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy' has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original.."

Readers! I will pose the same argument as mentioned above. Ali Sina and his disciples managed to have allegedly found only 18 grammatical mistakes out of thousands of verses. Wow, what an achievement. Parenthetically, this is not the theme under discussion. I will certainly reply some other time regarding all the grubby things he has stated above (insha Allah). In future, my counsel to him is to affix to the topic and do not go astray.

Regarding scientific errors, readers can find my replies further down the document.

Einstein’s Religiosity:

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) let us analyze whether the Quran is compatible…

…which is a blind religion that opposes science.

Answer:

Readers! Yes, Ali Sina is right over here. Albert Einstein was not speaking a propos to Islam when he avowed this citation. Neither did Dr. Zakir Naik connote Islam when he presented Einstein’s quotation. It is Ali Sina who is hypocrite and dupe by relating Einstein’s quotation to Islam. He does not seem to be able to judge the hidden truth.

Dr. Zakir Naik was just merely presenting a quotation of Albert Einstein and it can be referred to any religion. Solely, it doesn’t have to be Islam. He was just revealing people the relation between religion and science in the words of Albert Einstein.

Regarding other craps Ali Sina inscribed in his arguments where he mocks Islam in relation to Science, I will deal with it in this discussion insha Allah.

Big Bang in the Quran?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) As far as Qura’n and modern science is…

…and both are scientifically wrong.

Answer:

Readers! How can be the story of Adam and Eve false if Big Bang theory is true? I again sense hoodwink in Ali Sina’s arguments. Again story of Adam & Eve is out of this discussion, however, I am still retorting subjects like Evolution and Big Bang in this dialogue as they were also stated by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech.

It seems his concept is pointing towards the theory of evolution. If I disprove theory of evolution then by design (as set by Ali Sina) Big Bang and story of Adam and Eve befall to be true. This is what I assumed from what he had written in his post.

If he is really using theory of evolution to prove the story of Big Bang and Adam & Eve, then please bear in mind that he can nevertheless prove it by putting himself as an example; because he deems like an ape and he comports himself like an ape. And confidently he could start from his good self a new evolution of people with brains like apes.

In order to prove his testimonies he has to answer following questions:

1. Prove “Theory of Evolution” as a universal fact?

2. Prove that how complex living cells transform to high-order species by random mutation as postulated by Darwin and his followers?

3. As DNA is unique for each type of a living species, prove that how can it be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species?

4. Prove how the living cells of a species spontaneously combine to form the more complex organized structures such as a single DNA molecule?

Chemically, amino acids and other basic compounds cannot be artificially organized into the smallest unit of DNA. DNA, unique for each type of a living species, cannot be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species. Any such manipulation could only interfere with its functioning but not with its identity. Hence, genetically, evolution is basically impossible.

Thermodynamically, all matter, if left alone, tends to get more disorganized. Hence, chemical molecules could not, on their own, combine to form the more complex organized structures such as a single DNA molecule. Similarly, the living cells of a species cannot spontaneously evolve into a more complex organized species.

Natural selection, one of the pillars of the evolution myth, cannot produce a higher-order species from a simpler one. If a species fails to adapt to its surrounding environment, this would either lead to extinction or to modification of its behavior and function, but could never change its identity to another.

This tarnished theory is greatly applauded by atheists and materialist cultures which is a dogma far from being a possibility and is much less a scientific fact. Disguised in attire of science and propagated by populace like Ali Sina and his disciples who tend to conceal its frailties until it permeated into the intellects of population.

It’s lucid that Ali Sina’s approach to prove something is so obscure and perplexing to the readers in finding out the truth. He seldom endows evidences when lay allegations against Quran. If some how he quotes a verse thinking that it will defend his intellect, then he only produces his self-crafted smeared terminologies as proofs that just do not make any impression usually. Or may be he lacks knowledge of Holy Scriptures, their eloquence and exquisiteness of lexis and how they should be inferred.

If he destined evolution in his inquiry with the intention of deterring the theory of Big Bang and Adam & Eve, I be inclined to tell him that I have proven evolution to be a sham and thus alongside also proven the story of Big Bang and Adam & Eve to be veritable.

Readers! Concerning Quranic verse 21:30 and Genesis verse 1:6-9, Ali Sina alleged that this Quranic verse has rehashing of the Genesis. It’s like he is alleging the notion that Quran in many places states “not to kill innocent” and Bible also refers the similar idea, and subsequently he concluded straight away that Quran has really plagiarized the verse from the Bible. It’s specious. Like for example;

“And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden…” (Quran 17:33)

“…Do not kill…” (Mark 10:19)

There is a high possibility that Bible has a few verses which can be analogous in Quran also. That does not make Quran fallible. If bible is aiming to a correct scientific fact or terminology, so does Quran too.

Similarly, there are numerous verses in Quran that portray alike occurrences in different ways as judged against Bible. Like for example the birth of Jesus, Quran explains the birth of Jesus this way:

"O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is! (Quran 3:47)

And Bible gives you a diverse perception of the birth of Jesus Christ:

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35 – KJV)

Readers! I expect you perceive the disparity now. Quran speaks about How Allah has created Jesus, “He wills it and thing comes into being”. And in Bible’s words, Holy Ghost (a.k.a God) sired Marry. (Astaghfurullah)

How sightless Ali Sina is in faith that he cannot not even perceives the creation of Jesus as mentioned in the Bible, is so in exact opposite those of Quran and populace still allege Quran to be forged from the Bible. How can Quran rule out such a grand testimony of the Bible upon which the whole “Christian-dom” lays? Quran is not the by-product of Bible, Ali Sina; I am pronouncing again Quran is not made-up from the Bible.

Readers! As said by Ali Sina that Quranic verse 21:30 has a rehashing of Genesis 1:6-9. Evidently, no where in Genesis Chapter 1 (Whole Chapter) has an allusion that heavens and the earth were “joined together” and they were “separated” later. Let’s read verse 1:

“In the beginning God created heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Whereas the Quranic verse 21:30 clearly states that heavens and the earth were joined together and Allah separated them; this harmonizes with science. How can this be a rehashing of Genesis 1? The truth is distinct and if Ali Sina still cannot perceives it then he must have a serious problem with his intelligence.

Ali Sina said, “The Quran is full of legends borrowed from the Bible and fables of Pagan Arabs”. He put forth no evidence but just only myths of ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. I want him to show me evidence of such myths in Quran. I do not know why he wrote such myths in his arguments and how did he link them with Quran. This is just only his daydreaming and distraction.

Of course both the “stories” are precise. Ali Sina appears like a lunatic in the statement he made about two stories. There are several modes according to my insight to probe these two verses.

Condensing:

Let’s read verse Quranic 41:11:

“He directed Himself to the heaven when it was smoke (or gas), so He said unto it and unto the earth: Come ye together (or both), willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come in willing obedience."

It is not therefore difficult to distinguish that if it was Gas then coming together means condensing. This harmonizes with Astronomical Theory. It is wonder that the critic does not take the words literally and object to the heaven and earth replying in Arabic. Willingness in the above implies that they obeyed their own nature rather than having external coercive force acting on them.

Obedience:

Readers! You can also predict that prior to Big Bang when heaven was a smoke; earth still subsisted in the divine knowledge of Allah. Hence, in this verse Allah is only inquiring their submission mutually to His command, and they both replied certainly. This is an alternative way of understanding. (Allah indeed knows the best).

Ali Sina is such hoodwink. I want him to show me where this verse reveals that heaven and the earth were apart and Allah commanded them to come toward each other to be “together” or to be “joined” (as mentioned by him in his post). “Together” also means “In somebody’s company”.

Come in to being:

Translation by M. Asad literally states the creation of the Universe:

“And He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke; and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, Come [into being], both of you, willingly or unwillingly! – to which both responded, We do come in obedience.”

Explaining this passage, Zamakhshari observes: "The meaning of God’s command to the skies and the earth to ‘come’, and their submission [to His command] is this: He willed their coming into being, and so they came to be as He willed them to be and this is the kind of metaphor (majaz) which is called ‘allegory’ (tamthil). Thus, the purport [of this passage] is but an illustration (taswir) of the effect of His almighty power on all that is willed [by Him], and nothing else." (It is obvious that Zamakhshari’s reasoning is based on the oft-repeated Quranic statement, "When God wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, ‘Be’ - and it is.") Concluding his interpretation of the above passage, Zamakhshari adds: "If I am asked about the meaning of [the words] ‘willingly or unwillingly’, I say that it is a figurative expression (mathal) indicating that His almighty will must inevitably take effect."

Now we analyze Quranic verse 21:30:

"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then we clove them asunder . . ."

Therefore the heaven and the earth were fused mutually (as mentioned by Ali Sina) and afterward Allah detached them. This is what unerringly Big Bang theory states in a nutshell.

Readers! This time I will present different acuity of these two verses. As you are aware that Big Bang is an established scientific fact as posed by Ali Sina in his article as well, and Quranic verse 21:30 clearly cites the course in a nutshell. Right now the question arises that what was prior to the Big Bang? What was before when heaven was a smoke? These questions were asked from several renowned scientists and they provided the following answers:

- Nobel Prize winning Physicist Leon Lederman said; “Well, the first thing is there's no 'before.' Because time itself, as far as we understand time, was generated—and space—at the Big Bang.” (Taken from http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=7)

- Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at University of Chicago said; “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we're still looking for the match," (Taken from an article written by Dennis Overbye in New York Times, May 22, 2001 - http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm)

- Karen Masters, PhD from Cornell and now a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said; “We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.” (Taken from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=364)

- Craig Hogan at the University of Washington said; “No one could really know. All memory of that time is lost, everything from then is forgotten. That was a period of such catastrophic instability that it just doesn't remember what came before it. We probably could never find out, either. There just isn't any information left over from it." (Take from http://www1.cac.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march96/universe1.html)

Here, I have quoted authorities who are stumbling in finding what was there actually before Big Bang. They have no clues and no routes from where to initiate in order to decipher this mystery until this time. If we situate Quranic verse 41:11 ahead of Quranic verse 21:30 in the course of creation process, then there is no way Ali Sina can prove that Quranic verse 41:11 is contrary to established scientific fact, since, there is not a record regarding what was there earlier than Big Bang and when heaven was smolder. May be there were planets before big bang, then they were joined together and afterward Allah separated them. Who knows? However, Allah indeed knows the best.

Therefore, lay the sketch of creation of universe this way "heaven was a smoke (Quranic verse 41:11), and earth was existed in Allah's divine knowledge, and He inquired both of them for their compliances (in taking form), which they acknowledged, and afterward He separated them (Quranic verse 21:30 - Big Bang)."

Let’s beat Ali Sina more with his own stick. If he discards M. Asad’s translation of Quranic verse 41:11 and acquires the words literally, then he has to tell me where does in the verse stated that Allah has actually declared the creation of Universe (when it referred to) concerning heaven and earth to come together? He is creating his own suppositions that Allah has referred to the creation of the Universe in this verse. Again he is deceiving himself and other people. According to my understanding Allah is only speaking about state of the Universe as a gas in the first part of the verse. (Allah knows the best). And the second part pursued by Quranic verse 21:30 both are explain by Dr. Maurice Bucaille in his book; “The basic process in the formation of the universe . . . lay in the condensing of material in the primary nebula followed by its division into fragments that originally constituted galactic masses. The latter in their turn split up into stars that provided the sub-product of the process, i.e. the planets" (p.149). Thus, Ali Sina has to direct me now, should I trust French Scientist Dr. Maurice Bucaille of great repute or a nut-head like him?

I am giving him an opportunity to controvert me. Show me any established scientific fact that can put in plain words what was there prior to Big Bang? If he couldn’t come across anything then he has to accept Quranic verse 41:11 as it is, because if he cannot ascertain anything logically then he does not have any authority to negate it.

Does the Quran say the Sun and the Moon Revolve Around Their Own Axis?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) When I was in school…

…read any of his filthy books”.

Answer:

The Quranic verse in question:

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

Readers! The Arabic word referring to a movement with a self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (يسبحون "yasbahun" in the text of the verse). All the senses of the verb imply a movement that is associated with a motion that comes from the "BODY IN QUESTION". If the movement takes place in water, it is ‘to swim’; it is ‘move by the action of one’s own legs if it takes place on land'. For a movement that occurs in space, it is intricate to see how else this meaning implied in the word could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons:

- The moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 29.5 days (approx).

- The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis.

Let’s scrutinize the translations Ali Sina quoted from different authors: Every translation mentions that they are either floating, swimming, traveling, gliding, or moving in their OWN orbit, rounded course, celestial spheres, sky, axis or orb. An object can move in two different ways, one; when it is advancing forward on a defined axis and actually revolving in a circular fashion, second; when it rotates on a single point or axis with its own motion. The latter is what the word ‘yasbahun’ and translation stand.

Here is another proof; the Arabic word utilized in this verse is فلك, which connotes "just rounded" and not "circular course", attesting that Quran is not conversing about circular motion around a body, however, speaking about rounded motion of a body on its own axis.

Ali Sina said, “The word here implies that the Sun and the Moon rotate in circle; i.e. around the Earth and not around their own axis”. This time I will draw a different approach and ascertain my point yet again. For the sake of argument, I will assent that this precise Quranic verse (purportedly) represents that the Sun and the moon rotate in circular course; however, where does it states that they rotate around the earth (as brought up by Ali Sina)? He is planting his own words in Quran. Next time, Ali Sina should concretely establish his supposition by producing evidence devoid of any obscure and erroneous implies of his lewd intellect.

Surely he cannot accomplish that, and surely this verse doesn't state that Sun and the moon rotate around earth in circular motion. Likewise, no where this verse states the Arabic word for Earth i.e. ارض, yet again confirming that he is hypocrite.

Sill we Muslims and forever can bear out to facilitate this verse is scientific. However, he cannot prove it to be against established Science ever, as they (non-Muslims) do not posses any supportive facts and wiles in opposition to Quranic verse 21:33.

Therefore, Alhumdullillah, the Quranic verse 21:33 fittingly point out the movement of the Sun and the moon on their own axis on the word of the established scientific fact.

Now, it was not Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), on the contrary, it is Ali Sina who distorts the terms and manipulates them so that they can fit in his minuscule wits. If he cannot comprehend the Quran then it does not portend that Quran is in error, it is due to his deficiency of erudition and understanding of the scriptures. He has on no account given Quran recognition and gratitude as it should be given, however it was given by populace, and they are still giving.

Ali Sina demanded, why the Quranic language is not so clear and why all the miracles attributed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) are not clear? This is another topic and it is not allied to what we are conferring over here. I will riposte under some other topic.

Readers! Do not imply that I cannot counter; however, it seems he has an infirmity of going off trail of what is being discussed in the subject. If you consider the other face of it, it is a very fine tactic of bewildering and deceiving readers. It is like burdening and bombarding the readers on and on with irrelevant facts and terminologies, making eventually the original subject matter goes astray and readers start thinking about new stuff and totally forget about what was being discussed at initial. My counsel to Ali Sina is to stay on the topic and not to fool around. I will deal with his allegations some other time insha Allah.

Does the Quran say the Universe is Expanding?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered…

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/does-musiun-means-expanding/

…To us it looks very small.

Answer:

Translation of Quranic verse 51:47 by M. Asad:

“AND IT IS We who have built the universe with our [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.” (Quran 51:47)

This translation is adequate to shut Ali Sina’s befoul mouth once and for all. However, if he requires some more information a propos to this verse then he should stop at this site for an in depth response of his inane inquiry. His discretion is required here as he is been offended and embarrassed as the ignorant of the Arabic language in the following article.

Excerpts from above link which is written by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi:

“It has come to our attention that Avijit Roy, webmaster of the Mukto Mona website, wrote an article titled “Does the Quran Have any Scientific Miracles?” One portion of the article on the subject to Sura’ Az-Zaariyaat is worth commenting on, as it is an exhibition of some of the common problems with non-Muslims critiques of Muslim arguments over the Internet. These would include an unjustified confidence with the relevant subject matter, a poor understanding of the arguments involved and a possible tendency to bluff with the hopes that no one else notices.

What is at issue here is the fact that the word

musi’un

in Sura’ az-Zaariyaat 51:47 can be translated as “expanding”, thus some Muslims have argued that this is a Quranic reference to the expanding of the universe. Whatever the soundness of that position, Mr. Roy’s attempt to refute it included some statements that were so ridiculous that one could not simply let them pass.

Deceit or Sincere Ignorance?

One of the first statements that raised a red flag was one that attempted to lean on the arguments of Denis Giron. Mr. Roy writes:

Denish [sic] Giron also explained in one of his wonderfully written pieces that the verb from which the Arabic word (m?8217;un) is derived cannot mean ?expand?

Then Mr. Roy cites Giron’s article entitled Expansion of the Universe in the Bible and the Qur’an: Comparing Isaiah to Soorat az-Zaariyaat.

The first problem is that Giron’s article blatantly contradicts Mr. Roy’s claim. In fact, Giron’s article explicitly states that “the verb from which this word is derived can mean expand.”

One has to wonder: did Mr. Roy even bother to read Giron’s article? The simple fact is that Mr. Roy’s argument says that the word cannot be translated as “expanding”, yet he calls to witness an article that gives a rather clear argument for why it can be translated as “expanding”!

After that, Mr. Roy calls to witness an article by Ali Sina. In this case, Mr. Roy actually manages to cite a person who agrees with him, but Sina’s argument is simply ridiculous, to put it mildly. Roy’s mentioning of this article is appreciated, however, as it can serve as a prime example of Sina’s total ignorance regarding the Arabic language. Mr. Sina argues as follows:

The word used here is moosiAAoona which drives from word vaseun. It means vast. It has nothing to do with expanding. When you say al rezwano vaseun (the garden is vast). It does not mean that the garden is expanding.

While this may seem like a case of belaboring a minor point, it might be worth noting that most people who employ a double-A (”AA”) in their transliterations of Qur’anic words or phrases over the net are probably novices who merely lifted the relevant transliteration off one of the websites which provide this odd symbol as designation of the presence of the Arabic letter ayn. Regardless, Sina’s attempt to prove that m?8217;un cannot be translated as “expanding” betrays a rather pathetic ignorance on his part regarding the Arabic language, and thus Mr. Roy’s decision to call him to witness is a true example of “the blind leading the blind”. Most ironic of all, the article by Denis Giron itself refutes Ali Sina’s ridiculous claim."

Water Cycle in the Quran?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of ‘Water cycle’…

…Only in these few verses we found at least six.

Answer:

Ali Sina alleged "I don’t know which commentator said such a thing but if anyone has, he is mistaken". I will provide him a translation of Quranic verse by Pickthall. He had cross-checked every translation of Quran in posting his last statement where he addressed about ‘expanding universe’, but it looks as if he had deliberately filch Pickthall’s translation of Quranic verse 86:11 in his argument, since it bequeaths the word ‘rain’ itself. The reason is in this way he would be proven dishonest and the readers will take it for granted what ever he is saying. Here’s the translation:

“By the heaven which giveth the returning rain.” (Quranic verse 86:11)

Ali Sina referred to the translation by Yusuf Ali where he wrote “which returns (in its round)” and the populace like Ali Sina would in fact impose that why Yusuf Ali did not translate “to return back rain”, identical to Picktall.

Readers! In response to that, you will find here the commentary of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. He says in his tafsir (Tafheem ul Quran):

“The words dhat ar-raj`e have been used for the sky. Literally رجع raj`e means to return, but metaphorically this word is used for the rain in Arabic, for rain does not fall just once, but returns over and over again in the season and of season as well. Another reason for calling the rain raj `e is that vapour from the oceans of the earth and then falls back as rain on the sometimes out water rises as the same earth.” (Taken from: http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AT+-+TARIQ&sno=86&tno=1744)

This word can also be interpreted as “cyclical”; in Quran’s translations also has meaning of “sending back” or “returning”. As it is acknowledged at present that the Earth is encircled by atmosphere that consists of several layers. Each layer acts an important valuable purpose for life. Research has revealed that these layers have the function of turning the materials or rays; they are exposed to, back into space or back down to Earth. Now let us scan with a few examples of this “recycling” function of the layers encircling the Earth. The troposphere, 13 to 15 kilometers above the Earth, enables water vapor rising from the surface of the Earth to be condensed and turn back as rain.

The ozone layer, at an altitude of 25 kilometers, reflects harmful radiation and ultraviolet light coming from space and turns both back into space.

The ionosphere, reflects radio waves broadcast from the Earth back down to different parts of the world, just like a passive communications satellite, and thus makes wireless communication, radio, and television broadcasting possible over long distances.

The magnetosphere layer turns the harmful radioactive particles emitted by the Sun and other stars back into space before they reach the Earth.

The fact that this property of the atmosphere's layers, that was only established in the recent past was pronounced centuries ago in the Qur'an, once again demonstrates that the Qur'an is the word of God.

Now I will give the translation of Quranic verse 86:11 by Shakir;

“I swear by the raingiving heavens,” (Quran 86:11)

Again, Shakir has mentioned the “the returning” entity as rain and not the sun, moon, star or anything else. If Ali Sina cannot even grasp the translation of Quran then how can he comprehend the Quran itself? He implied in this particular verse that firmament is the object which is returning in its rounded like stars, moon, sun etc, however this is not the case, since it’s actually the firmament which is returning “RAIN and other beneficial materials”. I hope this explanation fits in his teeny-weeny brain. And it is he who is entwining the meaning in order to satisfy his craving. So, my counsel to him is to deem million times before he howls anything against Quran.

Ali Sina said, “The word used is ‘sama’. It means sky/heaven and it can also be interpreted as firmament but it can’t be translated as rain.” Readers! “PROFESSOR OF ARABIC” Ali Sina misinterpreted the whole verse. As I said above that the Arabic word used for “rain” is “raj’e” and NOT “sama”. He rightly said that “sama” is used for firmament.

Now regarding all the verses (which are not in the question right now in this discussion) that he has cited in his post and he said that the entire chapter (Surah) is gibberish; insinuating again his sickness of going out of track and confounding readers. Actually it’s his gutter mind filled with filth that is making him suffer and he is not able to comprehend the truth. Each and every verse is explicable; however, it is not the instance and venue to refute his allegations because they are out of the subject. I will deal with them later insha Allah.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William Campbell who knows Arabic…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

…Don't make this too easy for me.

Answer:

Readers! I have already provided evidence above by the grace of Allah that Quranic verse 86:11 also points out evaporation. This verse is translated by four translators differently (difference is in choice of words). For example;

Yusuf Ali translates:

“By the Firmament which returns (in its round),”

Pickthal translates:

“By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,”

Shakir translates:

“I swear by the raingiving heavens,”

M. Asad translates:

“Consider the heavens, ever-revolving,”

As you can see, the translations of Yusuf Ali and M. Asad are some what similar and can surround other beneficial matter and energy in their connotations. Likewise, translations of Pickthall and Shakir are some what similar and they are specifically enunciating about "returning rain".

Therefore, Alhumdullillah this precise Quranic verse is swathing all the aspects what had said by Dr. Zakir Naik.

There are some other verses also in Holy Quran that explain the occurrence of evaporation in a nutshell. They are as follows:

“And We send down from the sky water in measure, and We give it lodging in the earth, and lo! We are able to withdraw it” (Quran 23:18)

Readers! You educate me now, to where Allah is withdrawing water in the above verse? It surely depicts the idea of evaporation. If it is something else then Ali Sina has to produce evidence.

“It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments, until thou seest rain-drops issue from the midst thereof: then when He has made them reach such of his servants as He wills behold, they do rejoice!-“ (Quran 30:48”

In this verse it is quite clear that Allah propels airstreams that enclose water vapors (evaporation) and THEY mold clouds. If Ali Sina needs further information he can visit the following link that will augment his inadequate intelligence:

“It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a land that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and produce every kind of harvest therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead: perchance ye may remember.” (Quran 7:57)

In this verse, what heralds of glad tidings are carried by the winds? And then they are advancing aloft to haul the heavy clouds and Allah coerces them to a land that is barren and formulates the rain to pour on it. Readers! Can you see the interlinking of all these avowals of the verse to the fact that the glad tiding can also be the water vapors (evaporation) which are lugged by the winds, then construct the clouds, which pours it down in the manner of rain yet again, which is vital for farming.

“And We send the winds fertilizing, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.” (Quran 15:22)

Readers! Please elaborate what this word “fertilizing” means over here? And why repetitively there is mention of wind and rain or water in these verses? For the people who have common sense, for sure, clutch that there is something in the winds which is instigating water to pour down from the sky, yet again proving evaporation. For the people like Ali Sina, lacking common sense at all, please do not press your brains as their boundaries are already defined by Allah in this verse.

"And so, the parable of those who re bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason." (Quran 2:171)

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Regarding what he said about the Bible…

http://www.search.com/reference/Bernard_Palissy

…The Quran is a book of asininity and not of miracles.

Answer:

Ali Sina jot down “Let us quote these verses and see if there is anything miraculous about them” Readers! Dr. Zakir Naik already riposted his question in his speech when he conferred the reference of philosophy of Phasofmillitas in 7^th century B.C where “he thought that the spray of the ocean was picked up by the wind, and send to the interior as rain.” The same concept was counterfeited by the Bible. And it was categorically a miracle when Quran revealed the correct water cycle 1400 years ago. Doesn’t he perceive that? This is also one of the substantiations that Quran was not plagiarized from the Bible.

Well I am jovial to hear that Ali Sina liked the “performance” of Dr. Zakir Naik. And I am aware that he was taunting on him out of envy that Doctor outperformed Dr. William Campbell in every aspect of the topic. Be sure that it was an aid from Allah that assisted Dr. Zakir Naik in delivering the truth.

Again he bared his illness by going out of track, regarding Muhammad (Peace be upon him) forgetting that the Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah and Allah should not refer to himself in third person. I will not comment here in this discussion and will leave it for a reply later on since it is out of area under discussion.

Readers! Now I will discuss all the verses that were mentioned by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech regarding water cycle and then stated by Ali Sina with his grimy description in his publication, in details. I will reply to the depictions of those verses only where he has put forth his mucky comments.

“Art thou not aware that it is God who causes the clouds to move onward, then joins them together, then piles them up in masses, until thou can see rain come forth from their midst? And He it is who sends down from the skies, by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds] charged with hail, striking therewith whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, [the while] the flash of His lightning well-nigh deprives [men of their] sight! (Quran 24:43)

Ali Sina asked what is so miraculous about it. I will put in the picture what so astounding about this verse. Most of us are familiar with the water cycle from our classes in middle school, where we had been educated on how a drop of sea water evaporates, then becomes a drop of rain water, and then finally returns to the sea via rivers or underground channels. The first person in modern times to identify this process was Bernard Palissy who portrayed it fittingly in 1580. Prior to him, the majority of the primordial Greeks and Roman scholars had diverse imperfect or erroneous speculations on the water cycle (Plato, for example, held that precipitation eventually descended in to the abyss called Tartarus and from there it fed in to the oceans.

In Quran there are few precise references to specific stages. Perhaps the most fascinating of these references is the verse mentioned above.

Scientists have studied cloud types and have realized that rain clouds are fashioned and shaped according to definite systems and certain steps connected with certain types of wind and clouds.

One kind of rain cloud is the cumulonimbus cloud. Meteorologists have studied how cumulonimbus clouds are formed and how they produce rain, hail, and lightning.

They have found that cumulonimbus clouds go through the following steps to produce rain:

“…it is God who causes the clouds to move onward,” (Quran 24:43)

Cumulonimbus clouds begin to form when wind moves some small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds) to an area where these clouds converge. (See figure 1 & 2 below)

Figure 17 (Large)

Figure 1: Satellite photo showing the clouds moving towards the convergence areas B, C, and D. the arrows indicate the directions of the wind. (The Use of Satellite Pictures in Weather Analysis and Forecasting, Anderson and other. Page 188.)

Figure 18 (Large)

Figure 2: Small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds) moving towards a convergence zone near the horizon, where we can see a large cumulonimbus cloud. (Clouds and Storms, Ludlam. Plate 7.4.)

“…then joins them together,” (Quran 24:43)

"Then the small clouds join together forming a larger cloud". (The Atmosphere, Anthes and others. Page 268-269, and Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson. Page 141.) (See figure 2 & 3)

Figure 19 (Large)

Figure 3: (A) Isolated small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds). (B) When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase, so the cloud is stacked up. Water drops are indicated by ·. (The Atmosphere, Anthes and others, p. 269.)

“…then piles them up in masses, until thou can see rain come forth from their midst?” (Quran 24:43)

When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase. The updrafts near the center of the cloud are sturdier than those near the edges. These updrafts cause the cloud body to grow vertically, so the cloud is stacked up (see figures 3 (B), 4, and 5). This vertical growth causes the cloud body to stretch into cooler regions of the atmosphere, where drops of water and hail formulate and begin to grow larger and larger. When these drops of water and hail become too heavy for the updrafts to support them, they begin to fall from the cloud as rain, hail, etc.

Figure 4: A cumulonimbus cloud. After the cloud is stacked up, rain comes out of it. (Weather and Climate, Bodin. Page 123.)

Figure 5: A cumulonimbus cloud. (A Colour Guide to Clouds, Scorer and Wexler. Page 23.)

"Meteorologists have only recently come to know these details of cloud formation, structure, and function by using advanced equipment like planes, satellites, computers, balloons, and other equipment, to study wind and its direction, to measure humidity and its variations, and to determine the levels and variations of atmospheric pressure." (Taken from: Ee’jaz al-Quran al-Kareem fee Wasf Anwa’ al-Riyah, al-Sohob, al-Matar, Makky and others, p. 55.)

The preceding verse, after mentioning clouds and rain, speaks about hail and lightning:

“…And He it is who sends down from the skies, by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds] charged with hail, striking therewith whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, [the while] the flash of His lightning well-nigh deprives [men of their] sight!” (Quran 24:43)

"Meteorologists have found that these cumulonimbus clouds, that shower hail, reach a height of 25,000 to 30,000 ft (4.7 to 5.7 miles)", (Taken from: Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson, p. 141.) like mountains, as the Quran said, “...And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky...” (See figure 5 above).

This verse may raise a question. Why does the verse say “its lightning” in a reference to the hail? Does this mean that hail is the major cause in fabricating lightning? Let us see what the book entitled Meteorology Today says about this. It says that "a cloud becomes electrified as hail falls through a region in the cloud of super cooled droplets and ice crystals. As liquid droplets collide with a hailstone, they freeze on contact and release latent heat. This keeps the surface of the hailstone warmer than that of the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes in contact with an ice crystal, an important phenomenon occurs: electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object. Hence, the hailstone becomes negatively charged. The same effect occurs when super cooled droplets come in contact with a hailstone and tiny splinters of positively charged ice break off. These lighter positively charged particles are then carried to the upper part of the cloud by updrafts. The hail, left with a negative charge, falls towards the bottom of the cloud, thus the lower part of the cloud becomes negatively charged. These negative charges are then discharged as lightning". (Take from: Meteorology Today, Ahrens, Page. 437.). We conclude from this that hail is the major factor in producing lightning.

This information on lightning was discovered recently. Until 1600 AD, Aristotle’s ideas on meteorology were dominant. For example, he said "that the atmosphere contains two kinds of exhalation, moist and dry. He also said that thunder is the sound of the collision of the dry exhalation with the neighboring clouds, and lightning is the inflaming and burning of the dry exhalation with a thin and faint fire." (Taken from: The Works of Aristotle Translated into English: Meteorologica, vol. 3. Ross and others. Page. 369a-369b.). These are some of the ideas on meteorology that were dominant at the time of the Quran’s revelation, fourteen centuries ago.

Now I have provided evidence that Quranic verse 24:43 is miraculous in terms of unfolding the mystery of cloud formation, rain, hail and lightning when it was not acknowledged at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). I will remain uttering that Quran is a word of Allah and not the words of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) or any other historians like you find in the Bible. (Readers! above description is taken from http://www.islam-guide.com/)

Ali Sina again corroborated himself as bamboozle when he said “as for rejoicing for rain, this is clearly from the point of view of those who don’t see much rain. There are places on this earth that rain most of the year and people rejoice when there is day sunshine. This shows these verses are written by one whose knowledge was limited to Arab world.”

There are numerous ways that I can refute his declaration mentioned above:

First:

I will quote some of the Quranic verses where Allah has mentioned rain storm as the punishment for the people or land:

“Or like a rainstorm from the sky, wherein is darkness, thunder and the flash of lightning. They thrust their fingers in their ears by reason of the thunder-claps, for fear of death. Allah encompasseth the disbelievers (in His guidance)” (Quran 2:19)

“…for his parable is that of a smooth rock with [a little] earth upon it - and then a rainstorm smites it and leaves it hard and bare…” (Quran 2:264)

“The while We rained a rain [of destruction] upon the others: and behold what happened in the end to those people lost in sin” (Quran 7:84)

“And rained down upon them a rain [of destruction]: and dire is such rain upon all who let themselves be warned [to no avail]! (Quran 26:173 & 27:58)

“And they [who now deny Our messages] must surely have come across that town which was rained upon by a rain of evil: have they, then, never beheld it [with their minds eye]? But nay, they would not believe in resurrection!” (Quran 25:40)

“And so, when they beheld it in the shape of a dense cloud approaching their valleys, they exclaimed, “This is but a heavy cloud which will bring us [welcome] rain!” [But Hud said:] “Nay, but it is the very thing which you [so contemptuously] sought to hasten - a wind bearing grievous suffering,” (Quran 46:24)

Therefore, Quran does have verses which illustrate that rain can be in the mode of catastrophe and definitely after when it ceases, people surely rejoice. The Quranic verse 30:48 which Ali Sina has brought up and also referred by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech is speaking about when rain is a blessing and rejoices people and surely not explicitly stating about disaster or raining a great deal. Therefore, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) knew (as alleged by Ali Sina that Quran was written by him) that there are places where it rains a lot and people do exult when they experience sunlight.

Second:

The other way to disprove Ali Sina’s contention against Quranic verse 30:48 is: I want to pose him a counter question as where does this verse cites if it is speaking about “all humanity” or “all the people” or “the whole world” rejoices when they observe sunlight after raining? If he ever used his common sense (which I also surely doubt that he has ever exercised it), this verse can be talking about only those people who vision rain as a blessing and not of those who cheer sunlight after rain since Quran refers to rainstorms also. Hence, my advice to him is to look in an extensive vision rather then being a tapered minded harebrained.

Third:

Ali Sina stated “There are places on this earth that rains most of the year and people rejoice when there is a day sunshine. This shows these verses are written by one whose knowledge was limited to Arab world.” Readers! This is also a false claim against Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). There are places in Saudi Arabia where it rains in abundance most of the season and weather remains cloudy most of the time of the year. And all these places are in close proximity to Makkah and Medina, like for example, Taif where Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) went for preaching, Abha, Khamis Mushayet, Tabuk etc. I have been to these places in person and live through the weather as well. So it’s been proved now that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) knew places where people do rejoice when there is a sunlight after rain because he had also experienced the same.

Readers! If you are living in Saudi Arabia and if you desire going to Makkah by car from eastern province then you surely have to go through Taif. And you can see and feel the weather while traveling through Taif.

I can give Ali Sina more arguments against his allegations regarding Quranic verse 30:48; however, I think it is enough to shut his foul mouth.

“Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, therewith, produce of various colours: then it withers; thou wilt see it grow yellow; then He makes it dry up and crumble away. Truly, in this, is a Message of remembrance to men of understanding.” (Quran 39:21)

Yes, a person undeniably needs to be a scientist or a prophet to know that rain falls from the sky and that the spring waters are from rain. Such philosophies seem quite usual to us today, but we should not overlook the fact that they were not ubiquitous long ago. It was not until the sixteenth century, with Bernard Palissy, that we acquired the first lucid description of the water cycle. Earlier to this, populace talked about the theory whereby the water of the oceans, under the upshot of winds, was shoved towards the interior of the continents. They then revisited to the oceans via the great chasm, which, since Plato's time, has been called the Tartarus. In the seventeenth century, a great intellectual such as Descartes assumed in it, and even in the nineteenth century there was still gossip of Aristotle's theory, according to which water was condensed in cool mountains grottos and shaped underground lakes that noshed springs. Today, we know that it is the infiltration of rainwater that is accountable for this. If one put side by side the facts of modern hydrology with the data to be found in copious verses of the Quran on this theme, one cannot fall short to notice the incredible degree of concord amid the two.

Here’s the testimony which will again shut Ali Sina’s foul mouth:

Excerpt from this document:

“Palissy is highly regarded for his contributions to the advance of soil science, geology, geohydrology, geomorphology and biology. The concept of the water cycle in his time assumed that sea water was conveyed from coastal to mountainous areas through subterranean passages by the action of wind, desalinatized by condensation in cool caves, forming underground lakes which fed mountain springs. Palissy correctly attributed spring water to rainfall percolating into the earth and emerging after slow travel through permeable layers overlying impermeable layers. Palissy expanded the concept of erosion and sedimentation as a contribution to landform formation and soil types, based on differences in rock resistance to weathering by ice and water. Palissy postulated how fossils were formed by the action of soluble minerals, and observed that some fossils were from plant and animal life forms no longer present, introducing the concept of biological species extinction.”

“And We send down water from the sky according to (due) measure, and We cause it to soak in the soil; and We certainly are able to drain it off (with ease).” (Quran 23:18)

Readers! If you go through the tafsir of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, he cited:

“The "rain" may refer to the rainfall, which comes down every now and then. It may also refer to the great store of water which Allah sent down at the time of the creation of the earth to fulfill its various needs till the Last Day, and which still exists in the shape of seas, lakes, sub-soil water, etc. It is the same water which evaporates in summer and freezes in winter and is carried by winds from place to place and spread over the earth by rivers, springs and wells to cause the growth of multitudes of things, and then is again restored to the seas, lakes, etc. Neither has this store of water been decreased by a drop nor was there any need to increase it by a drop since its creation. Today it is too well known how water comes about by the combination of oxygen and hydrogen in a certain ratio. The question is why can't more water be produced when oxygen and hydrogen still exist in abundance in the world? Who caused them to combine in the proper ratio in the beginning to produce oceans of water and who now stops them from coming together to produce an extra drop? Then when water evaporates, who causes oxygen and hydrogen to remain combined .n water vapors even in the gaseous state. Have the atheists and polytheists, who believe in independent deities for water, air, summer and ! winter, any answer to this question?” (Taken from: http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AL+-+MUMINOON&sno=23&tno=1326)

Readers! I have already brought up the same Quranic verse above in the section of evaporation, now; I will prove the phenomenon of evaporation again using Ali Sina’s own commentary. He said “places are parched with draught” and I am linking his own comment with the same verse where it says “able to drain it off”, and I am not in a bit of doubt that he thought “able to drain it off” means evaporation when he uttered “places are parched with draught”. What made the places parched with draught? Answer is EVAPORATION. So he also testified the phenomenon of evaporation in his own words. Alhudullillah.

“And among His Signs, He shows you the lightning, by way both of fear and of hope, and He sends down rain from the sky and with it gives life to the earth after it is dead: verily in that are Signs for those who are wise.” (Quran 30:24)

This is idiocy again, why Ali Sina is looking for an explanation of causes of lightning in this verse? Why is he not referring to other verses which are elucidating the causes of lightning explicitly? I do not figure out. Or he did not find any verse in the Quran speaking on this subject. Alright let me put him on view:

"Meteorologists have found that these cumulonimbus clouds, that shower hail, reach a height of 25,000 to 30,000 ft (4.7 to 5.7 miles)," (Taken from: Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson, p. 141.) like mountains, as the Quran said, “...And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky...” (See figure 5 above).

This verse may raise a question. Why does the verse say “its lightning” in a reference to the hail? Does this mean that hail is the major factor in producing lightning? Let us see what the book entitled Meteorology Today says about this. It says that "a cloud becomes electrified as hail falls through a region in the cloud of super cooled droplets and ice crystals. As liquid droplets collide with a hailstone, they freeze on contact and release latent heat. This keeps the surface of the hailstone warmer than that of the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes in contact with an ice crystal, an important phenomenon occurs: electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object. Hence, the hailstone becomes negatively charged. The same effect occurs when super cooled droplets come in contact with a hailstone and tiny splinters of positively charged ice break off. These lighter positively charged particles are then carried to the upper part of the cloud by updrafts. The hail, left with a negative charge, falls towards the bottom of the cloud, thus the lower part of the cloud becomes negatively charged. These negative charges are then discharged as lightning." (Take from: Meteorology Today, Ahrens, Page. 437.). We conclude from this that hail is the major factor in producing lightning.

This information on lightning was discovered recently. Until 1600 AD, Aristotle’s ideas on meteorology were dominant. For example, he said "that the atmosphere contains two kinds of exhalation, moist and dry. He also said that thunder is the sound of the collision of the dry exhalation with the neighboring clouds, and lightning is the inflaming and burning of the dry exhalation with a thin and faint fire." (Taken from: The Works of Aristotle Translated into English: Meteorologica, vol. 3. Ross and others. Page. 369a-369b.). these are some of the ideas on meteorology that were dominant at the time of the Quran’s revelation, fourteen centuries ago. (Information taken from: www.islam-guide.com)

Readers! Ali Sina again alleged Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) where he said “lightening is to frighten people and to give them hope”, I concur with that adversary quickly. Yes, lightning can frighten people where it would be raining so heavily which may sluice away everything, however, on the other hand it would be a good hope as it would benefit the crops. Therefore, we should bow down in front of Allah and ask for good benefits. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was rightly addressing to the people.

Then he alleged, “Rain is a natural phenomenon. It is not a sign from anyone.” I again concur with this adversary quickly, with the foremost part only; yes, rain is a natural phenomenon but toting up to that, we Muslims also deem that Allah is the driving might behind this natural phenomenon.

Then he said, “It just happens on its own thanks to the effect of Sun on earth.” I believed that he is an atheist and do not believe in any God or deity, so why is he thanking the effect of Sun? I know he did not mean that but that is what it implied.

Readers! Now I will discuss regarding rainbow that is mentioned in the Bible and related with God. Let us see what the verses of Genesis 9:13-17 says:

“I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.”

“It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud,”

“and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.”

“The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth”

“God said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Readers! If you glance at the description of all these verses you will come to know that Gospel preachers and Bible thumpers say that "the rainbow that Ezekiel and John saw around the Throne of God was CIRCULAR. In this world we only see half of a rainbow, or half of things, in Heaven we shall see the whole of things. And that rainbow was in emerald color, but, definitely not the mixture of seven primary colors. And the rainbow is the sign of a covenant based on an accepted Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Noah (Gen. 8:20-22). What does this “CIRCULAR GREEN RAINBOW” about the Throne of God signify? It signifies that God is a Covenant keeping God, that His promises as to this earth shall be fulfilled." (Taken from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tbr/tbr021.htm)

Ali Sina has to put this narration in the picture for me; does this depiction make any sense to him? Semi Circular Colorful Rainbow as the sign of Noah’s Accepted Sacrifice and Circular Emerald Color Rainbow around God’s Throne as the sign of Jesus’ Accepted Sacrifice. And he wanted Dr. Zakir to agree on this point and affirm that it is surely a sign of God’s promise and rule out all the rules of science. And God found only a rainbow in this world to vision His ever-lasting covenant to mankind? What so significant about rainbow that God chose it as His “covenant-keeper”? What was rainbow in the sight of God before he made it as a token of Covenant? Does God require a rainbow to remember and to keep his promises? “God of Bible” shattered his covenant by sending Tsunami which exterminated around 200,000 innocent people; and still we see the rainbow everyday. The story of “storm of Noah” is off-beam in the Bible which inevitably makes the story of rainbow erroneous as well.

Readers! Dr. Zakir Naik only denied having faith on the fact that rainbow is the sign of God’s promise as mentioned in the Bible? Dr. Zakir Naik and we all Muslims indubitably, accept as true, that rainbow is undeniably one of the signs of Allah’s creation as like other creations in the world. Similarly, rain is also a sign of Allah’s creation in sight of every Muslim.

Readers! You judge now who is fool? Ali Sina or Dr. Zakir Naik.

“And We send the fecundating winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith providing you with water (in abundance), though ye are not the guardians of its stores.” (Quran 15:22)

In counter to Ali Sina’s post, I will present one more translation of the same verse in order to understand it correctly:

“And We send the winds fertilizing, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.” (Quran 15:22)

The other translation that I have posted above uses the word “fertilizing” which can also be used in this place as a replacement of the word “fecundating”. Actually both are the same, fecundated means fruitfulness, richness, lushness, productiveness, and antonym is infertility. I have already referenced this verse as an example under the section of evaporation; however, here I will give you another scientific fact that is proven in this Quranic verse. And that is “Wind Pollination”; the transfer of pollen from a stamen to a pistil, fertilization in flowering plants using wind as a medium. According “Britannica Concise Encyclopedia”;

“Insects and wind are the most important pollinators among other agents.” (Take from: http://www.answers.com/topic/pollination)

Alhudullillah, Quranic verse 15:22 also clearly mentions the phenomenon of Pollination by wind by giving a description in disguise in the phrase “fecundating winds”.

Now I will give another scientific fact and that is; in this verse, the Quran unveils another great mystery of creation, the fundamental role played by the wind in the fertilization of clouds. Using complex instruments and electrical means, civilized man has made great progress in recent years resulting in the establishment of the discipline known as meteorology. Specialists in this discipline point out the following: "It must be recognized that the obtaining of two conditions - the existence of steam in the air and its distillation to the point of saturating the air - is not enough to cause the formation of clouds and the occurrence of rainfall. A third condition is also necessary, which we may call fertilization.”

In the appearance of natural phenomena, a kind of friction and delay always exists. For example, if water is pure and stationary, it is possible that its temperature is reduced to below zero without its solidifying and that it does not begin to boil until its temperature is much higher than 100 degrees. Also, steam may not begin to distill even though it has reached a point of saturation, and once it has distilled, its globules may be so minute that they do not fall, remaining instead suspended in the air so that no rainfall occurs. It is necessary for the wind to provide invisible particles of salt, picked up from the surface of the oceans that then form nuclei of attraction and inflation. More importantly, the moisture in the air has to accumulate around the crystallized snowflakes that have formed at higher altitudes and are then scattered by the wind.

Finally, the minute initial drops of rain merge with each other as a result of the collision and intermingling of the winds until they gradually grow in size and fall through cloud masses as a result of their relatively great weight.

As a result of their friction with features of the earth and with bodies suspended in the air, cloud masses acquire opposing electrical forces. The release of this electricity is accompanied by intense friction of the particles in the air and the formation of nitrogen. This process contributes considerably to the merging and growing of raindrops and the occurrence of rainfall.

In short, the formation and strengthening of clouds, and the occurrence of rainfall and snow, cannot take place without a form of fertilization, accomplished through the intervention of an outside factor.

Artificial rainfall likewise depends on artificial fertilization, carried out in the following way: an airplane scatters "water dust" (pulverized and crystallized ice) in air that has the potentiality of cloud formation but is in a state of delayed equilibrium.

Discussing the rich treasury of knowledge contained in the Quran, Dr. Bucaille writes: "Whereas monumental errors are to be found in the Bible, I could not find a single error in the Quran. I had to stop and ask myself: if a man had been the author of the Quran, how could he have written facts in the seventh century AD that today are shown to be in keeping with modern scientific knowledge?

There was absolutely no doubt about it: the text of the Quran we have today is most definitely a text of the period, if I may be allowed to put it in these terms (in the next chapter of the present section of the book I shall be dealing with this problem). What human explanation can there be for this observation? In my opinion there is no explanation; there is no special reason why an inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula should, at a time when King Dagobert was reigning in France (629-639 AD), have had scientific knowledge on certain subjects that was ten centuries ahead of our own."

I will retort to only those annotations of Ali Sina’s which are allied to the subject matter. He said "Not all winds carry glad tidings. Some of them are devastating. Also most of the rains do not fall on dead land but on very wet lands". It gives the impression that his perspective is very irrational, for example; if I put forth a statement that "Ali Sina is a fool", and then in the counter reply he says "No, I am not the only one, there are many others like me". In opposition I would say that my remark was only destined to him and it only expressed him as a fool and not others. However, if I would have said that "Ali Sina is the only fool", then he would have had an opportunity to refute me by stating other fools. Similarly, Quranic verse 7:57 is specifically talking about only those winds that carry glad tidings and not of those who are a disaster for the people; since there are other verses which speaks about rain as a catastrophe explicitly. Here, I am presenting some Quranic verses that are specifically stating about winds that are disaster.

"…But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not: but Allah sees (clearly) all that ye do." (Quran 33:9)

"…they were destroyed by a furious Wind, exceedingly violent;" (Quran 69:6)

"So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster," (Quran 41:16)

I have also referred to Quranic verse 7:57 above, under the subject of "Evaporation".

For Ali Sina, another counsel to him is to keep his smudged mind fresh, keep his eyes wide open, contemplate on what is being said and try to comprehend the translation whenever he reads Quran. Do not read it like he reads any other book. Do not treat Quran like any other religious book.

“He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables.” (Quran 13:17)

Ali Sina articulated that "this is just a parable. Nothing scientific here", let's uncover the scientific facts in this verse and readers you advise if there is any scientific knowledge in this verse.

"He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure" Readers! If you notice the latter part, it is aiming to both actions; first, the rain pours down according to its measure and channels or rivers stream according to their measures. It is cogent that all these measures are appointed by Allah.

The following question arises for both rain and rivers; can we measure them? Let see if we can answer this question. I will answer separately for both entities, i.e. rain and rivers.

Rain:

Some what similar question was asked from Meteorologist Mike Bosilovich of NASA's Data Assimilation Office at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, he is the lead author of the study being published in the March-April issue of the Journal of Hydrometeorology, and he said "If I see rain or snow in the central U.S., I can now tell you how much of the moisture came from the Gulf of Mexico, how much came from the tropical Atlantic Ocean and so on,"

"The model gives us a much clearer picture of how water moves in the atmosphere than we have ever had before."

NASA has made a computer model that can simulate water movement in the atmosphere around the world, and traces it from the places where it evaporates to the places where it falls back to Earth. (Taken from: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020401watervapor.html)

Now human beings can also some what measure the capacity of rain. Around 1400 years ago this information was given in the Quran and its only yesterday that we have discovered that rain has its own measures, quantity and capacity.

Rivers:

Measure of flow in rivers affects many issues of water quality and quantity together. River ecosystems and the native species dependant upon them can best be conserved by protecting as much as possible of the natural variability in flow - a concept that has been called the "natural flow paradigm".

Because we will not perfectly understand how much alteration of natural flow regimes is ecologically tolerable in any particular river, the definition of an adequate or preferred flow regime should be determined in an adaptive fashion - a concept that has been called "adaptive management".

For more information on how river flow can affect out ecosystem please visit the following site. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/river/index.html

Readers! If you examine the Quranic verse 13:17, doesn't this phrase "according to its measure" ring any bell? Why Allah is setting measures to rain and rivers? And why is He telling us that he set measures? Surely, it depicts that Allah has put a great deal of scientific knowledge in this small verse and leave it for sensible people to find the truth. I said “sensible people”, which surely curb Ali Sina elsewhere.

I have already replied to each and every acrimonious comment Ali Sina emblazoned in his lewd article pertaining to rain. I will hand it down to the readers to settle on if there are any scientific facts in the verses mentioned in the holy Quran.

He said, "Is there any hitherto unknown scientific information in these verses?" I would like to ask him, why he is looking for unknown scientific information in the Quran. Why does he think that Quran is a book of Science and not of signs? If some how he finds an unknown scientific fact in Quran then how is he going to prove it? In that case, again he will hit Muslims back saying this is something very vague and ask us to prove this “unknown scientific fact”.

I have already proved that what ever scientific knowledge Quran gives, was not known at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and thus also proving Ali Sina to be fool who is not able to comprehend the truth.

As for the rest of his polluted comments, I will retort under some other topic insha Allah.

Do Mountains Stabilize Earth

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William Campbell spent maximum…

1. http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/tectonic.htm

…beneath us from shaking with us has come from.

Answer:

I am assuring to the readers that whatever Dr. Zakir articulated regarding "mountains as stakes", "they have deep roots" and "they give stability to Earth" are all authentic annotations devoid of any uncertainties. I am employed with an oil company and I am surrounded by thousands geologists (Muslims and non-Muslims). I had a personal conversation with many of them pertaining to "Mountain Building". I am aware that Ali Sina will not consent my "personal discussion" with these geologists as it does not carry any credence, so, I will acquaint him with unyielding proofs. I will not provide him with the names of geologists, however; I will divulge adequate evidence that will certainly gratify his appetite.

These geologists are not graduates from Al Azhar University and that is for sure, as I corroborated with them. However, at least they have graduate and masters' degree in geology, not like Ali Sina, who looks as if never attended a school. And it seems factual as I will ascertain later in this topic.

Readers, I want your full concentration on this topic. Over here I will again prove how Ali Sina manipulates words, twists meanings, bluntly lie to people, and what evidence he churns out to espouse his lame accusations. I will elucidate step by step:

Mountains do have roots (mountains as stakes):

Quranic verse in question:

"And the mountains as pegs?" (Quran 78:7)

Much of the depiction was already afforded by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech that the "mountains have roots". And here is the proof:

Excerpts from: http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html. This particular site belongs to "Geology & "Geophysics" department of "UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON".

"The most important point is that mountains have buoyant roots that extend downward in to the mantle beneath a mountain range, and that the roots are, in general, about 5.6 times deeper than the height of the range."

"Continents are buoyant crust that float on a denser mantle. We can thus use the density of continental rocks and mantle rocks to calculate how deep roots are that support mountain ranges."

"The existence of buoyant roots has important implications for the lifetime of mountain ranges. What happens when erosion removes material from the top of a mountain? With less mass above sea-level to support, the buoyant root rebounds upward an amount that is exactly proportional to the density difference between the root and the underlying mantle! Thus, in the case of an iceberg that stands 10 meters above sea level, if all 10 meters of ice melt from the top, the buoyant root pushes upwards 9 meters! The iceberg thus loses only 1 meter of height. It thus takes much longer for the iceberg to "disappear" because its buoyant root continually restores (from beneath sea level) ice that melts above the water surface."

"The bottom line - once plate tectonic processes build a mountain range, the buoyant underlying root enables the mountain range to hang around a long time even while its being actively eroded."

This precise editorial is value reading and I will insist readers to examine it. It gives you the loads of subsequent information:

1. Evidence for mountain roots

2. It presents a mathematical equation to find out how deep must the root extend down in to the mantle to support the elevation.

3. Implication of roots on the life time of mountain ranges.

4. Calculate mathematically that mountain will not survive long if it doesn't have roots.

5. Calculate mathematically the life time of a mountain range; given mountains have roots.

6. What will happen to a mountain if it doesn’t have any roots?

7. A simple mathematical derivation of the equation for mountain root depths.

"Note that mountains have deep roots, as determined through seismological and gravity studies." (Taken from: http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo101/mountain.htm). This particular site belongs to "GEORGIA PERIMETER COLLEGE".

Excerpts from: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program8%20MountainBuilding/program8.html. This particular site belongs to "HONOLULU COMMUNITY COLLEGE".

"…and the continents began to embed themselves into plates that had mantle roots,"

"To explain this discrepancy Airy concluded that a low density root must lie beneath the range. Geophysical studies have since confirmed that the crust beneath the Himalaya extends to a depth of 75 kilometers, twice as thick as ordinary continental crust."

"It's now known that most mountain ranges are underlain by crustal roots floating atop the hot plastically deforming mantle. The roots grow as a result of compression during plate convergence. As mountain ranges are worn down, their roots are buoyed upward by the mantle."

"In the same way, tall mountains usually have roots extending deeper into the Earth than low mountains made up of the same rock type."

"When you build up a large mountain range, you're liable to have a root underneath and a lot of material piled up high on the Earth's surface"

"Floating on Earth's plastic mantle, these gigantic topographic features disappear slowly as their low-density roots are buoyed up."

Excerpt from: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/060421-2217.asp. This site belongs to "UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO".

"It profoundly changes the behaviour of the tectonic plates beneath the mountains. “These are tiny, tiny changes on the surface, but integrating them over geologic time scales affects the roots of the mountains, as opposed to just the top of them,”

Following is taken from the article written by Donald L. Blanchard who is Amateur Herpetologist, Armchair Paleontologist, Geomorphologist, and Paleoclimatologist. He has written many articles related to herpetology, and he is the author of book "The ABC's of Plate Tectonics" (Taken from his website: http://home.pcisys.net/~dlblanc/. Let us see what he says in his book.

"The forces pushing down from above the fluid's surface - in this case the ocean floor - must equal the forces pushing up from below, caused by the displacement of denser mantle material by the less dense continental rock of the mountains' roots"

"The roots of the mountains will be sitting in the middle of a flat".

"The roots of those mountains will be pushed down into the mantle to depths approaching 100,000 feet, where the heat and pressure is great enough to partially melt and deform the layers of sandstone and shale."

"When all the sediments have been folded, right back to the edge of our original mountains' roots, remove the lateral pressure between the two original continents and allow them to move as a single continent."

"What is today a 3.5 billion year old craton was, 3.5 billion years ago, the roots of a major mountain range, indicating that orogeny driven by plate tectonics was already occurring well before 3.5 billion years ago"

You can read the whole article written by Donald L. Blanchard here: http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/tectonic/craton.php

I believe that I have presented sufficient proofs to shut Ali Sina’s foul mouth that "mountains do have roots" and they play such an eminent role in their existence.

Readers! The articles that Ali Sina has presented in his website a propos to creation of mountains, I consent that they do not reference "mountains have roots". However, on the other hand they also do not declare that "mountains CAN NOT have roots". Therefore, he is using these articles which are not even vocalizing about “mountains' roots” to sustain his claims. This is silliness again. Let him find an article with authentic proofs that cites "MOUNTAINS CANNOT HAVE ROOTS".

Ali Sina’s approach is very juvenile. He is referring to websites which are for school children (1 & 2) and the third one is for multimedia visualization.

Readers! Please find below the sites Ali Sina has mentioned in his article and also please visit the sites in order to prove that they are for school children. First site says," Moorland is a UK co-educational boarding and day school situated in Clitheroe, Lancashire. We are a small vibrant school with superb facilities. Moorland School has a family atmosphere combined with small class sizes". And the second ones says," Woodland's Junior School. Woodlands Web has been created to support the work we do in our school as well as giving our visitors a chance to play games and to get a glimpse of what life is like in England through the eyes of our students."

2. http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/mountains/types.htm

3. http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/downloads.php

Ali Sina has proved himself a preschooler. He is defending his claims through these infantile websites. And, one of these sites allows visitors to play children games. Are these his evidences?

Readers! "Mountain's roots" is a subject matter for connoisseurs and advance students, but not for children. This area of discussion elucidates and presents convoluted theories, metaphors and complex mathematical formulas and equations that in no way can enter into a child's brain. This is the basis Ali Sina is not able to comprehend the whole concept.

And as for what Dr. Zakir Naik said "Not all Geologists, but many do say" and in turn Ali Sina asked him for few names so that he could verify their credentials. Well he already gave the names, Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Najjar. Let Ali Sina contact them and verify.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) I have not come across a single Geological book…

…and let me know to update this page.

Answer:

Such an upset for Ali Sina that he did not get in touch with Dr. Frank Press, I am definite he would have been proven erroneous. So, why he did not communicate with other Geologists and verify the claim? There are websites accessible over Internet where you could inquire straightforwardly from various geologists and geophysicists (provided they are not Ali Sina’s disciples belonging to “Golden Rule Cult”).

I also did not read the book "The Earth" written by Dr. Frank Press, but I did not keep my self limited to only Dr. Frank Press. I communicated with other geologists who are working with me. I will not reference them over here in this discussion as personal discussion will not carry any weight. However, I will provide proof in black and white that "mountains do give stability to Earth". In this discussion I will not make any references to children's websites that were brought up by Ali Sina in his article.

Mountains do give stability to Earth:

Quranic verses in question:

"And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them," (Quran 21:31)

"He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you;" (Quran 31:10)

"And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you;" (Quran 16:15)

Excerpts from: http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program8%20MountainBuilding/program8.html

"When you build up a large mountain range, you're liable to have a root underneath and a lot of material piled up high on the Earth's surface, and, ultimately, if you don't have forces to keep it piled up, that is going to tend to want to equilibrate and float in gravitational equilibrium with the other areas around it."

"As mountain belts uplift and late in their stages, they may begin to actually undergo extensional collapse or breaking apart at the high levels due to the force of gravity. At their deeper levels, there may be plastic flow underneath them or compensation by flow in the mantle in order to let whatever root that exists to equilibrate and to come to gravitational equilibrium with the mantle and a lower crust around it."

"The floating of Earth's crust atop the mantle is termed "isostasy". This is similar to what happens at sea, where large icebergs float with more ice extending beneath the surface than small ones do. In the same way, tall mountains usually have roots extending deeper into the Earth than low mountains made up of the same rock type. In both cases, far more mass lies hidden from view than can be seen at the surface. Isostasy is the process by which different thickness and different density irregularities in the outer Earth float in gravitational equilibrium with one another."

Isostasy can be put in plain words as harmonizing of forces between the effects of gravity on the mass of a section of earth (such as a large basin, or mountain range) and the resistance of that mass to plummeting in to the mantle of the earth. Isostatic adjustment is the process that is responsible for why certain areas of the Earth are at elevation than other areas. Mountain belts exist because those areas of the continental crust were thickened during compressional events (a result of tectonic plates pressing against each other). The amount of the crust that sinks in to the mantle is directly proportional to the thickness of the thickened crust times the average density of the crust times the acceleration due to gravity. The extra rock that does not displace mantle sticks up in to the air. Mountains!

Now I have proved that Earth when requires stability in gravitational equilibrium or balance, results in mountain formation.

Excerpts from article which is written by Jane M. Matty who is Associate Professor Director, CMU Environmental Studies Program and her specialties are Geochemistry and Hydrology. She is PhD from Michigan State University, M.A. from Rice University and B.S. from Duke University. She says in her article "Rocks & Minerals", (http://www.jiskha.com/cgi-bin/frames.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffindarticles%2Ecom%2Fp%2Farticles%2Fmi_m0GDX%2Fis_3_76%2Fai_75434343)

"Isostasy provides the primary link between erosion and uplift of mountains. Earth's crust essentially floats on the denser mantle that behaves as a very viscous fluid. Different regions of the crust "float"--or achieve isostatic balance--at different elevations based on their thicknesses and densities."

Readers! I believe this is enough proof to refute Ali Sina’s lame claims as I have presented the quotations from renowned “non-Muslim” Universities, authorities and experts.

Referring to above mentioned proof, I do believe now that what ever Dr. Zakir Naik had quoted in his speech, the same is also written in Dr. Frank's book.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) The function of the mountain in the Qur’an,……

…shaking mean except earthquake?

Answer:

Readers! Ali Sina is talking gibberish here, what else could you expect from a child brain. Dr. Zakir Naik was only demonstrating to the people that the word "earthquake" is not mentioned in the particular verse as alleged and mistranslated by Dr. William Campbell. The word mention there is "shake". And yes, you can translate the word "shake" to whatever you like. However what ever written in Quran should retain as it is in terms of meanings and translations.

Quran is not like Bible, where the word is different in Hebrew or Greek and it was translated differently in English. Whatever is written in Quran in Arabic, it should be translated accurately.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) And Dr. William Campbell said - He writes…

…where high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable.

Answer:

Ali Sina said," It is absurd to say that one cannot walk on the surface of these planets and moons without making the ground beneath them shake." Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao, B.S. in Physics and Ph.D. in Earth Sciences, currently positioned as Chief, Space Geodesy Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) said,

"Any worldly event that involves the movement of mass affects the Earth's rotation, from seasonal weather down to driving a car," (Taken from:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html)

It's unambiguous from the words of Dr. Chao that even trivial matters have an effect on Earth's movement, I am aware that it would be very negligible but sure it does make a difference in calculation. And as I have demonstrated above that mountains do stabilize Earth's crust, so, let's suppose if there were no mountains then Earth would definitely be rickety. Let's make it clearer by looking at the description of Isostasy again.

"When large amounts of sediment are deposited on a particular region, the immense weight of the new sediment may cause the crust below to sink. Similarly, when large amounts of material are eroded away from a region, the land may rise to compensate. Therefore, as a mountain range is eroded down, the (reduced) range rebounds upward (to a certain extent) to be eroded further. Some of the rock strata now visible at the ground surface may have spent much of their history at great depths below the surface buried under other strata, to be eventually exposed as those other strata are eroded away and the lower layers rebound upwards again.

An analogy may be made with an iceberg- it always floats with a certain proportion of its mass below the surface of the water. If more ice is added to the top of the iceberg, the iceberg will sink lower in the water. If a layer of ice is somehow sliced off the top of the iceberg, the remaining iceberg will rise. Similarly, the Earth's lithosphere "floats" in the asthenosphere." (Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy)

What ensue if Earth does not have a mechanism to equalize or balance itself? Definitely Earth will tilt to the side where there is more weight. And transfer of weight will certainly wobble the crust of the Earth; likewise heavy movements will shake the Earth itself.

For example; let us imagine that plate tectonics are not occurring on Earth consequently there are no mountains either. And Earth is balanced impeccably, if an airplane flies from one part of the Earth then that part will positively loose some weight and Earth's crust will tilt. Likewise, after couple of hours of flying when airplane arrives at its destination the weight will again equalize and vice versa. This is just an imaginary exemplar I put forth for Ali Sina, if it is too difficult to swallow what ever I am trying to state. I am also aware, if plate tectonics were to cease, then so would this mountain building activity. Erosion would then, eventually, abrade down the mountains. Sediments removed by erosion, carried in to the oceans by rivers and streams would eventually lead to a rise in sea level. If the process continued, it is calculated that eventually a global ocean would cover the Earth completely, resulting in catastrophic extinction of all land-based species.

"The formation of ice-sheets can cause the Earth's surface to sink. Conversely, Isostatic post-glacial rebound is observed in areas once covered by ice-sheets which have now melted, such as around the Baltic Sea and Hudson Bay. As the ice retreats, the load on the lithosphere and asthenosphere is reduced and they rebound back towards their equilibrium levels. In this way, it is possible to find former sea-cliffs and associated wave-cut platforms hundreds of metres above present-day sea-level. The rebound movements are so slow that the uplift caused by the ending of the last Ice Age is still continuing." (Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy)

"Continental crust and oceanic crust exist on lithospheric plates buoyant upon a molten, highly viscous aethenosphere. Within Earth's crustal layers, balancing processes take place to account for differing densities and mass in crustal plates. For example, under mountain ranges, the crust slumps or bows deeper into the upper mantle than where the land mass is thinner across continental plains. Somewhat akin to how icebergs float in seawater, with more of the mass of larger icebergs below the water than smaller ones, this bowing results in a balance of buoyant forces termed isostasy.

"Isostasy is not a process or a force. It is simply a natural adjustment or balance maintained by blocks of crust of different mass or density." (Taken from: http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/Isostasy)

Readers! You tell me now, if this natural adjustment is eliminated from the Earth then there will be an unbalance and as the continental crust and oceanic crust on lithospheric plates move around, then their mass and weight will definitely shake the Earth.

To prevent this natural adjustment from elimination and to maintain the equilibrium and balance on Earth, plate tectonics take place and in turn mountains are formed as I have mentioned above.

It's clear now and I have given written proof that Quranic verses 21:31, 31:10 & 16:15 are speaking of mountains that do give stability to Earth.

Ali Sina said," It is absurd to say that one cannot walk on the surface of these planets and moons without making the ground beneath them shake." "In planets where high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable."

All what you have written evidently illustrates your lack of information of Science.

"Plate tectonics is unique to Earth. But learning about it during the last 40 years has given scientists many theoretical tools to understand other planets, even those that circle other stars." (Taken from:

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blnutshell_plate-tec.htm)

"The Earth appears to be the only body in the solar system to experience plate tectonics." (Taken from: http://www.wwnorton.com/earth/egeo/features/ch2_2.htm)

"Currently there is no direct evidence supporting plate tectonics on other planets of our solar system." (Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A884469)

According to above mentioned excerpts,

1. There is no evidence of plate tectonics on other planets till now.

2. Means no mountain building.

3. Means mass is evenly distributed

4. No external force, like Humans, buildings etc.

5. Means no un-stability

On the contrary, on Earth, we have plate tectonics, means un-stability, mountain building, mass is not evenly distributed, heavy objects available like humans and buildings etc.

Ali Sina said, "one cannot walk", he is speaking about one person, one astronaut visiting moon or other planets and Quran is speaking about human race. And human race do carry weight.

Ali Sina said, "In planets where high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable." Yes, but there are no plate tectonics happening there and there is no external force imposing them which can cart them off course.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) And Dr. William Campbell in his book, he writes…

…This goes beyond absurdity. It's outright asininity.

Answer:

Dr. Zakir Naik is very right when he translated the verse as "to prevent Earth from shaking with you" as I have illustrated and proved above. If Ali Sina cannot experience an event it doesn't mean that it cannot happen. And even he cannot experience it as it will be a catastrophe.

Ali Sina said," How can even one suggest that tiny beings like humans can make a continent shake by simply walking on it?" I would really like to quote Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao from NASA again:

"To make a comparison about the mass that was shifted as a result of the earthquake, and how it affected the Earth, Chao compares it to the great Three-Gorge reservoir of China. If filled the gorge would hold 40 cubic kilometers (10 trillion gallons) of water. That shift of mass would increase the length of day by only 0.06 microseconds and make the Earth only very slightly more round in the middle and flat on the top. It would shift the pole position by about two centimeters (0.8 inch)." (Taken from: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html)

Readers! Just consider what will happen if there were no mountains and you had a mass of such enormity as Three Gorge reservoir. I have already explained the idea above.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) And in reply to the statement…

…example of patients and doctors.

Answer:

Readers! Again Ali Sina has proved himself a lunatic. If he would have read or listened carefully to what Dr. Zakir Naik had said in his speech, he wouldn't be writing such idiotic comments.

Firstly, Dr. William Campbell gave a wrong analogy of the Quranic verses and secondly, he translated the word incorrectly as "Earthquake". In his counter reply Dr. Zakir Naik gave a right analogy. He just replied to his annotations and he was not comparing non-living things with living things. In my words, "a genius was giving a stupid answer to a stupid person", the same way I am doing with Ali Sina. Sometimes you require lowering your level of understanding in order to educate dumb people like him. The same way, a teacher does to his/her students.

Ali Sina said,” Here Dr. Naik is trying to explain with this harebrained example why most of the earthquakes happen in mountainous regions.” Where did he say that? Can Ali Sina point to me? Isn’t it idiocy that all the way Dr. Zakir Naik was refuting a wrong claim that earthquakes are due to mountains and then go astray to affirm it later?

As for the rest of Ali Sina’s mucky comments, I will leave it for later reply under some other discussion.

Oceanology of the Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of Oceanology, the Glorious…

…except a totally ignorant person?

Answer:

Quranic verses in question:

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together” (Quran 55:19)

“Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress” (Quran 55:20)

“It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.” (Quran 25:53)

Once more Ali Sina has afforded arguments with “NO EVIDENCE” in hand, just only disparaging and dejectedly mottled ideologies which churn out no astuteness in any way.

Much of the explanation was already portrayed by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech and rest I will enlighten readers using Ali Sina’s own interpretations.

Ali Sina believes, “There is no “invisible barrier” between two waters, which is “forbidden to be trespassed”. There is no barrier of any kind - no barzakh at all between waters.” He is negating what NASA said,

“The narrow Strait of Gibraltar is the gatekeeper for water exchange between the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. A top layer of warm, relatively fresh water from the Atlantic Ocean flows eastward into the Mediterranean Sea. In return, a lower, colder, saltier layer of water flows westward into the North Atlantic ocean. A density boundary separates the layers at about 100 m depth.” (Taken from: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16581)

At this juncture NASA is conversing with reference to some “density boundary”; can’t we hail as a barrier which is off-putting sweet water and salt water to blend instantly? In his interpretation Ali Sina is not only opposing Quranic verses, although what NASA has held. Jogging his remembrance, as being an atheist he ought to choose a side; either Holy Scriptures or Science. He requires either of them to prove his allegations.

Ali Sina uttered, “All waters mix and there is no barrier, invisible or otherwise between them”. I agree to the first part of adversary quickly, if he ever looked at the translation attentively he would fathom that Quran has used the word مرج meaning “they both meet and mix with one another”. Now he has to put in the picture, as to why on one hand Quran is saying that sweet and salt water when meet, they mix and on the other hand saying that there is still a boundary which keeps them apart, after meeting. NASA already gave a reply above. Ali Sina has to enlighten me now that who discerned this boundary or a barrier 1400 years ago? No one, if he still articulates that it is a discernible experience then he is dishonest again and as usual.

Readers! There is no approach for Ali Sina to establish these verses as un-scientific, but limited to only give his own self-crafted smeared terminologies and tarnish implications, creation of his own grimy mind, with no evidence in hand at all. Certainly these are his handy works.

Readers! For more information on this subject please visit the following site: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-e.htm

Embryology in the Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of Embryology, Dr. William Campbell…

…See my response bellow.

Answer:

Readers! See my response below as well.

Is Islam for All Mankind?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) As far as this statement of his is concerned…

…truly believe that the Quran is the word of God.

Answer:

Readers! The only motive I am refuting Ali Sina’s comments is because Dr. Zakir Naik has mentioned Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as guidance for all mankind, in his speech which Ali Sina deemed is not true.

Let’s make out how righteous Ali Sina is in his claims. He quoted following verses and interpreted that Quran is only destined for the natives of Makkah and its surroundings.

“And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the mother of cities and all around her.” (Quran 6:92)

“Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur'an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her” (Quran 42:7)

Readers! Where these verses say that they are restricted to Makkah and its surroundings only? According to English language, “all” also means as “the entire”, “the whole”, “every single one”, and “each and every one”. Therefore, it means all the places surrounding Makkah which is a hub of Islam, means the whole universe.

The word applied for “surrounding” in above mentioned Quranic verses is حولها and if you look up for this word in any other verses it gives you the same translation.

“Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah. and those around it Sing Glory and Praise to their Lord;” (Quran 40:7)

In the above verse Allah is mentioning “all of those mankind” who believes in Him. There is no where in this verse a limitation of mankind is defined. Thus proving Quranic verses 6:92 & 42:7 to be true and they meant for whole humanity.

Readers! I would like Ali Sina to find me a verse from Holy Quran where it unequivocally states that Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) are only sent for the people of Makkah? I said unequivocally and not smeared construal same as he always presents.

Quranic verses in question:

“Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance.” (Quran 32:3

“In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah” (Quran 36:6)

Ali Sina said, “The people of the Book, i.e. the Jews, the Christians and perhaps the Zoroastrians had their own messengers and their guidance. The only people who had not received guidance were the Arabs, specifically the Arabs of Mecca and its surrounding”. We Muslims believe that they go astray of the beliefs and teachings of their prophets. And their Prophets’ teachings were never retained by any one of them. So it is inevitable that they did not receive any guidance.

Ali Sina said, “So, it is clear that Muhammad claimed that he had come only for the Quraish and not for the people of the Book and the rest of mankind”. Where is it written in the verses he mentioned? He said that “Muhammad claimed”, but tell me where did he claim in these verses?

Ali Sina said, “They must leave Islam, if they truly believe that the Quran is the word of God”. What is he saying here? Is he in his senses or is it a typo? Why should we leave Islam if we believe Quran to be the word of Allah?

Readers! I could have spent more time on these verses, but they are not actually the theme in this discussion. For rest of Ali Sina’s comments, (his sickness of going off-track is going out of hands) I will do reply later insha Allah.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Qur’an says in Surah Ibrahim, Ch. 14…

…you are accepting to be inferior.

Answer:

Quranic verse in question:

“We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.” (Quranic verse 21:107)

Readers! I will only reply to only those comments of Ali Sina pertaining to this particular Quranic verse. For rest of the excerpts, I will do rebut under some other topic insha Allah.

Ali Sina said, “Nas is people – any number of people. It could be people gathered in a room. It could refer to the inhabitants of a village, a town, a country and not necessarily ALL Mankind”. Why not necessarily all mankind? What kind of logic is this? It is like he is forcing us to use this word in limitations, but why? First he said that “Nas is people - any number of people” and then he said “not necessarily ALL Mankind”, he is contradicting himself. Does he drink alcohol while writing? What about the whole chapter 114 by the name of “An-Nas” meaning “Mankind”?

“Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind,” (Quran 114:1)

“The King (or Ruler) of Mankind” (Quran 114:2)

“The Allah (for judge) of Mankind” (Quran 114:3)

“(The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind,” (Quran 114:5)

What does Ali Sina has to say about above mentioned verses? Readers! Please note that how Ali Sina manipulates words and twists the meanings to confuse common people. The Arabic word الناس also means “mankind” as mentioned in the above verses. I can give you more Quranic verses where this word is used for mankind, however above seems enough.

By the grace of Allah I have proven that Quran and Prophet Muhammad are sent for “the whole mankind”.

For rest of his mucky comments including some hadiths he mentioned. I will rebut later insha Allah.

Embryology Continuation

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) So as far as the Qur’an is concerned…

…different than what the X rays reveal.

Answer:

Readers! Please do read the article “How the Westerners Found $cience in the Quran” by Abul Kasem. It is hilarious indeed. The author appeared to be so belligerent in faceting “Dr. Maurice Bucaille’s” & “Dr. Keith Moore’s” life histories. Bestowing the inkling that he was in the company of Doctors all the time and noting down all the things they were doing. Surprisingly, he is also aware of the “HIDDEN STORY” that King Faisal bribed Doctors to inscribe their books. He & his ally Ali Sina imagine that populace will believe every word from them by “NO EVIDENCE” in hand again. Readers! I cannot resist myself in retorting to a few comments a propos this article. It seems Ali Sina’s sickness (of going out of track) is creeping up on me. However, I won’t engrave too much with reference to it and certainly won’t confuse you as well.

In one place article says, “To say that the "water cycle" is something that is discovered by the Qur’an is simply laughable and reveals nothing but the real motive as to why Dr. Bucaille is so inclined in pleasing the Islamists”. No where Quran mentions that water cycle is discovered by it. Again a lie and allegation against Quran and no scholar pronounces that as well.

Truthful testimony is that Abul Kasem should put in to words that water cycle is mentioned in Quran and it was discovered by populace later.

Article says, “This is due to the fact that almost all the Islamic countries have translated his book in their languages and it is a must read book for the new Mullahs. I have never seen this book in our mosques or in our religious schools (madrasa). Endow with evidence where it bares that it is part of the curriculum for the students in religious schools. This is a lie from Abul Kasem.

Article says, “Dr. Bucaille's book leaves one with the impression that he (Dr. Bucaille) is convinced that Islam is the truest religion of all on earth and the Qur’an is indeed the words of Allah. Now when a person is so much convinced in a faith we naturally expect him to be a Muslim, isn't it?” Why doesn’t Abul Kasem ask Doctor, in person? Send one of Ali Sina’s disciples or his own allies to ask him personally. And how sure is he on Doctor’s conversion? I didn’t locate a single article (known or unknown) stating Dr. Maurice Bucaille conversion to Islam with proper evidence.

Article says, “Being a man of science why does not he lend his ultimate allegiance to the scientific Qur’an? What answer the Islamists have for this enigma of Dr. Bucaille?” Ask Dr. Bucaille? Why is he asking Muslims? Do we care if he is converted or not?

Besides revealing the “HIDDEN TRUTH” (that King Faisal bribed Dr. Bucaille) which only Abul Kasem, Ali Sina and their allies knew, there are several other laughable “items” present in this article as well.

Article says, “Dr. Bucaille cleverly avoids the political, social and the violent parts of the Qur’an. Are not political and social matters scientific too? After all, there are such subjects as political science, social science, etc”. Dr. Bucaille writes that he could not find any verse in Qur’an that is against science”. Subsequently Abul Kasem furnishes a list of items from Quran, and according to him, they should be part of science in Doctor’s book but they are not.

Whatever Abul Kasem has printed in his article is refutable. One just has to rummage around on Internet to acquire an in depth answers. I only like to give my reply to one of his examples where he says that Islam allows beating the wives in order to make them obedient. I just want to enlighten Abul Kasem that he is no better than Dr. Maurice Bucaille, when he said that Doctor “cleverly avoids violent parts of the Quran”, since Abul Kasem has done the same thing. He deliberately avoided good parts of Quran regarding the position of women in Islam. He just posted a particular verse that only served his own purpose, discarding bunch of other verses pertaining to women’s rights and position in Islam. Following are the some of verses from Quran:

“And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.” (Quran 4:4)

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors” (Quran 24:4)

“Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty” (Quran 24:23)

“O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them: so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.” (Quran 33:49)

For particular verse which Abul Kasem was referring to where it says to beat wives to make them obedient is this. Readers! Search Internet for a detailed answer.

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).” (Quran 4:34)

Article says, “If the Hindus could generate billions of petro-dollar they can surely employ many western professors to do just that”. Meaning, Hindus do not have billion dollars to take into service western professors. Isn’t it much of senselessness from Abul Kasem. One can easily acquire such “western professors” who effortlessly can put up for sale their ego and faith and can do anything for money (same way you alleged Muslims to hire Dr. Maurice Bucaille & Dr. Keith Moore). If Muslim dogma is not coming in to grips and it is going out of their hands then employ western professors, subsequently we will see what they will come up to. Fetch in all your atheists, contribute to a cause of hiring professors, and let them loose to defy Islam. Ali Sina can also put his $50,000 for this cause. I want to see how strongly they can hit.

Article says, “There are separate pay structures and perks for the whites and the dark skinned people in most Arab countries”. Readers! Please note that how Abul Kasem is keep on lying to the people. I work with an oil company in Middle East and the pay structure over here depends upon the personal living cost back in your home country. If you look at it in a broader vision; An American will get the same salary package after cutting down his calculated expenses and living cost back in his home country, as compared to an Indian. And it is the case in most of the companies in Arab countries. Similarly, an Indian-American (Dark Complexion) will definitely get more salary than that of a person who lives in India and this is just because of the living cost back in his home country. Therefore, no matter if you are white or dark; salary is based on the living cost back in your home country.

Readers! I will stop here. You go through this article yourself and do search for all the allegations for evidences and I am assuring you that you won’t find any one. People like Ali Sina and Abul Kasem desire Holy Scriptures to be like a book of science, where it should mention 2+2=4 and mathematical equations and terms, theories and hypothesis. Keeping this scenario in consideration, you tell me who will regard such a kind of book. If this so called “Holy Scripture” mentions simple formulas then it should be meant for only children and if it contains complex formulas and rocket science then it would be meant for higher students. Science book also requires experts for understanding. These kinds of people will never sit back in criticizing such “Holy Scriptures”, and will keep on poking people of the book that their book is not for the whole humanity. Holy Scriptures should be all together different, from all other books written by humans, and it should invite people to search for a truth hidden in them and such discourses are actually what you call a beauty of a book.

Readers! Besides not having their own Holy Book and no fear of justifying their faith and beliefs, people like Ali Sina and Abul Kasem will never sit back but will always hit you as they will never agree to any of your explanations. They will just stick to the outset of the terms mentioned in Holy Scriptures, without producing solid evidences and logical explanations but just keep howling on the basis whatever their teeny-weeny brain can grasp.

Human embryo and leech:

Readers! I am posting here few pictures of human embryo and leech and you decide for yourself if they resemble.

Human Embryo Pictures:

Just be assured that none of the pictures are from Islamic sites.

Look at the part where it denotes “Tail Bud”, “Somites”, and “Brain”. If you redraw the picture again leaving out rest of the parts except tail bud, somites and brain, you will surely see a resemblance as leech.

A model of Human Embryo

Leech Pictures:

Consider tail bud, somites, and brain, then compare it with leech and surely you will see a resemblance.

Again Ali Sina did not provide any evidence in his claims. He just believed what ever Dr. William Campbell presented. The part where Dr. Zakir Naik was telling about “different perspective”, he would surely get the idea what Doctor was talking about after looking at the pictures. And in some part of his brain, he will certainly agree that human embryo does resemble leech, but if he still sticks to his belief then he is a dishonest person, dishonest to himself and to people as well.

Readers! Regarding the meaning of alaqa, much has been posted on the Internet. I will advise you to search for it and you will surely get the answers “WITH EVIDENCES”.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) What Dr. William Campbell showed you…

…Islam is nothing but a big lie.

Answer:

Readers! I have already posted pictures of human embryo and leech as evidences. And it is not required for Ali Sina at all to stand on his head to agree to perception, but just requires from his part a mere common sense which I surely doubt that he has it. However, if his common sense does not work this way then he can stand on his head if it suites him. Rest, I will leave it to the enlightened readers to fix on.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore, after about 80 questions…

…we can dispense with the opinions of authorities.

Answer:

Ali Sina said, “We don't need the opinions of the experts when we can easily find the facts on our own”. What if one cannot comprehend scientific terminologies; a person will definitely refer to the specialists for a profound explanation. Readers! When Ali Sina fells ill, it seems that he refers to books of medicine rather then visiting a Doctor where he could get detailed and proper information concerning his disease? Similarly, does he not accept the words of a Doctor just because he is an authority? This is ridiculousness again.

Ali Sina said, “We must not accept the words of anyone just because they are authorities”. Oh! So this is the reason he is still suffering from his mental sickness. He must summon an authority in Medical Science for cure. My counsel is to see a Muslim doctor.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) ‘Moon is reflected light’ - I’ll come to it later on…

…What is the name of that award?

Answer:

The name of the award is “J. C. B. Grant Award” by the Canadian Association of Anatomists in 1991. And he also received Honored Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists “for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy”.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) This is the Islamic edition that was put forward…

…which is of course not true.

Answer:

Readers! Such a disgusting mind and traits Ali Sina has. I wonder if he ever reveres his own family and associates. He surely proves me that he has never learnt etiquettes from his child hood. Such mottled wits he has, really compelling me to have faith in his debauched bring up.

Ali Sina asked, “Where does the Quran say anything about millions of sperms? I will not counter this query, for the reason that, subsequently he will raise a question if Quran has scores of scientific miracles then where is it written that 2+2=4. Therefore, I rather not react to this childish inquiry.

As for the meaning of alaqa, readers please search Internet for comprehensive answer. Much has already been written and is available on Internet with evidences.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Qur’an says in Surah Sajda Ch. 32 Verse no. 8…

…is not at all concerned about lying?

Answer:

Quran is only giving a depiction of semen. Readers! You can conclude now how Ali Sina is deceiving people.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) And Qur’an says in Surah Insan, Ch. 76 Verse No. 2…

…Mother was only an incubator in his mind.

Answer:

Quranic verse in question:

“Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight”. (Quranic verse 76:2)

Readers! Right from the outset Ali Sina is proving himself dupe. Not only he lacks the insight of scriptures, he even seems lame in English vocabulary as well. The word “mingle” has following meanings:

- Mix things together gently or gradually

- To mix or bring together in combination

- To mix so that the components become united

- To join or take parts with others

Every meaning of the word “mingle” is depicting “two or more than two entities involved in inter-mixing”. In Quranic verse 76:2, one component is “sperm” itself and second constituent is from female. Otherwise if only sperms were requested for fertilization, then this verse would be off beam in all aspects. Therefore, the word “mingled” is equitably employed in this particular Quranic verse.

Readers! Ali Sina once more substantiated in his declaration that Quran was not plagiarized from the Bible, when he said, “Galen knew that woman must also contribute something to the formation of the fetus, although he erroneously thought this something is congealed blood. But Muhammad did not think any female contribution is needed. Mother was only an incubator in his mind”. Although, this entire testimonial is erroneous, yet still it rebuffs what he keeps on yowling about Quran was forged from the Bible.

Ali Sina said, “Mother, in Muhammad’s embryology is only an incubator. She does not contribute genetically to the formation of the embryo”. And afterwards he brought up two Quranic verses and cited that there are no allusions of female interference in these verses. Quranic verse 23:14 confers the answer when it articulates about changing “nutfa” in to a clot of congealed blood. Readers! You elucidate me where this precise stage is ensuing? Surely, it is occurring in Mother’s womb. This verse surely depicts the idea of woman intervention in fertilization process. If donkey brain like Ali Sina cannot apprehend the truth then it is his own deficiency not that Quran is fallible.

Readers! By this time you must be sure about Ali Sina’s intellectual fitness and where it is taking him.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) The Qur’an describes the various embryological…

…in the Quran is scientifically wrong.

Answer:

Readers! There is zilch to comment over here. I have already retorted to all his allegations above in the discussion.

If Ali Sina does not deem it as a miracle, that blood is clotted in the closed vessels and there is no circulation still started as portrayed by Quran, then we do not require his testimony to prove this. If Quranic description does not seem to be a miracle to him, as he said in regards to blood clot being an observable phenomenon, so, isn’t it enough a miracle that he cannot even “disprove” any claim of Quran regarding blood clot as an observable phenomenon, and subsequently science has also proved that blood is clotted within the closed vessels as well. Therefore, one can put both the statements in conjunction with Quranic verse and still cannot disprove any one of it as they are not in against what is Quran saying. In short, both the descriptions are proved by this particular Quran verse.

Regarding forging Quran from Bible, I have already put in words the evidences. Rest of his comments is again his messy terminologies and nothing at all.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Only one line answer is sufficient to answer…

…embryonic growth much more accurately.

Answer:

Readers! For the sake of the argument I agree that an embryo guised like a clot and it is an observable phenomenon. And it is also one of the meanings of the word “alaqa”, besides having meanings as “leech like” and “some thing that clings”. However latter two meanings are not an observable phenomenon and Ali Sina uttered that it does look like a leech after abortion, which is wide of the mark. I am presenting here some pictures of human fetuses that were aborted in first trimester (in which most abortions and miscarriages occur). I want readers to look at the size of human fetuses starting from 7^th week and see how diminutive they are and if they bear a resemblance to leech. You can visit the following link to view the pictures (http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-photos.html).

Readers! Sure you have seen that human fetus does not look like a leech at the most probable week of miscarriage or abortion. And prior to seventh week, human fetus is not visible to naked eye and can only be viewable from microscope. Therefore, the only stage when it looks like a leech is when it is microscopic. This is the also the reason why Dr. Keith Moore was surprised when he observed the semblance. Who could have known this fact 1400 years ago?

The exquisiteness and marvel lie in the word “alaqa” where it symbolizes three meanings and all of them tally the Quranic descriptions to excellence. According to the sake of argument I acquiesce with Ali Sina’s fraudulent terminology that human fetus does look like a clot, nevertheless, he fibbed when he alleged that it is an observable phenomenon where it looks like a leech as you must have already classified in the pictures. How could Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) knew that embryo clings and looks like a leech 1400 years ago?

Ali Sina is such a hypocrite. Again he did not provide any evidence to support his crooked claims.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore took plastic seal…

…known to everyone at the time of Muhammad.

Answer:

Readers! Again “NO EVIDENCE” in hand and just yapping with no common sense at all from his side. This is another sickness he has besides going off the subject and perplexing people. Dr. Zakir Naik already cleared that Quran is furnishing descriptions on appearances and not functions.

It is a common sense that when someone describes a complex process and if he wants it to be easy to comprehend then he surely divides it in to easy steps so that they can be grasped with no difficulty. What so false about it? Quran is doing the same thing, it is noting down the whole progression of development in to steps in terms of appearances to make populace understand easily.

Ali Sina said, “Alaqa either means something that clings or clot of blood. One word in one sentence cannot have two different meanings.” I would like “PROFESSOR” Ali Sina to ascertain me that one word cannot have two different meanings in one sentence in Arabic, Hebrew and Greek? These are the languages in which scriptures were recorded originally. If his mother tongue has limitations then it is the dilemma of his lingo. I am not aware of which language he speaks and what is his mother tongue; however it seems either his language has limitations or he does not know very much about his dialect. Why is he employing his own language rules to the languages of Holy Scriptures? One word, several meanings and this is the magnificence of a language; that was the reason why Arabs before the time Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) used to call people like Ali Sina as “ajami” عجمى – dumb; dumb in language, dumb in eloquence and dumb in intellect? They swanked about their language; but this practice of racism was ceased by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) by equalizing every one.

Ali Sina said, “If I say the Moon looks like Melon, I am right. But this is not a scientific statement”. Readers! Yes he is right; however, Moon is visible to naked eye and Quran is talking about stages that are not discernible. Blood clotted with in the closed vessels, embryo clings to uterine wall and it looks a leech, are not obvious facts until unless you have a microscope and an ultrasound machine, as I have proved above. If I say that Ali Sina has a pumpkin-head; again this is an observable fact and no miracle whatsoever. Marvel lays here, when I pronounce how and what is inside that pumpkin-head without using any equipment but just divine knowledge. And this is what Quran is illuminating; THE INSIDE STORY.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Later on the Qur’an says… ‘We made the…

…This statement is scientific. The Quran is not.

Answer:

Quranic verse in question:

“Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!” (Quran 23:14)

Readers! You must have noticed that Ali Sina is acknowledging all that was said by Dr. William Campbell, as true. Devoid of even applying his own intellect he is just well-disposed of whatever said by the Doctor. He did not even try to ensure Doctor’s credence with some other authentic sources concerning having bones first then flesh during human development.

Here is the evidence:

“The early skeleton develops primarily by the process of ossification of pre-existing cartilage formed by 5 weeks of gestation. The cartilaginous model undergoes invasion by osteoblasts and is only subsequently mineralised. Human muscle development begins between 6 and 8 weeks of gestation with the formation of primary muscle fibres followed by the laying down of secondary fibres between weeks 8 and 18.” (Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T65-4GSJXHT-2&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2005&_alid=510036663&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5021&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000027078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=536372&md5=44c86a7dc75d5330a0a51bec9e9268d1)

During human or fetal development, hyaline cartilage is present at the 5^th week and between 6^th and 8^th week muscles are formed around hyaline cartilage. Hyaline cartilage is a precursor of a bone as it is avasular (no blood vessels) in function. Besides using the direct word “cartilage”, Quran has mentioned the word “bone” in order to understand it easily. And also the word “cartilage” is a newly-born modern word and mostly used in medical terminologies at present. Today, majority of common people who are not linked to any kind of medical field still not aware of this word and if you still display them a “cartilage” they will still label it as a “bone”. Therefore, Quran is not made only for the Medical students but it is for the common people and whole humanity.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) As Professor Keith Moore said that…

…to be covered with flesh later. Period!

Answer:

It’s Ali Sina’s conjecture again that Quran is amiss. Till now he did not controvert Quran to be the word of Allah besides bestowing his own lame postulations and smeared jargons with no evidences, indeed; such are only by-product of his gutter mind eventually do not make any impression at all. Joseph Goebbel must be discussing about laypeople like him and his cronies and disciples who forever yap and yowl lies, devoid of engendering sole “EVIDENCE” in against, eventually framing the entire fib as fact.

Quranic description of embryonic stages is flawlessly bona fide as Dr. Zakir Naik and I have publicized above with “EVIDENCES”. Bone in the form of its precursor known as cartilage is present when flesh starts mounting around it. Period!

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Therefore he said… therefore he said that…

…laughed his way to the bank.

Answer:

I am not aware of as why Dr. Moore is not reverted to Islam. Likewise, I did not come across any realistic account which pronounces that he is “NOT” reverted. May be he is relapsed and keeping mum, just as the way Ali Sina doing to his family. Who knows? He has to ask Doctor himself.

Does God Punish People?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) It is mentioned in Surah Nisa, Ch. No. 4, Verse No. 56…

http://www.iiop.org/MDebate.php?recordID=2

…and the characteristic of their sadistic god.

Answer:

Ali Sina said, “He is a lot like me, a freethinker, a free spirit, and just like me, he is not an appeaser”. At least now I have the picture how Ali Sina looks like and who he resembles. Is this poor animal in his good shape or is he also converted to “Golden Rule Cult” and just turned this way after listening to his sermons? Poor animal!

Readers! I do not intend to remark on any of his allegations against Allah and his Prophet Mohammed (Peach be upon him) as this is not the venue. I will retort fully under some other subject later insha Allah. However, I cannot resist myself (and yes I am contradicting myself over here) by riposting to some of his dumb philosophies. First; he gave an exemplar of his cat, expressed his posture towards him, and how he fantasized punishing him but he never did so, since he loves him a lot. Correspondingly, he compared the entire scenario of himself and his cat to Allah and humans. Isn’t it illogical comparing animals with humans and yourself playing God in comparisons? Such an absurd example he presented. Human beings one of the best of creations of Allah with intellects; and he compared them with animals with no brains at all. This entire scenario exceedingly seems a production of twisted mind like Ali Sina who is also an animal as he already testified his “parents as animals” (This is in his debate with Yamin Zakaria where he portrayed Muslims as animals). The debate is over here:

Concerning punishments in Islam, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, states:

“Allah (Mighty and Exalted Be He) is indeed very Merciful, Loving and Compassionate, but He is also Just and Severe in punishment. According to the Qur’an, Allah is “Forgiver of sins, Accepter of repentance, the Stern in punishment, the Powerful…” (Ghafir: 3). It is wrong to accept only some aspect of Allah and ignore or negate some other aspects. When people believe only in the love of Allah and ignore His justice and power they become careless and do whatever they wish. When people believe in the justice and power of Allah and ignore His love and compassion they become hermits and monks and run away from the world and its enjoyments. Islam teaches us a balanced life and so it teaches us both aspects of Allah’s Being.

Allah created human beings and He gave them everything for their existence. He guided them through His Prophets and Messengers and gave them all the possibilities to be good and faithful, but if they still reject Him and turn away from Him, then He does not care for them. Such people by their own actions have made themselves unworthy of His love and compassion. He warned them again and again that the consequences of their sins and rebellion will be severe, but if they did not pay any attention to Him, so why should He show any mercy to such ungrateful, stubborn, and evil creatures. Allah says in the Qur’an: “O human being, what has deceived you about your Lord Most Beneficent? Him Who created you, fashioned you in due proportion, and made you right; and in whatever form He willed for you, He set you. But no, you do deny the Day of Judgment! Indeed over you are keeping watch the honorable beings; writing down (your deeds). They know what you do. The Righteous will be in Bliss; and the Wicked will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgment.” (Al-Infitar: 6-15) And Allah says, “We wronged them not, but they it was who did the wrong.” (Az-Zukhruf: 76)”

Coming back to the topic, Quranic verse in question:

“Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (Quran 4:56)

Readers! I will take a different approach over here, yet, proving this particular verse as scientific and miraculous.

1. There is no erroneous information mentioned in this verse so far.

2. Allah is revealing in this verse that skin is the part of the body that will be given penalty. Indicating again that there is some relation of the skin in regards to pain. Today it is a fact that pain receptors (Nociceptors) are abundant in skin.

3. In the past it was understood that the whole human body could feel pain including internal organs as well. Where as Quran is purposely speaking about skin in this particular verse.

4. Allah is speaking of skin only in this verse and no other organs, indicating again the primacy of skin in regards to pain.

5. According to Science, if skin is roasted (Third and Fourth-degree burns) then it obliterates all pain receptors, meaning “NO PAIN”. As the verse says so, “as often as their skins are roasted through”. Purporting a severe char, like a third-degree or fourth-degree burn where all the pain receptors are scorched and patients usually do not suffer any pain. (Taken from: http://www.burnfree.com/p_pages.asp?page=burncare#thirddegree)

6. Why Allah explicitly declared the word “roasted”? Afterwards, switch of a skin with a fresh one so that the pain re-originates. Obviously, He can easily formulate the skin so that it will not be roasted in hell, can’t He do that? Likewise, He can also provide a skin that just burns over and over again without even melting, having immense and endless pain. No, but it seems that Allah is going out of His way by making a skin to be “roasted” first, and then “replaced”, why? Why, “replace” doesn’t it mean that pain receptors are destroyed when skin is roasted and there is no pain at all; in turn, there is a need for a fresh skin. And why a “fresh” one? Isn’t this word “fresh” depicting of fresh pain receptors on a fresh skin. Surely there is some logic and science in this verse which people have found out in recent years.

7. In this whole verse both the “skin” & “pain” are used twice in respect to each other, surely inviting intellects and opening up a window of research in the particular relation. Besides skin is associated with sensitivity because it contains the majority of nerve endings causing pain when stimulate.

8. As I have proved; in no ways this verse is going against science and surely it is a miracle of Quran.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Professor Thagada Shaun, who is the head….

(http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm)

…they will not accept the truth.

Answer:

“Professor Thagada Shaun must be a fool” Readers! All along in his arguments Ali Sina was trying to allege Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore of not reverting to Islam after when they claimed Quran to be the word of Allah and Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) as a true messenger of Allah. Now when he finds one Scientist who reverted to Islam after reading the Quran, he is calling him a “FOOL”. Heaven knows what makes Ali Sina happy.

“Heaven knows if such an idiot actually exists or he is a fabrication of Muslim wishful thinking”. And now Professor Thagada Shaun besides being a fool he is an idiot as well. Wow! Really Ali Sina is increasing our knowledge in getting to know Professor. Readers! You tell me that who is an idiot all along in this discussion.

Readers! Please find below the testimony (video) of Dr. Tejatat Tejasen, chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Previously, he was the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the same University.

“There are many more authentic doctors and professors born and raised in Islam who reject this cult and have left it. They find Islam and the Quran utterly stupid. Why not listen to them?” Why should we pay attention to them? They ought to be same as Ali Sina, with no common sense at all and self-make asinine fairytales. Does he consider Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists etc, take note of these people who abscond from their respective religions and initiate hatred against it? If someone departs from Ali Sina’s “Cult of Golden Rule” of which it seems he is a prophet, is he going to give him any credence? However, in the case of Ali Sina, as being a Muslim, I have cross-checked every grimy detail he has posted in his article and I have found every word of his a “BIG LIE” and him as hypocrite, charlatan and fraud. A Person similar to Ali Sina who is, on one hand, lying to his own family and on the other hand preaching “TRUTH” to mankind, how honest is he going to be for populace. He has already set up himself as an example and it will be remain as a Dark Stain on his personality forever.

Readers! It is always very big news for me when someone leaves Islam because I never thought of someone leaving such a beautiful religion. However I have broadened my intellect now as I have found out that there are some fools & stupid in every religion. When I started reading Ali Sina’s articles on his website, they made me very upset at first, and I started having doubts in my faith. Then I thought of checking his credence of what ever he is writing; is it actually correct or not. And as I thought, every thing he wrote on his website is incorrect and full of lies. Then I repent to Allah for having slightest of doubts in my faith.

Apart from this I should really thank him for making me firm on my faith. One of the reasons is Ali Sina that makes my belief on Islam stiffer and sterner more and more, as I always verify his claims from other sources as well and every time I found them bogus. Thank you Ali Sina, I will not ask him to close down his site as it is helping me increasing my knowledge of religion and it is really helping me out in understanding Islam correctly and comprehensively.

Ad Hominem in the Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Quran calls such people…

…neither will they understand.’

Answer:

I have already provided details, proofs, and evidences of what ever I have refuted till now. I will rest my case with Readers and they will judge now who fits “Ad Hominem” fallacy. All along in his article, Ali Sina has provided so many things and they all fit in this fallacy perfectly.

Regarding all other crap he has written, NO EVIDENCE again from him.

The Quran vs. the Bible

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) And regarding the other parts of…

http://www.iiop.org/MDebate.php?recordID=2

…as well as innumerable scientific errors.

Answer:

Ali Sina said, “However since the thinking Christians and Jews know that the Bible is not the verbatim word of God, but stories written by men who allegedly were inspired but nonetheless fallible, they take their scriptures with a grain of salt. This allows them to adapt to the changing time and let their intelligence be their guide”. How many “thinking” Christians and Jews know that the Bible is not the verbatim word of God? Are these “thinking” Christians and Jews educating their congregation as well that Bible is not the verbatim word of God? I want Ali Sina to provide me evidence where a Christian or a Jew makes such a statement in public. I also want Pope Benedict to utter such statement on television. If Pope cannot, then he is not a “thinking” Christian and surely does not belong to a “living” religion but to a dead one (as per rule set by Ali Sina).

The difference between a Muslim faith and Christian or Jew faith is that the “thinking” Muslim and a common Muslim both believe Quran to be the verbatim word of Allah, so we do not have to lie and also we do not have double standards. According to Ali Sina, “thinking” Christians and Jews do not believe Bible as a word of God, but common people they do. Does he mean these “thinking” Christians and Jews are liars? We Muslims dare these “thinking” Christians or Jews to make such a statement in public and on Television.

Readers! Every Christian and Jew is unique, whenever you try to corner them using their own terminologies from Bible; they always find a way out by uttering “I do not believe in this”, “I do not believe in that”. Same thing with Ali Sina as well, I have read one of his debates where he did somewhat similar. Like for example, his debate with Yamin Zakaria where in every rebuttal he was giving a new terminology of “Golden Rule. And also he did not post the full debate on his website as was truly done by Yamin Zakaria. The debate is over here:

Readers! Afterwards “REVEREND” Ali Sina posted a verse from Bible from John Chapter 16 verse 13, and he interpreted the phrase “Spirit of truth” to “new age of enlightenment”.

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now”. (John 16:12)

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)

Ali Sina said, “The spirit of truth has come. It is the new age of enlightenment. The gates of knowledge and understanding are flung open and new truths are being revealed every day”. Readers! This is again a “BIG LIE”. No where in the annotations of Bible the “Spirit of truth” is deciphered as “new age of enlightenment”. Christians interpret “Spirit of truth” as “Holy Spirit”, as the Greek word for “spirit” is “Pneuma” in John 16:13 and it is the same word that has been used in several other places for “Holy Ghost” i.e. John 1:33, 7:39, 14:26, 20:22 and million other places in the Bible. If Christians still stick to the notion that this word can also be interpreted as “new age of enlightenment” then they are untruthful. Why Christian scholars and Bible thumpers never say that? Here is the fact.

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=4&source=1&seq=i.50.15.2

Readers! If you profoundly scrutinize the verse of John 16:13, you can spot that the pronoun used for the “Holy Spirit” is “he” and it is been used SIX times in the same verse. You will not find a single verse in the whole Bible where you will come across SIX or more pronouns in the same verse for the same person. And no where in the whole Bible “Holy Ghost” ever called by masculine pronoun “he”, but always by the word “spirit” (because it is neutral and has no gender). Therefore, this verse is neither talking about “Holy Ghost” nor about “Holy Spirit”; however it is talking about a man of God who will come and guide people into truth. “New age of enlightenment” is out of question, this is just an interpretation of adolescent Ali Sina who never thinks before saying something, just like kids.

If Christians are still not comply with this evidence then they have to justify Muslims that what new teachings this “Holy Spirit” has given to them in 2000 years? In Context, in John 16:12 Jesus is saying that he has so many things to say but Jews cannot bear them now and in the next verse he said that a man will come (as I have proven above that “Holy Spirit” is actually a “Holy Man”) and he will guide you into all truth and will show you new things which Jesus failed to show them because Jews were not competent enough. Christians have to show us what new things were introduced by their “Holy Spirit”? What new laws it has brought to them?

Readers! Surely this verse is falsely interpreted by Ali Sina. Jesus was actually speaking about Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), that he will come and will guide whole humanity into all truth and shall give you new things. There is no other way Ali Sina and Christians can interpret this verse other than what Muslims have interpreted.

Rests of Ali Sina’s comments are just only implication of his daydreaming. I advise him to put forth the “EVIDENCE” otherwise just shut his foul mouth.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) if there are scientific points…

…Can you attribute this to God?

Answer:

There are no unscientific portions in the Quran as I have mentioned above and will be doing later in this document insha Allah. By producing smeared terminologies with no solid “EVIDENCE” in hand, Ali Sina thinks that he disproved Quran. Let readers be the judge.

Ali Sina:

Purpose of my presentation on…

…I do apologize in advance.

Answer:

“Christians have been taking criticisms for a long time and if those criticisms were correct, they have changed their ways and beliefs. That is why I call Christianity a living faith and Islam a dead and fossilized faith”. Ali Sina is ignorant of history. What about 4^th century Emperor Constantine who executed 3000 Christians? What about “Mark of Arethusa” and “Cyrill of Heliopolis” who were famous as “temple destroyers”? What about Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) who executed even children who were playing with remains of pagan statues? What about Crusaders? Every religion has some black sheep, so, it is inane to point to only one religion and leaving others. I can give loads of accounts on this subject; rather I will keep it for some other time under some other topic. For a quick review of Christians atrocities and it is just a counter reply to Ali Sina’s arguments, you can visit the following site:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm (It is a Christian site)

Well it is a very good excuse from him that “Christians have been taking criticisms for a long time and if those criticisms were correct, they have changed their ways and beliefs”. Readers! Damage was already done by them and now they are ready to change themselves; this is hypocrisy. All those atrocities mentioned by Ali Sina are the concrete teachings of Bible only, and I can provide the evidences if requested. This is actually what their Bible advocates and they can certainly align their mayhems as well by quoting their own scriptures. I am no where talking OUT OF CONTEXT, I am not like Ali Sina. What ever so-called Muslims are doing or they had done in the past cannot be verified from Quran but this is their own misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Holy Scriptures only and nothing to do with the teachings of Quran. If Ali Sina can quote me any verse from Quran which goes against humanity, then I will definitely clarify the misconception. And I am very much sure that he will come up with some verses but actually he would be quoting OUT OF CONTEXT.

At least, Dr. Naik had excused Christians prior, if they would feel hurt after his presentation. Doctor is not a callous person like Ali Sina whereby he mars the feelings of Muslims by mocking Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) who we revere so much, and he never undergoes remorse. Ali Sina, a stupid and twisted atheist, in his own dogma he has proven himself nastiest than non-Muslim cynics.

Ali Sina:

The purpose is only to point…

http://www.iiop.org/MDebate.php?recordID=2

…refute me and prove me wrong?

Answer:

Readers! I will put a side all of Ali Sina’s gibberish writings except this one where he said, “Why instead don’t you exert an effort to refute me and prove me wrong?” I challenge him that he cannot even disprove an apprentice like me, thus put aside thinking about having a debate with a connoisseur like Dr. Zakir Naik. First he has to confront me then loom to experts.

Readers! I would like you to go through his letter to Dr. Zakir Naik posted in his website “The Challenge to debate with Dr. Zakir Naik”. I will definitely insha Allah will reply to this letter fully later. I will just retort in short pertaining to this letter, where he furnishes hits of his web site and he weigh against the web site of Dr. Zakir Naik and says that his site is 12 times and some place he said 5 times popular than Doctor’s, such a brainless chap Ali Sina is, completely forgetting that Dr. Zakir Naik comes on Television and he is trillion times more popular than him. There are more people on Earth knowing Dr. Zakir Naik than him. Therefore, just swanking on web site hits is insanity and nothing at all. He again portrayed himself a harebrained; hiding himself in the mask of Internet and calling himself popular on the other hand.

Letter says, “The reason I wrote this invitation, was not to debate with Dr. Naik. I knew already Dr. Naik would not accept. He is wise enough to protect his reputation.” Oh such a brawny statement from Ali Sina. Readers! Ali Sina is shielding himself over here from being debased as he knew that Dr. Zakir Naik will never ever contest him on his provided conditions. So he just took an advantage of this situation and safeguards his standing.

Letter says, “Dr. Naik should be able to read his emails no matter which part of the world he is. Being abroad, is no more an excuse in this age of the Internet.” I assume Doctor must have seen Ali Sina’s email and just scored through it at once considering not worth responding. Scores of people sent emails to Doctor everyday and it is very arduous to riposte every email when you are traveling. You only react to very imperative emails. It comes about to me as well while I travel. There are instances where I have to thrust aside some emails because of my work load. Similarly, people like Dr. Zakir Naik keep staff to read his emails as it is habitual for the people who are much occupied or who travel a lot. This is the grounds that Ali Sina is getting emails from IRF Admin Team in response, since Dr. Zakir Naik is not reading them. Or may be Ali Sina thought that he has befall to be very famed now, and right after receiving his email, IRF Team will indeed compel to make an urgent call to Dr. Zakir Naik to reply to his email as soon as possible or otherwise it will be catastrophe in Islamic World. I would advise Ali Sina to stop day dreaming. He is not worth a thing.

Letter says, “Maybe Dr. Naik could tell us who are those "high-profile and high-caliber" opponents with whom he debated?” At least Ali Sina is not part of it and will never be. Why does not he visit Doctor’s site and look for people whom he had debates?

I just want to add one more thing, if Ali Sina is so “zealous” to have a debate with Dr. Zakir Naik then why does not he fulfill Doctor’s conditions and come in public. Not in writing, but only in public. Dare to come in crowd and bang Dr. Zakir Naik to grounds, as he wishes. Satisfy Doctor’s conditions and this will be Ali Sina’s first attack in proving him wrong. Knowing Ali Sina very well, he will never make such a gaffe to appear in public. I can sense a beefy coward and chicken in him.

Letter says, “Not a single person has won the debates with me, not because I am a highly skilled debater, but because I debate from the position of strength. It is easy to win when you speak the truth and your opponent does not.” Oh yeah! The same way Ali Sina had his “victory” over Yamin Zakaria. Readers! I have not read his debate with Grand Ayotallah Montazeri and others, but I have known this daft Ali Sina by reading his debate with Yamin Zakaria. I have found him a liar, hypocrite and swindler. By reading his debates with others, what else good it will give me, when he just proved himself a madcap in this particular one. He showed himself an impostor at first, so he will remain the same afterwards. I will urge readers to look at his debate with Yamin Zakaria. Do not read this debate on his site as he has not posted the debate from tip to toe. The debate is over here:

Letter says, “He would say anything and would propose unreasonable conditions such as televised meeting with 10,000 audience to avoid debating with me.” Let me remind Ali Sina, that it is he who desires to have a debate with Dr. Zakir Naik. He is only giving excuses that Muslims are coercing him to have a debate with Doctor. If he is so “zealous” to have a success over Dr. Zakir Naik then comply with his conditions?

Letter says, “As for face to face debate in front of camera or in public places, I consider it theatrics and have no desire for that”. Then similar decree should be valid for Dr. Zakir Naik as well, Doctor too thinks that debating on Internet has no value and he considers it waste of time and has no longing for that. Over here Ali Sina is purely shunning Dr. Zakir Naik by saying that television is not an apt medium for such encounters. In his own doctrine, whatsoever Ali Sina imagines and verbalizes is “RIGHT” and what ever he is anxious and scares of is “WRONG”. This is a very upright way of eluding confronts.

Letter says, “It is time consuming, expensive and what can you say in just two hours? Or, actually one, because half of the time is allotted to your opponent”. Ali Sina is giving excuses over here, he can easily gather up a matter that he wants to converse in one hour. Or he can concur upon a format with Dr. Zakir Naik and can have three hours. Or if he dares not to come in public then he can send one of his disciples (Cult of Golden Rule) who is good in speech. In this way he can remain hiding in his den as well and can deliver his message too. He can also put his $50,000 for this cause.

I probably heard Dr. Zakir Naik saying that he could go on delivering speech for a whole day, such an endurance he has. I believed him and I am sure that he will keep his words as well. Problem solved for Ali Sina, as he does not have to wrap up his speech in very few hours and he can go on for half a day and rest can be utilized by Dr. Naik. Contact Dr. Naik and we will see what he comes up with.

Letter says, “Also my doctors have advised me to stay away from any public and televised meetings. They say with my condition, a public meeting with Muslims is extremely dangerous for my health.” Oh yeah! They must have sensed a coward and chicken in Ali Sina. And there is no doctor on the face of the Earth who can cure a person who is “chicken”.

One place in letter Ali Sina has offered Doctor $50,000. If this debate ever happened, I am very much sure that after loosing it, he is not going to pay $50,000 as he is an individual who is lying to his own family, so he can lie to any one. And this is one of his biggest deceit and nothing at all.

Readers! The scenario between Ali Sina and Dr. Zakir Naik is that he wanted Doctor to have a debate with him, but only on his provided conditions to have it in writing only. Now, Doctor “afraid of being a looser” he denied his conditions and in turn put up his requirements to have a televised debate. Ali Sina also did not agree on his conditions and afterwards made a dim-witted claim that it was Doctor who was averting him, completely and deliberately overlooked that he had also denied Doctor’s conditions and avoided Doctor on the other hand. This is pure lunacy from Ali Sina.

Readers! You must have known Ali Sina by now after reading this document that how his intellect works when it comes to Holy Scriptures. And you must be sure now that besides not worth reading, he is not even worth responding. He is just only a game for apprentice like me. Let me handle him.

Creation of the Universe in the Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) As Jesus Christ, (Peace be upon him) said…

…This book as a book of God.

Answer:

Quranic verses in question:

“SAY: Would you indeed deny Him who has created the earth in two aeons? And do you claim that there is any power that could rival Him, the Sustainer of all the worlds?” (Quran 41:9)

“For He [it is who, after creating the earth,] placed firm mountains on it, [towering] above its surface, and bestowed [so many] blessings on it, and equitably apportioned its means of subsistence to all who would seek it: [and all this He created] in four aeons.” (Quran 41:10)

“And He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke; and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, “Come [into being], both of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, “We do come in obedience.” (Quran 41:11)

“And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function. And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure: such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.” (Quran 41:12)

Readers! No where in the Quran a 24 hours day is mentioned in regards to creation of this universe. Quran says “ayyam” and does not articulate day and night or morning and evening just like Bible.

Ali Sina said, “However Dr. Naik says that the days stated in the Bible should be interpreted as 24-hours days while the days stated in the Quran should be interpreted as unspecified periods of time - eons. Why this double standard?” Yes, days in the Bible ought to be construed as 24-hours of period because it undeniably speaks about “morning and evening” specifically. I am not aware how Ali Sina is going to interpret in some other way or may be he has to twist his miniscule brain a bit more. As for Quran, it does not state “morning and evening”, it just elucidates “very long periods”.

Ali Sina asked why a double standard, I am asking why should not be a double standard. Again this is another proof that Quran was not plagiarized from Bible. Readers! Please judge now that whose mind is under par and bereft of fairness and common sense. Ali Sina is such a sightless in his intellect that he is not even able to comprehend the distinction between Quran and Bible. It seems that he has a dilemma in acknowledging why Quran didn’t state days as 24-hours as it is declared in the Bible.

The word “yawm”, commonly translated as “day” but rendered as “aeon” and is used in Arabic to denote any period, whether extremely long (“aeon”) or extremely short (“moment”). Its application to an earthly day of 24-hours is only one of its many connotations.

Ali Sina said, “No scientist has ever said that the universe has been created in six phases”. Yes, but no scientist has never “DENIED” that universe can not be created in six long periods. I want Ali Sina to afford an established fact where scientists say that Earth cannot be created in six very long periods.

Six or eight days of creation?

41:9	Allah has created the earth in “TWO DAYS”	2
41:10	He created mountains and all other things in “FOUR DAYS”	4
41:11	Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky and said to it and earth for their obedience	0
41:12	So He completed them as seven firmaments in “TWO DAYS”	0
	TOTAL DAYS OF CREATION	6

Let’s analyze Quranic verse 41:11, it has a word “Moreover” in its translation, and meaning is:

1. Furthermore

2. In addition

3. Besides

4. Also

5. Additionally

6. Likewise

Subsequently, Quranic verse 41:12 is starting with a word “So” which has a meaning of:

1. Consequently

2. As a result

3. Thus

4. Therefore

5. Subsequently

6. Accordingly

7. Hence

Readers! The creation of earth mentioned in Quranic verse 41:9 is also mentioned in Quranic verse 41:12 in conjunction with the creation of sky, so there are actually two accounts depicting the same process in Quran. Besides creating earth in Quranic verse 41:9 and Quranic verse 41:12 in TWO days, Allah has also created sky in the same TWO days when he created earth as mentioned in Quranic verse 41:11 and 41:12. In short, Allah took TWO days in the creation of earth and sky and further FOUR days in creating mountains and other nourishments, so total of six days. Problem solved.

If you look at it another way, how can earth and sky be created after creating mountains and other nourishments? This is contradiction, however, it is removed by looking at the words “Moreover” in 41:11 and “So” in 41:12 which clearly insinuate that creation of earth and sky is a part of TWO DAYS creation. So the total comes to six days.

TWO days mentioned in Quranic verse 41:9 are the same TWO days that are mentioned in Quranic verse 41:12. They actually are not adding up, but Allah is mentioning the same account in two different places.

And regarding night as a veil over and earth, I am perplexed what Ali Sina is speaking about. It seems like he was not able to put forth his testimony of “six days creation theory” properly, and to conceal this set back he just started blabbering.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Point No.2 – Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1…

…Quran is wrong again.

Answer:

Quranic verse in question:

“So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.” (Quran 41:12)

Readers! Regarding six-day creation theory, I have already refuted Ali Sina above. Let’s speak about seven firmaments of which it seems he has a quandary with.

Ali Sina said, “Not only Muhammed believed that the sky has seven layers, which is ludicrous, he also believed that the earth has seven layers too.” Quranic verse he posted:

“Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number.” (Quran 65:12)

Readers! Let’s scrutinize the above mention verse with Science and see what scientists have to say regarding this matter. Above in the discussion, Ali Sina had provided school websites to prop up his perverted intellect regarding “mountains have roots”. This time I will also provide a testimony from children school’s website just to inform him that this information is from school level and it is an ignominy that it is not known by him. Yet substantiating my doubt again that he never attended a school.

“Earth has seven layers the inner core, outer core, D layer, lower mantle, transition region, shallow mantle, and crust.” (Taken from: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:qIriR03AA8kJ:library.norwoodschool.org/science/planets02/spring03/Planet_Projects_spring03/Earth%2520Leah.ppt+%22earth+has+seven+layers%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11)

Readers! Quran also speaks about seven layers of sky which we can interpret as seven layers of atmosphere. Here are they: you can get more details on Internet regarding these layers.

1. Troposphere

2. Stratosphere

3. Ozonosphere

4. Mesosphere

5. Thermosphere

6. Exosphere

7. Ionosphere

Therefore, Quran is accurate in all terms when it speaks about seven layers of earth and sky.

I think only one testimony is enough for Ali Sina to show him fallacious. Readers! For more information on earth and sky having seven layers, you can search on Internet.

Ali Sina presented pagan myths in his argument and said, “they thought that the Earth is flat and is located at the center of the Universe which consisted of solar system only. They believed that the Sun and the Moon along with Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury that are the seven known objects of the heaven are deities”. Afterwards, he linked the idea of seven planets to the layers of heaven mentioned in Quran. Readers! Quranic verse 41:12 clearly states following:

1. Allah has completed them as seven firmaments.

2. He assigned to each heaven its duty and command.

3. Allah adorned the lower heaven with lights.

It is apparent by reading Quranic verse 41:12 that Allah has formed seven heavens and He allocated each heaven its duty and command, afterward He bejeweled the “LOWER HEAVEN” with lights. Readers! You put in the picture for me; is Allah speaking about planting lights on a “lower planet” or “lower sky” in this particular Quranic verse. Supposedly if people at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) believed seven planets as seven heavens, however they must have crushed away this idea by an implication of common sense that how can lights be fixed on a planet. As per Ali Sina early people knew about seven planets. Yes, but they did not have a single stupidest picture of having “lights” on a “lower planet” as Ali Sina has. Then Ali Sina said each planet occupied a crystal sphere and stars were attached to lower sphere. What sphere? Quran says that the lights were there to adorn the lower heaven, and not the sphere. Now it’s been proved that “seven heavens” mentioned in Quran are not the actually the “seven planets” mentioned by bemused Ali Sina. Readers! Just read out the story of pagan myths by Ali Sina, and you will see how a big joker he is.

Regarding Quranic verse 65:12 which is speaking about seven layers of Earth and I want to ask Ali Sina is Quran again speaking about “seven planets” inside the “Earth”? This is the same interpretation he gave for “seven heavens” as “seven planets” in his argument which is ludicrous in itself. Therefore, the idea of pagan myths is as outlandish as Ali Sina is.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13…

(http://www../debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm

…Don’t we have enough already?

Answer:

Readers! I have already proved above that the Universe was created in six long periods according to Quran. Regarding the absurdity that is mentioned by Ali Sina, I have already refuted that. Earth and sky were formed in chorus and this testimony can be verified from Quran and also it is mentioned above. I am not going to repeat everything here again.

Ali Sina said, “Furthermore, is this an accurate account of Big Bang and the creation of Universe?” He has to provide an accurate account of Big Bang and the creation of Universe. I have already said much about both the theories above.

Ali Sina said, “Every school child knows that”. Readers! Isn’t it derisory adequate that Ali Sina is speaking of school?

Ali Sina said, “According to Quran the Earth is created first and the sky next”. I want him to show me a verse from Quran where it says that Earth is created “FIRST” and then sky “SECOND”. I am not going to consent to his erroneous and warped allusions. Readers! Quran in verse 41:9 is explicitly speaking about Earth and absolutely not speaking about sky at all. Similarly, Quranic verses 41:11 & 41:12 are speaking about creation of both Earth and Sky. And I have already proved above that Quranic verse 41:9 and 41:12 are two distinct accounts of the identical process in Quran in regards to the creation of “EARTH ONLY”. Regarding creation of sky, Allah has already cited the process in Quranic verse 41:11 and 41:12 in conjunction with the creation of Earth. This also proves that Earth and Sky were created, in tandem.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Point No..4, Genesis, Ch No.1 Verses 9to 13 says…

…Quran that rehashed this fairytale.

Answer:

Ali Sina is just blabbering over here with “NO EVIDENCE” again.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Point No. 5, the Bible says in Genesis, Ch No. 1…

…see the same error in the Quran?

Answer:

Readers! Please refer to my post where I have proved the creation of Universe in six long periods.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Point No. 6, that the Bible says in Genesis, Ch No. 1…

…We will discuss that later.

Answer

Readers! I will also discuss that later.

Length of Days of Creation

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) There are certain people who try and reconciliate…

…the same difficulty exists also in the Quran.

Anwer:

Ali Sina said, “the sun and the moon are created in the 7^th and 8^th day”. Readers! There are no 7^th and 8^th days in Quran regarding creation of Universe. Again refer to my earlier posts.

Contradictions in the Bible and the Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Regarding the concept of Earth, there are various…

…that it equal to 50,000 years.

Answer:

Readers! Again this particular contradiction is not related to the subject. However, I will retort in short.

1000 years:

Quranic verses in question:

“Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.” (Quran 22:47)

“He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.” (Quran 32:5)

Readers! Both these verses account 1000 years as a definite article in respect to humans ONLY. There is no ambiguity in both of these verses. Allah is speaking of human and human years in both of these verses devoid of speaking about angels, ghosts, spooks or spirits.

50,000 years:

Quranic verse in question:

“The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years” (Quran 70:4)

Readers! In this precise verse Allah is speaking about angels and spirits and certainly “NOT ABOUT HUMANS”. And surely time can be different for spiritual beings. So a day measures up to 50,000 years in this verse is particularly for the angels and spirits.

Readers! You be the arbitrator now, when Quran verbalizes about human years on TWO ACCOUNTS (22:47 & 32:5), then there is no incongruity as both the accounts say 1000 human years and are consistent in every sense. However, when Quran articulates spirits and angels in conjunction with 50,000 years, here Ali Sina found it paradox. Such a dumb head he has.

I can also prove by other means but I will do it later. For more information you can search for this particular “contradiction” on Internet, much has already been available there.

Is Sky a Dome?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Regarding ‘the Heavens’, the Bible says in Job…

…the knowledge of created things ends.

Answer:

Readers! If you read this post of Ali Sina, you will certainly be sure of his bizarre intellectual fitness.

Ali Sina said, “In the verses 41:9-12 that we already discussed, Muhammad says that after creating the earth and putting in it the mountains so it does not shake with people and covering it with vegetation then he erected the sky”. Readers! Lets read the all these verses again from four different translators.

	M. Asad	Yusuf Ali	Picktall	Shakir
41:9	SAY: “Would you indeed deny Him who has created the earth in two aeons? And do you claim that there is any power that could rival Him, the Sustainer of all the worlds?”	Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.	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.	Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.
41:10	For He [it is who, after creating the earth,] placed firm mountains on it, [towering] above its surface, and bestowed [so many] blessings on it, and equitably apportioned its means of subsistence to all who would seek it: [and all this He created] in four aeons.	He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).	He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;	And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.
41:11	And He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke; and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, “Come [into being], both of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, “We do come in obedience.”	Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."	Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.	Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.
41:12	And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function. And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure: such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.	So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.	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.	So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

Ali Sina said, “He erected the sky”, but I couldn’t locate this in these verses. Where do these verses say that Allah has “erected” the sky? Readers! As you come across one of his lies again.

Ali Sina said, “The picture we get here is that the sky is like a dome”. Yes, although with a slight alteration in the meaning; as it is an imperceptible dome or an empty ground, though it is still a vacant medium for planets, clouds, Sun, Moon etc. Ali Sina has to enlighten me as where these planets and other firmaments are then placed if there is no dome? There ought to be some place, medium, ground, field or dome for such things. Such a place is sky which is an invisible dome for firmaments.

Ali Sina said, “First the foundation which is the earth is built and once it is finished Allah turns to the sky and lifts it up, as if it was a tent, and adorns it with stars”. I dare him to show me any verse from Quran where it states that Allah “lifted up” sky and made Earth its “foundation”. Readers! You can see another lie from him. I am not going to accept his abnormal representation of his underhanded mind.

Ali Sina said, “002:022 syas that the sky is bana (Arabic). While in reality sky is just and empty space”. Then he presented some translations where bana is translated as “canopy”, which he thinks is a wrong portrayal of sky. Lets see what “COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA” published by Columbia University Press has to say about it.

“Sky, apparent dome over the earth, background of the clouds, sun, moon and stars.” (Taken from: http://www.answers.com/topic/sky)

Readers! Above mentioned excerpt is evidently declaring sky as a “dome” upon earth. However, they are also making the notion sterner by saying “apparent dome”; however Quran and Ali Sina only cited “dome”. Be certain that this Encyclopedia is not written by Muslims and it is not published by them as well. Therefore, who should I have faith in; “ENCYCLOPEDIA by Columbia University Press” or “PSYCHOPEDIA by Ali Sina”?

Readers! I will present a few additional evidences concerning sky as canopy or dome from the words of Science.

From MSN Encarta Encyclopedia:

“Region above Earth” (Taken from: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=sky&Submit2=Go)

From Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

“In the field of astronomy, the sky is also called the celestial sphere. This is an imaginary dome where the sun, stars, planets, and the moon are seen to be traveling.” (Take from: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/sky)

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

“The upper atmosphere or expanse of space that constitutes an apparent great vault or arch over the earth”. (Take from: http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sky&query=sky)

Readers! Ali Sina has multiple problems to defy now, despite disproving Quran, he has to counteract above mentioned bona fide sources as well, since they are in accordance with Quran in calling “sky as a dome”. Poor Ali Sina, now he has to come up with some other self-created deformed terminologies in rebuttal.

Regarding Islamic Cosmology, he said “it was understood from Quran and Hadiths”, again this whole doctrine intimates his day dreaming. A person if eats too much he perceives such kind of dreams. The whole story is not authentic and he has once again provided “NO EVIDENCE” of such theory. He is just linking whatever suits his minuscule mind to Islam. As for “mountains as pegs”, I have already replied to this subject earlier in this document.

Ali Sina said, “The versed 13.2 and 31.10 do not contradict the Bible. They only state the obvious that these alleged pillars holding the sky in place cannot be seen”. Readers! Ali Sina is saying that Quran is not contradicting Bible, but just a slight disparity that the pillars in Quran are unseen. I am posting here the translations of both the verses and let’s see if they speak about any “unseen pillars”.

“Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see;” (Quran 13:2)

“He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see;” (Quran 31:10)

Readers! As you can see that Quran is denying the fact that heaven have got pillars; however, Ali Sina construed that heavens have got “unseen pillars” according to Quran. He also said that Quran is in harmony with the Bible, but with just a slight difference that Quran connotes “unseen” pillars. Arabic word used in these verses is “bighayer” meaning “without” and the Arabic words for “unseen” or “invisible” are خفى, غئر مرئ but they are not in the Quran’s Arabic text. I do not know how far Ali Sina can go in deceiving people. The correct understanding of these particular verses is that Allah affirms that there are no pillars holding sky, but in the latter part of the verses where Allah says “that ye can see”, over here He is addressing to humans that they themselves can also see the heavens without pillars. I hope readers can comprehend this narration.

I consent that Islamic scholars had argued over the idea of “unseen pillars” whether they subsist or not, however, no one was persuaded. You can also comprehend the notion of pillars as Allah’s invariable and imperceptible Power which is not only seizing and keeping each and everyone of these colossal bodies including the Earth we inhabit, in their apposite spaces and trajectories but also does not let any collision take place between them.

Ali Sina said, “If the dome of heaven is raised above the earth supported by invisible pillars, what supports the earth?” No pillars for the heaven, likewise no pillars for the Earth too. Period! It’s Allah’s prodigious brawn that keeping them perched devoid of any support.

Readers! Concerning all other bits and pieces by Ali Sina in his argument, like, some hadiths from Jami-Al-Tirmidhi, Islamic Cosmology, about the credence of Yusuf Ali are all out of this subject and just the fabrication of his day-dreaming. I may be reply under some other topic insha Allah.

Poisonous Plants

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ let’s analyze…

…Allah have achieved? Nothing!

Answer:

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 29:

“Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”

Readers! At the outset, the dilemma with above-mentioned verse is that this verse is utilizing very compelling word “every” and its synonyms are “each” and “all”, enclosing the whole lot that is referenced in this verse concerning diet and nutrition. Secondly, it is not revealing anything with reference to medicine, on the contrary meticulously insisting on “food” only. This way we can construe that this verse is only enunciating about “food” only and not medicine. Let’s scrutinize other verses from the Bible speaking about “food”.

“And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food. And it was so”. (Genesis 1:30)

“And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. (Genesis 2:9)

“Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” (Genesis 9:3)

Readers! To begin with, as you can spot that every verse of the Bible is only discoursing about “food” and no medicine at all; and there is not a single implication of healing or cure mentioned except only filling up your appetite. Secondly, I do not come across any account in the Bible that forbids certain plants as food in context and as a whole. There are accounts only forbidding certain animals. And Dr. Zakir Naik ingeniously used only this particular verse of Genesis about plants as a supportive statement. If forbidden plants are not mentioned and God of Bible is not “disallowing” people to take every plant and every fruit, then; but naturally He is “allowing” people to take poisonous plants and fruits as well to fill up the tummy. Please be sure as I have not quoted anything out of context.

Readers! If you look at the word used in original text of Hebrew in Genesis 1:29 for “food” is “oklah” and Hebrew word for “cure” or “healing” is “marpe’”, “rapha’” or “gahah” which is not mentioned in this particular verse. Hebrew word for medicine is “gehah”, “R@phu’ah” or “T@ruwphah” which is also not included in this particular verse. And according to Bible translators, the Hebrew word “oklah” is defined as “food”, “eating” or “object of devouring”. The only figurative definition provided by Bible translators pertaining to “oklah” is “by wild beasts” and “of judgment” and that’s all. Therefore, it is illogical to say that God of Bible was also speaking about cure, healing or medicine in figurative sense.

If Ali Sina can find me any verse from Bible speaking of forbidden plants and fruits except that of Adam and Eve, then I will apologize and shall take my words back. Otherwise his implications regarding plants used as medicine for healing or cure in the Bible are just as incongruous as he is.

Ali Sina said, “The poisonous plants can have medicinal benefits.” Yes, I am in agreement with that and it is a general saying that “there is no plant that cannot be used medicinally, because God has given healing properties, making a healer of each plant”. However, the glitch is that Bible doesn’t say anything about medicinal properties in these verses but explicitly just to fill up your stomach only.

Ali Sina said, “Prohibited foods in the Quran are specified, human flesh is not among them. Does that mean that Muslims are licensed to consume that? Such an absurd example, when killing a human being is like butchering the whole humanity, and it is absolutely forbidden in Quran, eating of his flesh is out of question. Same decree fix to Bible as well. This is common sense which surely Ali Sina is deficient in.

The Test of the Bible

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) The Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true…

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/science/13cnd-pain.html?ex=1323666000&en=922da651eb77095f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

…Quran that Muslims call “miracle”.

Answer:

Readers! I will straight come to the issue, and shall not fool around like Ali Sina, by bombarding his self-made imaginative statements and their implications with no EVIDENCES would not convince us for sure. Let’s scrutinize the Bible Gospel of Mark Chapter 16 verses 17 & 18:

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;” (Mark 16:17)

“They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark 16:18)

Readers! If you contemplate both the verses, no where do they implicate that the writer was speaking metaphorically, but was speaking literally.

If you scan the whole chapter of Mark 16, you will come to know that this chapter is regarding aftermath of the event when Jesus was “crucified” and was placed into sepulcher. The chapter starts with Mary Magdalene who went to sepulcher but she did not find Jesus there, which in fact flabbergasted her. Afterwards, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast out SEVEN devils (in the past). This account is mentioned in Bible in the same chapter:

“he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” (Mark 16:9)

Another account of the same event:

“and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out;” (Luke 8:2)

Readers! Ali Sina has to tell me now, is Bible again speaking metaphorically in these particular verses? No, but this verse is giving account that Jesus had cast out SEVEN devils from Mary Magdalene. What SEVEN devils? Why Bible is giving a definite number of SEVEN devils? Sure this verse is not speaking allegorically and Jesus did cast out?

Furthermore, when Mary Magdalene knew that Jesus was alive, she went to his disciples and told them the good news. But they did not believe her until Jesus came in front of them and they became terrified. Then Jesus asked them to do following:

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15)

What Gospel? Which Gospel? Jesus’ words were Gospel and he ordered his disciples to go into the world and preach his teachings. Was Jesus again speaking metaphorically? No, he wanted his disciples to abide by his orders, in truth. Jesus said that whoever shall believe and baptized shall be saved and whosoever disobey will perish. You can find this account in this verse:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16)

Was Jesus still speaking metaphorically? Again NO, afterwards he said which is written in Mark 17 & 18 and he called these traits as his “signs”. Was he again speaking figuratively? Answer is NO again. The first sign should be their dominion over evil spirits, the second, the proof of that grace which went beyond the narrow limits of Israel, addressing itself to the entire world. They should speak diverse languages. Besides this, with respect to the power of enemy, manifested in doing harm, the venom of serpents and poisons should have no effect upon them, and diseases should yield to their authority.

Having thus given his disciples their commission, Jesus ascends to heaven. Meanwhile, the disciples occupy Jesus’ place, extending their sphere of service unto the ends of the earth; and Jesus confirmed their word by the signs that follow them. Jesus repeated his signs again and confirmed them by working and helping his disciples and you can find this account in the last verse of Mark 16:

“And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. “(Mark 16:20)

Who went forth? His disciples! What they preached? Jesus’ words (Mark 16:15). Which signs following? The same signs that are mentioned in Mark 16:17-18. No where in this chapter Jesus was speaking metaphorically. He was speaking literal and his disciples obeyed him.

Readers! Mark 16:17-18 are the only signs mentioned in this whole chapter. No other signs are uttered by Jesus. And Bible reminded these signs TWICE in all the 20 verses of Mark 16, likewise these signs were also confirmed by Jesus himself in the last verse. He is making sure that these signs will follow every believer, in the last verse. Therefore, none of these signs are metaphoric but they are literal. I have never heard or seen any Christian saying that these signs are metaphoric except this dupe named Ali Sina. Proving my point again that he always presents his smeared terminologies which are full of lies, made-up of his grimy mind that never makes any impression at all. I challenge him again to show me any authentic testimony where a Bible Specialist makes such a statement that Jesus was speaking figuratively in Mark 16.

Readers! Ali Sina gave examples of a girl who play with scorpions and people walking on fire without getting hurt. But I want to ask him how many people in the world do that? The examples he mentioned are the only exceptions? People walking on fire are all abnormal people as they are deficient in pain receptors and they do not feel any pain. You can find one account of such over here:

What about rest of the people in the world? Bible says that these signs will follow them who believe. No other condition was put forth by Jesus; just only and only “belief”. What does Ali Sina has to say about it?

“And these signs shall follow them that believe,” (Mark 16:17)

After presenting his absurd examples and his twisted thinking, Ali Sina moves forward and gave verses from Quran that depicts that Allah transformed the Jews into apes and swine. Readers! Again I will be retorting in short. Quranic verses he presented:

“for you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, "Be as apes despicable!” (Quran 2:65)

“Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah. those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!” (Quran 5:60)

“When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Quran 7:166)

Readers! Again Quran is portraying history so why Ali Sina is asking Muslims to explain this account when he surely knows that we cannot? How can Ali Sina prove that this account is fallible? He can never ever prove that because it is history. In his argument Ali Sina said, “There are other realities that are not known to us – parallel worlds that may have different dimensions. There is a lot that cannot be explained with out known science”. These statements seem like coming out of mentally retarded person where in one place he confirms “other realities” that are not known to him and in second place he drags Quran in and asked Muslims to explain him a history account. This is a two-tongue lunacy. This is just imprudence.

Readers! Different scholars have different views on above mentioned Quranic verses. Some say that Allah had physically changed their bodies; some accounts say that Allah only kept their intellect intact but changed their bodies, some other say that Allah had completely transformed them with their bodies and mind. No one is sure, so why is he asking us to explain such an account for which he is also not able to disprove it as well?

I have no idea why Ali Sina brought these Quranic verses and hadiths in this argument and why he is comparing such verses with Bible verses. They are like chalk and cheese.

Mark 16 verses 17 & 18 are speaking of future; meaning all people coming after Jesus, who have belief will perform such miracles till perpetuity. And Quran was only giving a history account.

Speaking Tongues

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) I have read the book ‘The Quran and the Bible in the…

…will come to the believers miraculously overnight.

Answer:

Readers! Again I do not understand what Ali Sina is trying to reveal over here when he said, “What obviously speaking-in-tongues means is that the believers would go to other countries and speaking in the language of those people.” What is so miraculous about it? Any person can go to any country, learn their native language and then preach. What is so astounding about it?

Ali Sina said, “Driving out demons is driving out ignorance. That is what I am doing with Muslims.” According to my understanding, his parents are still Muslims. Why doesn’t he cast out their demons? I have a qualm that he has ever seek it. Readers! The actual demon is in Ali Sina and I would like to request him that whenever when he tries to cast out demon he should put up a mirror in front of him.

Ali Sina said, “The Bible does not say that the knowledge of these new languages will come to the believers miraculously overnight”. Readers! Please read Mark 16:17-18 you will get the implication that whatever signs Jesus was talking about were actually all miracles.

1. In my name they cast out devils

2. They shall speak with new tongues

3. They shall take up serpents

4. Deadly poison will not hurt them

5. They shall lay hand on sick and he will recover

Readers! Points 1, 3, 4 & 5 are undeniable miracles; and no doubt they are astounding miracles. Why Jesus while speaking about miracles, changed his way, and spoke about an ordinary thing. Why did he incorporate a common item in the list of his miracles? No, but he was literally speaking about these miracles. And to perform such “acts” you just have to believe in “Jesus as Lord” and NOTHING AT ALL. No other condition was put forth by Jesus but only and only belief.

Readers! I can speak 4 languages; you tell me, can some one regard this quality as a miracle? Some non-Christian people can speak more than that; is this you call a miracle. No! This is crap; crap mentioned in the Bible, the same mentioned by Ali Sina.

Readers! Rest of Ali Sina’s argument is all gibberish. You read it yourselves and then decide if he is speaking logically, just barking with “NO EVIDENCE” again.

Unscientific Statements in Bible and Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) What does the Bible say regarding ‘Hydrology’?...

…mane that the Quran is scientific.

Answer:

Ali Sina said, “Dr. Naik is engaging in the favorite Islamic fallacy of tu quoque and instead of refuting the charges brought against the Quran, he is trying to find faults in the Bible. Again, another fib from “father of falsehood” (Ali Sina), besides this, he also looks like “father of fallacies” as well. Readers! Dr. Zakir Naik made a statement at the end of his speech that he refuted each and every claim of Dr. William Campbell and there is zilch to confute. I am sure that his audacious public statement should be adequate for Ali Sina to ever raise this argument again. In my outlook, Ali Sina’s spat should be replied by Dr. William Campbell, where in his rebuttal session he claimed overtly that he cannot answer the questions raised by Dr. Naik regarding unscientific portions of the Bible.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book…

http://truwayoflife.tripod.com/chap02.htm

…things in the Quran and the hadiths?

Answer:

Readers! Again Ali Sina’s sickness of going out of track; however, I will reply in a short.

Tayammum:

Quranic verse in question:

“If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again.” (Quran 4:43)

Readers! The unembellished meaning of the word “tayammum” is “intention”. However, in Shari’ah it is characterized as “taking clean earth in one’s hands and wiping face and arms with it with an intention to purify oneself”. No matter if your body is soiled from different parts, but if you do tayammum you will be purified because it is the intention that Allah concerns in such a scenario. However, if you have water around then you definitely have to purify yourself with it and then do ablution, NO tayammum is permissible in this situation.

Tayammum becomes necessary in place of wudu (ablution) or ghusl when one of the following circumstances prevails:

1. When there is no water.

2. When water is scarce for ablution.

3. When it is dangerous to go to a place where there is water.

4. When water is located very far away.

5. During illness, when washing with water will increase the illness or delay recovery.

Regarding the example Ali Sina gave that if a person falls into a cesspool and does not find water to purify. If there is a cesspool, then there must be water around some where, otherwise, what this cesspool is doing over there. A person should really strive to look for water, and if he doesn’t find it, then as a last resort, he is permissible to perform tayammum.

For detailed information, please visit following sites.

http://www.muhammad.net/ebooks/Fus/fus1_04.html

http://www.al-islam.org/laws/tayammum.html

Bird out of clay:

Quranic verse in question:

“behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave” (Quran 5:110)

Firstly, Ali Sina is inquiring about a miracle that I have previously replied at the onset of this document. Then he put side by side, and said that this account is not mentioned in the Bible, I have also proved above that Quran was not imitated from the Bible. Hence it is not obligatory that this account should be mentioned in the Bible. The same way Quran does not declare allegorically and also not factually “Jesus as God” likewise Bible.

Secondly, the Arabic word used in this verse for “bird” is “tayr” which is a plural of “ta’ir” (flying creature or a bird), or an infinitive noun (flying) derived from the word “tara” (he flew). In pre-Islamic usage, as well as in the Quran, the words “tai’r” and “tayr” often denote “fortune”, “destiny” or “fate”, whether good or evil. You will find the testimonies in following verses of Quran 7:131, 27:47 or 36:19, and still more CLEARLY in 17:13.

Therefore, if you discard the word “bird” as the unvarnished meaning, thus, in the parabolic manner so beloved by Jesus, he intimated to the children of Israel that out of the humble clay of their lives he would fashion for them the vision of a soaring destiny, and that this vision, brought to life by his God-given inspiration, would become their real destiny by God’s leave and by the strength of their faith (as pointed out at the end of this verse).

Fly in the drink:

Hadith in question:

“The Prophet said "If a housefly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.” (Bukhari 4:54:537)

Readers! Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was very precise when he proclaimed this statement. Ali Sina is such an ignorant person, he so much yowls about science, but he doesn’t even know an ooze of it. Please find below the links where you can find information pertaining to this subject.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s689400.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&pageindex=1&artid=39576

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2000/Jul/hour1_072100.html

Readers! Please bear in mind that above-mentioned sites belong to non-Muslims solely. There is not a single involvement of any Muslim individual or any Muslim University in the production of such sites, excluding just to use them as testimonials. I will be looking forward, how Ali Sina comes back with his twisted terminology regarding this subject in rebuttal.

Camel urine as medicine:

Hadith in question:

“The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine).” (Bukhari 7:71:590)

Readers! Please visit Internet and search for it (search for “Premarin”); you will come across loads of sites with profusion of information. It seems like TALK OF THE TOWN on Internet. You can also pop in to Ali Sina’s site www.. and read through his lewd articles and his disciples on the topic of urine as a cure. Also visit his forum where you can bump into every brand of jester making no sense at all. If some Muslims dared to answer or elucidate something on his forum, you will see Ali Sina’s devotees barraging them with exceedingly extraneous questions, their fraudulent terminologies, and last but not the least, “NO EVIDENCE” in hand as always. My counsel to readers is not to squander much time on the forum as there are only broods playing with words there, just listen to what the Prophet Ali Sina (Cult of Golden Rule) has to say. By the way he also seems adolescent with a very imperfect intellect once you go through any of his inscriptions.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) It is mentioned in the book of Leviticus, Ch. No. 12…

…using bird blood as disinfectant.

Answer:

Readers! I will only reply regarding Quranic verse 9:28,

“O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.” (Quran 9:28)

Readers! By God, I have never come across such a person in my life as deceiving as Ali Sina. He is really in short of great deal of common sense and has no familiarity of Holy Scriptures as well. He looks very promising in Islamic History, but only on the surface; rather he is very illiterate in this very subject as well.

The term “najas” “"نجس only occur in this verse and in the whole Quran. You will not hit upon this word in any other place besides this particular verse in Quran. This specific word carries an exclusively spiritual meaning of a person who is “immoral” or “wicked” as najas. This particular word was destined for the pagans of Arabs at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and for the individuals who are iniquitous non-Muslims and covet to impair Islam. Likewise, Ali Sina and his disciples, they are “unclean” in their creeds, in their morals, in their deeds, and in their ways of “ignorance”, but not in their physical bodies by themselves. Therefore people like him ought to be banned from entering into mosques, since besides playing neutral, they will definitely injure the intellects of other Muslims.

Another way to refute his argument is that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) permitted non-Muslims to enter into mosques. There are accounts where Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) preached or had a meeting with non-Muslim delegates in the mosque. Therefore, Quran is not speaking about body impurity, but spiritual impurity.

Ali Sina said, “How can alcohol be considered unclean? You can say drinking it is unhealthy, but certainly it is not unclean”. Where does Quran say that alcohol is unclean? It just only states that it is Satan’s handiwork so desist it. Quranic verses regarding abstaining alcohol:

“O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.” (Quran 5:90)

“Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?” (Quran 5:91)

Readers! As you can see, no where in these verses Quran says that alcohol is “najas”, the only place this word is used is in the verse 9:28 which I already mentioned above. However, scholars do distinguish in having faith that alcohol is unclean or not and they have their own irrefutable basis. However, whatever the case is, but Quran do say that there is some benefit in it.

“THEY WILL ASK thee about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: "In both there is great evil as well as some benefit for man; but the evil which they cause is greater than the benefit which they bring.” (Quran 2:219)

In this verse Quran converses about benefits; it can be in the form of money or can be in the outline of medicine or disinfecting things. The only abstinence is from drinking that obstructs Allah’s remembrance and prayer as mentioned in verse 5:91 (mentioned above). Even scholars have permitted applying perfumes that contain denatured alcohol as they are meant only for cleanliness.

We will talk in details some other time insha Allah.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) The Bible also has a very good test for adultery…

http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AL+-+IMRAN&sno=3&tno=287

…camel urine is good for stomach.

Answer:

Readers! The first part of Ali Sina’s comments regarding Dr. Zakir Naik’s “acting” is just his envy towards him in outclassing Dr. Campbell. If he is so much in opposition to Dr. Naik’s “acting”, then why doesn’t he send one his disciples (actors) to have a dialogue with Dr. Naik to outdo him, in public? Besides keeping himself hidden in some kind of gutter, Ali Sina waves and point fingers to people in public without revealing himself fearing as it would also reveal his true self. Brother Yamin Zakaria rightly quoted about him, “hiding behind a mask and calling everyone ugly”.

Ali Sina said, “His audience remain oblivious to the fact that he has not refuted logically any of the charges that Dr. Campbell leveled against the Quran and that the absurdities of the Bible do not prove the Quran to be a book of revelations”. Once more, a lie from Ali Sina, I would urge readers to watch the video of debate and see for yourself that if Dr. Naik “has not refuted logically any of the charges”. As I mentioned above, Doctor publicly said that he has refuted each and every claim of Dr. Campbell with logic and “EVIDENCES”.

Readers! Ali Sina put forth a Quranic verse that according to his minuscule mentality, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) challenged his opponents to engage in a “cursing contest” to see who is telling the truth. Quranic verse in question:

“If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!" (Quran 3:61)

I want to ask a question to Ali Sina as where does this verse implicates that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is challenging his opponents to engage in a “cursing contest”? Besides Allah is telling Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his opponents to engage in a “PRAYER” according to their faiths, and let Allah send the curse on those who were lying. But his opponents never did so as they were aware of the teachings and character of Prophet (Peace be upon him), the majority of opponents became convinced in their hearts of his Prophethood; or at least, they could not reject it boldly. You can find the commentary of this verse over here:

Regarding Hadiths that were mentioned by Ali Sina i.e. Abu Dawud 28:3875, 28:3879 & 28:3878, since I never got engaged in such kind of spells because I never encountered such scenarios. But I found an account where spells were used in the past when there were no medicines available for such kinds of injuries. This account describes “Ancient Egyptian Medicine” and definitely not speaking of “Islamic Medicine”, as it would not be accepted by skeptic Ali Sina.

http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptmedicine.html

Christians and Muslims believe in evil eye and spells as they are mentioned in our scriptures. So we do not have to check any other account for credence. If our Holy Scripture says so then it is the truth.

Readers! Please visit the following site for detailed information on “Spells and Sorcery in Islam”.

http://www.thewaytotruth.org/metaphysicaldimension/spell_sorcery.html

Regarding Bani Nadir’s planning to assassinate Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), actually gave him an “excuse” to attack the tribe. Readers! Please visit following site and read for yourself the actual story. Just do not blindly believe this idiot Ali Sina, yet again he didn’t provide any evidence and lied.

http://www.faithfreedom.com/ali_sina_exposed/truth_about_jews.htm

Mathematical Errors in the Bible and the Quran

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) ‘Mathematics’ is a branch, which is associated…

(http://www../debates/NaikCampbellp9.htm)

…You pick your favorite error.

Answer:

Readers! Again Ali Sina is going out of track, if he has naught to comment regarding what had said by Dr. Naik in his speech, skip it then. Why is he engaging Quran in to this discussion regarding Mathematics? I again cannot resist myself in retorting to his allegations.

Storm on people of Aad:

Quranic verses in question:

“Behold, We let loose upon them a raging storm wind on a day of bitter misfortune:” (Quran 54:19)

“So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster,” (Quran 41:16)

“He made it rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession:” (Quran 69:7)

Readers! If you densely look at the translation of Quranic verse 54:19, it illustrates the idea of “a day the ill-luck of storm started”, therefore, Allah is only mentioning about that day when breeze of “misfortune” or “disaster” or “ill-luck” started; or the day when Allah “let loose” the wind; or the day when Allah “sent” the storm. No where in this verse stated the continuous days or total period of disaster, but simply and only, stating about the day that it started. So you can read this whole account as, “It was a day of misfortune for the people of Aad when this storm started (54:19) and lasted for several days (41:16 & 69:7)” as stated by Quran in later verses. No mathematical contradictions so far.

As for the rest of the verses mentioned in Quran; verse 41:16 depicts that the storm blew “through” days of disaster, again giving the period that it lasts for several days (Ali Sina lied when he said “three days” as plural). And the last verse 69:7 gives the definite number of days and nights.

1,000 or 50,000 days:

Regarding Allah’s days equal to 1000 human years or 50,000 human years, I have already replied above in this document.

Three distinct groups:

Concerning THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgment, let’s see the Quranic verses in question:

“And ye shall be sorted out into three classes” (Quran 56:7)

Regarding above mentioned verse, it is clear that Allah will sort people in three distinct groups; right hand group, left hand group and foremost group. Ali Sina alleged that Quranic verses 90:18-19 and 99:6-8 mention only TWO groups (left hand and right hand) and in his outlook it is a mathematical contradiction. Let’s scrutinize these verses from Quran:

“Such are the Companions of the Right Hand” (Quran 90:18)

“But those who reject Our Signs, they are the (unhappy) Companions of the Left Hand.” (Quran 90:19)

Surprise! So where is the contradiction? Where do these two verses say that Allah will divide people into TWO distinct groups? I can only see that Allah is talking about right hand people and left hand people. Does Ali Sina mean that Allah forgot (Naoozubillah) to mention foremost people (third group)?

Readers! We did not find any mathematical contradiction in above mentioned two verses. Let’s see what other Quranic verses have to say:

“On that Day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they (had done).” (Quran 99:6)

“Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!” (Quran 99:7)

“And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.” (Quran 99:8)

I am surprised again, where is the contradiction? They are not even speaking of any groups then what this duped named Ali Sina is alleging to?

For example if I say that in my class there are three groups of children; one who are excellent in studies, second who are moderate in studies and third who are bad in studies. If I tell some one about only two groups i.e. students who are moderate in studies and who are bad in studies. Does it mean I contradict myself? No, but I am ONLY talking about good students and bad students, and NOT talking anything about excellent students at all. Contradiction will be there if at the outset I would have said that there were only THREE groups in my class and afterwards I declare that there are only TWO groups in my class. This is called mathematical contradiction.

Similarly, I want Ali Sina to show me a verse from Quran that say Allah will create TWO groups on Judgment Day. I want an unequivocal statement just like in Quranic verse 56:7. Then only I will accept that Quran has a contradiction, where at one place it is saying “THREE GROUPS” and on other place as “TWO GROUPS”. I will not accept the terminology where Allah only speaking about TWO groups, as a contradiction. It seems like Ali Sina was drunk when he found this kind of contradiction. This is a childish act of finding errors.

“Angel” of Death or “Angels” of Death:

Quranic verses in question:

“Say: “[One day,] the angel of death who has been given charge of you will gather you, and then unto your Sustainer you will be brought back.” (Quran 32:11)

“hence, how [will they fare] when the angels gather them in death, striking their faces and their backs?” (Quran 47:27)

“It is God [alone that has this power - He] who causes all human beings to die at the time of their [bodily] death, and [causes to be as dead], during their sleep, those that have not yet died” (Quran 39:42)

I will give another account from Quran speaking of “angels” as in plural form.

“Behold, those whom the angels gather in death while they are still sinning against themselves,” (Quran 4:97)

Readers! In Arabic (Quran) and Hebrew (Bible) languages the plural is used as “respect”, and it is the very basic knowledge of these two languages. I do not want to waste time on a knowledge that is very basic and known. For more in depth information, please read this article:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch14.html

Therefore, the word “angles” used in the verses can be interpreted in terms of “respect”.

Secondly, if Ali Sina takes the word literally and denies the fact that the word “angels” means more than one, then let’s scrutinize these verses densely by reading the following document:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/thetruth.htm

Readers! After reading both the documents you will surely be convinced that there are no contradictions in these verses. The reason I am not giving much descriptions on these issues is that much has already been written by our Muslim brothers and it is widely available over Internet. However, if a person, after presenting him the truth, facts and EVIDENCES still yowls around denying the provided facts, then there is no way we can call him a sensible person, but a lunatic. Ali Sina again proved himself madcap by unearthing these issues AGAIN; as they were already refuted by Muslim brothers long ago with reasons, logics, facts and EVIDENCES. If Ali Sina still does not accept the refutation by Muslims then he has to come up with some concrete reasons, logic and EVIDENCES in his REBUTTAL, but as always he is presenting the same old stories that were raised by millions before him. This is stupidity and nothing else. It is like a person who is keep on saying at night, that “it is a day” “it is a day”, but if some one proves him with EVIDENCES that “it is a night”, he never accepts it and still keep on saying “it is a day” “it is a day”, and yet still keeping to himself the fact where he has to prove that why is it a day or not a night. What do you call such a person? Surely, mentally retarded, but I call him Ali Sina. Truth is in front of them and they can see it but they never accept it.

How many angels talked to Mary?

It is the same old story again from Ali Sina. Please read this article for refutation:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/thetruth.htm

Quranic Inheritance Law:

Again the same old story from Ali Sina, please read this article for refutation where Brother Zaatri refuted Ali Sina’s own article:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/muslim1/rebuttaltoalisina3.htm

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) To make it easier for Dr. William Campbell…

(http://www../debates/NaikCampbellp9.htm)

…on the taller branch, falls harder.

Answer:

Ali Sina said, “The essence of the message of the Bible has remained the same from Genesis to Apocalypses”. Ok! So where does the notion of Trinity fit in? If Bible verbalizes adulate only one God then why Christians have faith in triune gods (1 John 5:7)? Why Jews trust in one God and Christians in three? Didn’t the message change from Old Testament to New Testament?

Ali Sina said, “Here we have one single book written by numerous authors during a span of fifteen centuries and despite that its message has remained constant. On the other hand, the Quran is written by one person and yet the Medinan Suras are diametrically different from the Meccan ones conveying an entirely different message”. Readers! Isn’t it a miracle enough that Bible was inscribed by numerous authors and Quran was written by only one person (allegedly), transformed such a magnitude of cohorts? Yet the fundamental message of Quran concerning core concept of God remained throughout invariable. 40 authors against 1, it’s an astounding miracle, isn’t it? 1500 years of inscribing against 23 years, isn’t it marveling enough?

Concerning Medinan Suras and Meccan Suras, I am indicting Ali Sina of hypocrisy and being mendacious again, as he has quoted each and every verse of Quran “OUT OF CONTEXT”. As I have already substantiated in this document how he maneuvers meanings so that they constantly go in his favor all the time, by overlooking and denying diametrically the actual theme of lexis, with intent. People like Ali Sina and his disciples, if ever presented with two descriptions of a verse; one is true and other is false, they always elect the false one; devoid of producing substantiations. Not because it is close to the actual meaning, but such sham narrations can only fit & fix in their minuscule minds. They will never ever succumb to the true notion of the verse; no matter how much veritable amplifications, logics, evidences and facts you endow with but they will still weld to false one and will recur forever, since it wills a loss on them. Moreover in this course, they only furnish their perverted jargons and lame explanations in order to prove fib as fact. I will certainly disprove these claims some other time under a different topic insha Allah.

Ali Sina said, “The thinking majority of Christians and Jews say that the authors of the Bible were humans who were inspired by God”. On the contrary, common Jews and Christians consider Bible to be the verbatim word of God, isn’t this the case? Subsequently, it connotes that “thinking Christians and Jews” are deceiving common people, hypocrisy yet again. At least, this is not the indictment anti Quran as each and every Muslim whether an ordinary one or a “thinking” one, both believe Quran to be the verbatim word of Allah. A propos, God inspired humans to write down Bible, such a crap; God doesn’t converse to every Tom, Dick and Harry and so freely as it feels in the Bible. If God had inspired ordinary humans (other than the Prophets) then there should be no errors in the Bible, however, this is not the case. Butchery of children, raping juvenile girls, ripping the bellies of pregnant women, several cases of incest, Prophets assassinated children and so on and so forth; can we attribute such atrocities as an inspiration of God? God inspired such filthy dictations on His “chosen” humans? I do not believe in this crap. Holy Scriptures should not have such notions so to be making it a pure divine revelation.

Ali Sina said, “In nowhere in the Bible, both in the Old Testament or the New Testament, you are led to believe that it is God that is speaking. It is always a human, giving the message of God in his own words”. Why should I listen to a human who is giving the message of God in his “OWN” words? Why in his own words? What is his credence? I have already given examples above, in point of fact, of what actually ensue when humans inscribe books and then attribute it to God.

Readers! Later in his argument Ali Sina extol Bible and in his canon it seems Bible is inclined more towards rectitude as judge against Quran. His abnormal intelligence appreciates that the word of God can be remain intact if it is conveyed in the words of humans, or at least the core message remains the same and populace should not put down lids of their astuteness in understanding the human words. But this is not bona fide; the message of the Bible regarding the core concept of God has changed from Old Testament to New Testament. The only reason this impasse cropped up is because of the discrepancies in humans delivering the message. Does it mean that there is not a single Christian who could comprehend the basic concept of God from the Bible? Or are the Jews not competent enough to understand the same message? One group certainly is insincere in delivering the truth. I am not conversing regarding any intricate theories in the Bible; but only concerning basic concept of God.

Humans do automatically become liars if they err with intent; such as in the case of the Bible when they portray the same event in different ways, like for example;

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses,” (1 Kings 4:26)

“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses,” (2 Chronicles 9:25)

One has to be a liar. Similarly I can give loads of examples where you can see coherent boo-boo in the Bible. These errors are so immense and so serious that they cannot even be called for revisions, same like the example above. Bible scholars cannot correct this inaccuracy but just to present their own warped interpretations and stories to back up their creed, just like Ali Sina.

Readers! The inkling that Ali Sina has portrayed in his arguments that there is no quandary in delivering God’s message in humans’ own words and followers should consent to the errors made by humans and do not cease their intelligence in understanding the message. This practice is so ridiculous and convoluted that it will craft a pandemonium amid the followers of Bible. Such kind of system, blunders and variations in the Holy Scriptures often do more impairment than good. There is indubitable confirmation of not only scientific, but also historical slip-ups in the Bible, for example Daniels gaffes about the timing of diverse Babylonian interventions. I go on to affirm that there are even theological errors, for instance, Job 14:13-22 absolutely snubs the likelihood of life after death, although Isaiah 26 says the opposite. So which version of understanding should people decide on? Such kind of deformed terminologies can coin an enormous dilemma in Christian-dom & Judaism if they consider it seriously, where one group is in accordance with the concept of Job 14 and another group who accepts life after death as bona fide – Isaiah 26. Both of these groups will be dangling in the air, in the middle of nowhere, having immense crisis in justifying their own concepts. Nay! This kind of practice can only be acted upon is in the Cult of Prophet Ali Sina (Golden Rule) where his disciples accept every sick lingo, contradictions, inconsistencies, errors and fibs from their Prophet (Ali Sina) and do not consider them to be immense, as they only have true faith in their Prophet and whatever crap he is saying.

According to Ali Sina, “the essence of Christianity is good. It is a message of love and forgiveness. Despite hundreds of errors that exist in the Bible, this message is supreme and its value cannot be diminished”. Wait a minute, what about these verses; which message is a true one:

“And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness, they shall be childless”. (Leviticus 20:21)

“her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.” (Deuteronomy 25:5)

Clear-cut contradiction, no perplexity in disparity and I want to ask Ali Sina, which message is true? You cannot just overlook this fact as these kinds of scenarios are pretty usual in human life.

Regarding the message of the Bible i.e. love and forgiveness. But these verses are speaking opposite:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.” (Numbers 31:17

“But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:18)

Saving women children and keeping alive for yourselves; for what?

“But slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”. (Samuel 15:2)

“The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords.” (Hosea 13:16)

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalms 137:9)

“Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation except they repent of their deeds”. (Revelation 2:22)

“And I will kill her children with death” (Revelation 2:23)

“He (Prophet Elisha) turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths”. (2 Kings 2)

Is this the love and forgiveness Bible and Ali Sina speaking about? In the Bible, not only the ordinary people but Prophets (Bible) performed such gruesome acts also. Sure Ali Sina is again deceiving people when he was enunciating about love and forgiveness in the Bible, as a whole. I do not deny the fact that Bible does preach love and forgiveness at some places (not as a whole), but what about these verses, you cannot repudiate them as well. Such a great magnitude of atrocities! None of these verses are out of context and not a single Christian and Jew deny their existence and true meaning. I can also provide commentaries on these verses by Bible Scholars, if it is required. Now we will look what Quran has to say regarding these matters:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” (Quran 5:32)

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)” (Quran 8:61)

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors”. (Quran 2:190)

These are some of the verses from Holy Quran, such they are inclined towards peace, justice and harmony and still people like Ali Sina go against Quran. The so called verses in Quran regarding “terrorism”, “killing” and other “atrocities”; people like Ali Sina use to mention them “out of context” and they mislead people. I can explain those verses but if and only if compelled by Ali Sina.

Ali Sina said, “If it is the verbatim word of God, it cannot have one single error. If it has a single error, it can’t be the word of God, and if it is not the word of God it is a lie”. Very true, but Ali Sina failed in proving Quran frail. It should be Bible that fits in this type of description. No wonder, why Ali Sina finds Bible more competent than Quran, as Bible is full of lies and so is he.

Ali Sina said, “We can find scientific errors and absurdities in all religious books but still hold to the good and the beautiful that exist in these books and overlook the bad part. This we can’t do with Quran. All we need to show that the Quran is false in it’s entirely is one single error. One who sits on the taller branch, falls harder”. Taking in consideration the theory of Ali Sina, if a person held to the good part of his religious book then by design (as set by Ali Sina) another person can hold to the bad part of it as well, and he can verily justify his actions by quoting his religious book. If there were countries fully embedded by Bible laws then there would be no punishments for atrocities. This is senseless to pick good parts and discard bad parts of a religious book. There are instances where a good part can be a disaster in the long run but at the initial no one knows it.

Concerning Quran, there is not a SINGLE verse in Quran that goes against human rights or humanity, in its apposite context and description, and this is the belief of every “thinking” Muslim and “common” Muslim as well.

Moon Light

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) And he said that if it means a reflection of light…

…This verse is gibberish.

Answer:

Bible verse presented by Dr. Zakir Naik:

“God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.” (Genesis 1:16)

Readers! The Hebrew word for “light” employed in this particular verse of the Bible is “ma’owr”; dilemma is that it is been used both for Sun and the Moon. No matter what is the actual meaning of the word “ma’owr” is, however, it never fits in the description of both Sun and the Moon in this verse, as they both are different in respect of the concept of “light”. So this whole verse is a fabrication. Hence, in the concept of the Bible; light of the Sun is the same light, as of the Moon. This is no implication but evidence.

Besides, the Hebrew word for “lesser” is “qatan” which also means “younger”, and Bible scholars have exercised this word as an adjective for the moon in translation; denoting Moon’s light as its own lesser light as compared to Sun.

The Hebrew words for “borrow” are “lavah”, “’abat”, or “sha’al” in the Old Testament, which were not applied in Genesis 1:16. The Hebrew words for “reflect” are “leb”, “’anah”, or “shiyth”; however, they never utilized in conjunction with Sun or Moon in the entire Old Testament.

Sun:

Concerning Quran; verses in question:

“It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the Moon to be a light.” (Quran 10:5)

“Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light.” (Quran 25:61)

“And made the Moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp? (Quran 71:16)

Right away, Ali Sina after presenting these three verses said, “The same error also exists in the Quran”. Such a bizarre and jagged brain he has; he seems like comparing the English word “light” used in the Bible as to be the same word that is used in the Quran. That’s what it seems on the surface when he presented his argument.

Readers! Bible used the English word “light” and Hebrew word “ma’owr” for both Sun and the Moon as I have proved above; however, this is not the case with Quran. In all the above three verses Allah, with in His Divine Wisdom, never called “Sun” a “light” but termed it as a “Lamp”. And it is a fact that lamp has its own light. Another place where this word Lamp is employed for Sun in Quran is:

“and have placed [therein the sun,] a lamp full of blazing splendour.” (Quran 78:13)

The Arabic word for “lamp” is “siraj” and there are only 4 places (as verses mentioned above) where this word is utilized in the whole Quran and for the Sun only (as far as I know). No where in the whole Quran this Arabic word “siraj” is used for the Moon; therefore, there are two separate words used for the Sun and the Moon in Quran. Till now we already substantiated following:

1. “siraj” is only used for Sun and it means “lamp”; which has its own light.

2. “siraj” never used to describe Moon in Quran.

Moon:

Now concerning Moon, the Arabic word used for Moon in Quran is “muneer” which means “ borrowed light”, and there is only one place in the whole Quran that this word is utilized in conjunction with the Moon i.e. verse 25:61. Therefore, up till now we substantiated one thing more:

1. “siraj” is only used for Sun and it means “lamp”; which has its own light.

2. “siraj” never used to describe Moon in Quran.

3. “Muneer” is employed for Moon only, in Quran.

Light:

Readers! Now we will explore Quran and see how this word “Muneer” is utilized; whether as a “light of its own” or an implication of a “borrowed light”. Please find below the verse:

“And as one who invites to Allah's (grace) by His leave, and as a lamp spreading light.” (Quran 33:46)

The Arabic word used in this verse is “siraj” for “lamp”; the same that is employed in verses 10:5, 25:61, 71:16 & 78:13 for the “Sun”. The Arabic word used for light is “muneer” the same that is utilized in verse 25:61 for the “Moon”. And if you read the concluding portion of the verse 33:46 you will discern that it is clearly stating “lamp is spreading light” or lamp is the source of light. If you recall, above Sun was compared with “siraj” and moon was with “muneer” in verse 25:61, making it crystal clear that Moon’s light (muneer) is actually a light from Sun (siraj - lamp) as per the explanation mentioned in 33:46. If you interchange the words “lamp” and “light” in verse 33:46 with “Sun” and “Moon”; then you can read it as “Sun spreading its light to Moon”.

Therefore, it is firm evidence that the light “muneer” is in fact the light of a lamp; means a borrowed light. Hence, the light of the Moon (Muneer) is actually the light of the Sun (siraj – lamp) as per the description mentioned in verse 33:46. Problem solved.

Quranic verse in question:

“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.” (Quran 24:35)

Readers! The Arabic word used for “niche” in this verse is “mishka” مشكاة, however there is a prefix added to this noun “ka” making it as “kamishkatin”, the letter “kaaf” ك pointing to a resemblance of one thing to another or indicating a “metaphor”. In the above context it alludes to the impossibility of defining God even by means of a metaphor or a parable – for, since

“there is nothing like unto Him” (Quran 42:11)

“nothing that could he compared with Him” (Quran 112:4)

Hence, the parable of “the light of God” is not meant to express His reality – which is inconceivable to any created being and, therefore, inexpressible in any human language – but only to allude to the illumination which He, who is the Ultimate Truth, bestows upon the mind and the feelings of all who are willing to be guided. Tabari, Baghawi and Ibn Kathir quote Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masu’d as saying in this context: “It is the parable of His light in the heart of a believer.” (Idea taken from: www.islamicity.com)

The only reason Dr. Zakir Naik hoisted this spat is because, more often than not, non-Muslims use this verse to abjure the verity that “Moon has a reflected light” as per mention in Quran. Subsequently, they try to balance this idea with the “light of Allah” mentioned in verse 24:35, so to speak that it means Allah is also acquiring light from somewhere else (Nauzubillah). Usually non-Muslims use this particular verse and just pick the first part of it where it says that Allah is the “light of heavens and the earth”; they deliberately hop the further part of the verse where the word “lamp” is used. So, if you take the first part of the verse literally, you cannot say that Allah is taking light from somewhere else because Allah’s light is described further in the verse where the word “lamp” is used. However, we Muslims interpret this verse metaphorically and it is not the literal description of Allah, since it goes against the teachings of Quran.

Ali Sina said, “Assuming that God is within a niche, (which is ludicrous concept) how can He reflect His own light? How can any luminous object act also as its own reflector?” Niche means “a hollow place”, according to the verse “lamp” is in hollow place and its walls are reflecting the light as they are made up of glass. However, this is not the description of Allah as it is going against Quranic verses 42:11 & 112:4. The verse is speaking metaphorically. And the exact interpretation is done by Ibn Kathir and other scholars and posted by Ali Sina in his argument as well.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William Campbell says that…

…In reality they are fooling themselves.

Answer:

Readers! Concerning Quranic verse 2:191, Ali Sina all over again posted “OUT OF CONTEXT”. For the definite reality regarding this verse, please read in context following verses 2:190-194. You will assuredly unearth the truth. Allah commanded Muslims to instigate war, “if and only if”, compelled by adversaries and also prompt Muslims to not to perpetrate belligerence. There is not a single Army General on the face of the earth who could utter such words to his soldiers when they are at war. I wonder if Ali Sina and his disciples “would turn their other cheek” if some one wage war on them. All these verses are self-explanatory so I am moving forward.

Regarding “nur” and “muneer”, I have already provided the description above. The conspicuous point is that Allah, on no account, ever used a word “nur” or “muneer” for Sun, isn’t it odd? The utmost and mightiest source of light available at the time of Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him), but Allah never entitled it as a “light” in the whole Quran. Even the Bible named it as a “greater light”. How arduous was it for Quran to use the same word for both Sun and Moon? And it is not only one place; but four places in Quran the word “lamp” is used for Sun. I do not know how much more description is required by Ali Sina?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) The other point that Dr. William Campbell raised…

http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/zul-qarnain.html

…but error and scientific blunders.

Zulqarnain and the Setting place of the Sun

Answer:

Quranic verse in question:

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.” (Quran 18:86)

Ali Sina said, “All the ten translators of the Quran that I consulted have translated this word as found”. Readers! Ali Sina missed one by Mohammed Asad:

“[And he marched westwards] till, when he came to the setting of the sun, it appeared to him that it was setting in a dark, turbid sea; and nearby he found a people [given to every kind of wrongdoing]. We said: "O thou Two-Horned One! Thou mayest either cause [them] to suffer or treat them with kindness!"

Readers! It is out-and-out that the Arabic word “wajada” is expressed figuratively in this particular verse, when it speaks about sun setting in turbid sea. There are several ways to scrutinize this verse and some of them were already elucidated by Dr. Zakir Naik in his vocalizations. There are instances in Quran where this word has been used as in figurative sense. Like for example.

“But the Unbelievers,- their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing: But he finds Allah (ever) with him, and Allah will pay him his account: and Allah is swift in taking account” (Quran 24:39)

There are two places where the word “find” is utilized in this particular verse; first time it is used as of a literal meaning and second time as a metaphor. The same Arabic word “wajada” is utilized in this verse in both the senses. It doesn’t mean that Allah is physically at hand with people but in spiritual manner He is there in the hearts of believers. Such notions are widely used in almost all the books and they really beautify the writings.

Similarly you can find tons of verses in the Old Testament where the same Hebrew word for “find” which is “Matsa’” is used figuratively and literally as well. Please find below the evidence.

“And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her.” (Genesis 18:30)

“And I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight.” (Genesis 32:5)

Readers! Just like Ali Sina, can I lay my allegation on Bible verse Genesis 32:5 and demand Christians and Jews to explicate me that how a person can locate grace in God’s sight? This is inanity. Ali Sina is daft and he is playing with words, by saying that the same Arabic word “wajada” is used twice in Quranic verse 18:86; and both the times literally. No! But one place literally and another place allegorically. The same Hebrew word “Mastsa’” is also used in both the Bible verses; one place figuratively and another place literally. This is part of the language. If there are any rules of language that cease people to use such expressions, and any of them Ali Sina is aware of, then let him provide them as evidences.

Similarly in New Testament, the Greek word used for “find” is “heurisko”, and it is also used in both the forms.

“Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.” (Mark 13:36)

“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (Mathews 10:39)

Readers! Bible is full of such verses where the same word is used as a metaphor in one place and as a literal in another place. This is not a difficulty but this is how people converse in their languages. For more in-depth information regarding this subject please visit the following sites.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016622&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Readers! There are other ways you can comprehend this particular Quranic verse:

1. Supposedly, if it would be the case where Quran literally said that Sun sets in murky waters, then why no where in Hadith such kind of notion is found? If it was a fact at that time, then why did not Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) preached about it? He sermonized about Jinns, Angels, Life after death, fate etc to his congregation and Muslims believed in every word of him, without inquiring any evidences. The same way, they could have also believed that sun set in murky waters. However, isn’t it strange that Prophet (Peace be upon him) never spoke about it and his congregation never asked?

2. In the whole Hadith collection of Bukhari; you will find Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) preaching about “sun running on a fixed course for a term (decreed)” multiple times, but never said ONCE that it sets in murky waters. Bukhari 4:421, 6:326, 6:327, 9:520, and 9:528.

3. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) so much addressed about sunrise and sunset to preach his congregation and indicating them how to calculate prayer times by sunset and sunrise. Not once in his sermon he declared that Sun sets in murky waters. Bukhari 1:529, 1:531, 1:532, 3:139, 3:468 and so on.

4. Taking above statements in consideration; Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) discerned that Quranic verse 18:86 is not literally articulating about “sun setting in murky waters”, however it was a figurative statement.

5. There are tons of instances in the Bible where the same word “find” is used in both forms i.e. metaphorically & literally. Some of the examples are here: Genesis 18:3, 6:8, 7:1, 19:19, 30:27, 33:10. 1 Samuels 12:5, 30:6. Job 12:12, 28:12, 28:13, 32:13, 22:26, 27:10. Proverbs 10:13, 13:10, 14:9, 2:5, 3:13 and millions more. If Christians and Jews sill demur on Quranic verse 18:86, then at the outset, they have to make their accounts straight before pointing fingers to Quran.

6. This is how the language evolves and such phrases are part of its structure; which in my outlook really beautify the writings. If skeptics like Ali Sina still be against Quranic verse 18:86, then they require changing the structure of languages. People like him have to bend their intellects more so that their common sense can work a bit in understanding Holy Scriptures.

If you read the story of Zulqarnain in Quran 18:83-98, you will notice that Allah mentioned Zulqarnain by his name and also as a third person “he”; for example, he followed, he reached, he found, he said, he came, he left, he had, and he made. It is lucid that it is Allah who is unfolding the story of Zulqarnain and his expedition. Similarly in this verse:

“They uttered against Mary a grave false charge.” (Quran 4:156)

Taking in consideration above verse; not a single rational person can exclaim that Allah actually “uttered against Mary”, but they were Jews who said false about Mary. It is Allah who is telling the story of Jews. Also, in this verse:

“And I found her and her people adoring the sun instead of God” (Quran 27:24)

Ali Sina said, “If so, why Allah did not make it clear that Zulqarnain had made a mistake? There is no requirement of any rectification as there is no blooper? Blunder is in the heads of people like Ali Sina who misconstrue the whole perception.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Point # 2: The Arabic word used is Maghrib…

…in which there is no doubt 2:1.

Answer:

Ali Sina said, “All the translators have invariably translated maghrib as “setting-place” and not “time of setting”. Again a lie from “father of lies”, readers please find below the translations of Quranic verse 18:86 by M. Asad and Yusuf Ali who used the Arabic term “maghrib” as “time of setting”:

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun,” (Quran 18:86 – Yusuf Ali)

“till, when he came to the setting of the sun,” (Quran 18:86 – M. Asad)

As for rest of Ali Sina’s comments; they require explanation and I put them aside for later writing under some other topic.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Even if Dr. William Campbell says…

…Dr. Naik continued.

Answer:

Both the statements are accurate; firstly, Zul-qarnain did make a mistake in considering that he actually attained a place of sunset, which is definitely not accurate. Dr. Zakir Naik clarified the fact that actually it was Zul-qarnain who was erroneous and not Allah, because Allah is just only describing of what “he” spotted. Secondly, as for the skeptics and critics like Ali Sina who still allege Allah to actually the One who made a mistake (Nauzubillah), for them this can be figurative statement as well. So Alhumdullillah if you analyze this verse from both perspectives you still not be able to locate a single inaccuracy.

Ali Sina said, “In these verses maghrib cannot be translated as the TIME of sunset. None of the translators have made that mistake. The expression used is not figurative. The verse is talking about an event that actually took place and was observed by Zulqarnain and not something that appeared to him” Readers! Ali Sina, earlier in his arguments said something about “structure of the sentence” then in this contention he shorn of the likelihood that maghrib can be translated as the “TIME of sunset”. In both the instances he did not defend these crooked statements. Such kinds of statements result in implying that they are just his smeared terminologies with no explanations at all, again unearthing his lies. The only evidence he gave is that none of the translators have translated this word as “time of setting”; however, I have already provided proofs above that M. Asad and Yusuf Ali both translated this word as sunset.

Readers! The Arabic word “maghrib” can be translated as “west” or “sunset”, and both of these meanings are utilized in Quran in several places. And why sunset cannot fit in the “structure of language”? This fairytale is still to be answered by “PROFESSOR” Ali Sina with proper explanations and evidences. I am not going to acknowledge any of his daydreaming deceptive semblances and his crooked minded terminologies.

Readers! I have provided ample proofs and logical explanations of Quranic verse 18:86 and I am sure that you are convinced now that there is no problem in this particular verse. However, if you look at in the case of Ali Sina you will find that he seems like just writing, writing and writing without even BENDING his mind of what actually he is putting on paper. All along in his argument:

1. He seemed illogical in describing this verse.

2. He lied where he said that Arabic word “maghrib” cannot be translated as “time of setting” in these verses. And he did not give any explanation.

3. He tends to change the structure of languages if one holds to his implication.

4. He just uses his own words to satisfy his breed devoid of any strong arguments and logic.

5. Whatever evidences he provided are not authentically verified by him and can easily be refuted.

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) He quoted Surah Furqan, Chapter 25, Verse. 45…

http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/sunrise/index.html

…of the fact that he was lying.

Answer:

Readers! I will only reply to arguments pertaining to Quranic verses 25:45-46, concerning Hadiths, I will reply in short and rest will deal with them later insha Allah under some other subject as they require some explanation.

Quranic verses in question:

“Hast thou not seen how thy Lord hath spread the shade. And if He willed He could have made it still, then We have made the sun its pilot; (Quran 25:45)

“Then We withdraw it unto Us, a gradual withdrawal?” (Quran 25:46)

Ali Sina said, “The only way that is is possible is to make the “moving” sun stand still”. Readers! Read his comments again but in my words. The only way that is possible is to make the “moving” EARTH stand still. Problem solved. Therefore, actually it was Dr. Campbell and then Ali Sina who are putting their own words in Quran. No where Quran mentions that “Sun moves” and this allegation was also clarified by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech as well. Not even a single implication of movement of Sun or either Earth is mentioned.

Ali Sina said, “that it goes around the earth and if Allah orders it to stop in midair it will and if He tells it to rise from the West, it will obey”. Readers! Most of the hadiths of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) regarding sunset and sunrise are for determining the prayer times for Muslims. There are some hadiths as mentioned by Ali Sina simply stating metaphorically that Sun is under the command of Allah. No where in the hadiths it is mentioned that Sun revolves around the Earth, not even in Quran. The implication of “movement of Sun” in hadiths are usually for determining prayer times as I have mentioned earlier in this document under the subject of “Zulqarnain”. In some of the hadiths Sun is mentioned as a slave of Allah which “moves” around by Allah’s will, if this notion is not acceptable to Ali Sina, then what about Astronomers who tend to calculate sunrise and sunset timings using a mathematical model in which the “sun revolves around the Earth”. If this kind of “misleading” stuff is acceptable in scientific work to make things easy to comprehend, then why Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) cannot use the same notion to educate his congregation in order to make them grasp effortlessly.

Readers! Noticeable thing is that no where does Quran or Hadith state that Sun revolves around Earth. Period! For more information on “Mathematical Model” of calculating sunrise and sunset, please visit Internet and you will come across loads of accounts. One of them is here:

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William spoke about Solomon’s death…