Does Dr.Zakir Naik Really Fool the audience?

 

 

On the very front page of Ali Sina’s site. Ali Sina has written a response to Dr.Zakir Naik's presentation in his debate with Dr.William Campbell. He says that Dr.Zakir Naik is a magician and he fools his audience with words. He calls him a Showman. You can find his response here

 

http://www../debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm#content

 

 

The Reason arises why does he call him a Showman and a magician? The reason is obvious. Dr.Zakir Naik Alhumdulillah with the grace of Allah (SWT) winning over people's hearts.. He has delivered more than a thousand public talks worldwide. He has Alhumdulillah started his new 24 hour Satellite channel "Peace TV". This Channel Promotes the True Picture of Islam. Ali Sina does not like that.

 

Here I will be exposing Ali Sina. He not only is unscholarly in his approach but he even lacks ethical values. Any unbiased person who sees this picture of Dr.Zakir Naik modified by Ali Sina and his clowns will realize that Ali Sina is a loony.

 

http://www../debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm

 

Before I respond to the points raised by him. I would like to make few points clear.

 

1. If Ali Sina Writes a response to Dr.Zakir Naik that doesn't mean that Dr.Naik is fooling his audience. If I use this logic than it also means that Dr.William Campbell was also fooling his audience when he said falsehood about Islam. It also means that Ali Sina is also fooling his readers because many Muslims including Brother Umar on this site has responded to false charges of Ali Sina.

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/true_face_of_ali_sina_2.htm

 

2. It is Dr.William Campbell who actually initiated the debate. Dr.Zakir Naik doesn't go around asking people to have a public debate with him. Dr.Campbell wrote a book against the Quran. Dr.Naik refuted all the points of Dr.Campbell and pointed out scientific errors and contradictions in the bible. Ali Sina accuses Dr.Zakir of attacking the bible but doesn't say anything about Dr.Campbell who actually initiated the debate.

 

3. The Translations are human handi-work and are bound to contain errors. No Translation per se is error free. The Translator may not have in-depth knowledge of Science therefore it is highly possible that he makes an error in translating the scientific statements mentioned in the Quran.

 

 

 

Dr.Maurice Bucaille writes:

 

"Why do errors in translation exist? They may be explained by the fact that modern translators often take up, rather uncritically , the interpretations given by older commentators. In their day, the latter had an excuse for having given an inappropriate definition to an Arabic word containing several possible meanings; they could not possibly have understood the real sense the word or phrase which has only become clear in the present day thanks to scientific knowledge. In Other words, the problem is raised of the necessary revision of translations and commentaries. It was possible to do this at a certain period in the past, but nowadays we have knowledge that enables us to render their true sense "

 

(The Bible, The Quran, And The Science pg 118-119)

 

I'll mainly be touching the points which he raised on the Quran. I wont be dealing with each and every small point which is irrelevant. It was actually Dr.William Campbell who was supposed to reply to these points. Therefore, He should even thank me for even taking out my time.

 

 

 

Big Bang in the Quran?

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) As far as Qur’an and modern Science is concerned, in the field of ‘Astronomy’, the Scientists, the Astronomers, a few decades earlier, they described, how the universe came into existence - They call it the ‘Big Bang’. And they said… ‘Initially there was one primary nebula, which later on it separated with a Big Bang, which gave rise to Galaxies, Stars, Sun and the Earth, we live in.’ This information is given in a nutshell in the Glorious Qur’an, in Surah Ambiya, Ch. 21, Verse No. 30, which says…. (Arabic).... Do not the unbelievers see…? …. (Arabic)…. ‘That the heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove them asunder?’ Imagine this information which we came to know recently, the Qur’an mentions 14 hundred years ago.

(Ali Sina) In his fervor to make the Quran look scientific Dr. Naik overlooks the fact that the theory of Big Bang precludes the concept of creation. If Big Bang is true then the story of the creation and Adam and Eve must be false and vice versa. This is elemental.

21:30, ‘The heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove them asunder’ 

This is not an allusion to the Big Bang. It is  the rehashing of the Genesis:  

 ⁶ And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." ⁷ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. ⁸ God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. Gen 1: 6-9

 

So if this is a miracle, the credit should go to the Bible and not to the Quran. This fable, like many others, is borrowed from the Bible. 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina here claims that the Quran is copied from the Bible. The same nonsense, which Christians keep repeating. Since he has accused Dr.Zakir Naik. I can do no better than let Dr.Zakir Naik reply to it.

 

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t18/t18a/pg1.htm.  

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

21:30 presents also another problem. It contradicts with the verse 41.11

"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."

So which story is the right tale of the creation? Were the heaven and the earth joined together and Allah clove them asunder or were they apart and Allah told them to come together?

 

My Response.

 

In the verse 41.11 Allah (SWT) is not talking about the physical calling of heavens and earth together. He is talking about coming into existence. Quran is in complete compability with modern science. These verses have other scientific points in it as well. But since I am only responding to his points I wont go into details right now.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Of course both are false. The earth is inside the sky and part of it. They can neither come together nor separate. Here we have two version that contradict each other and both are scientifically wrong. 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

As I explained above none of the two is wrong. Dr.Zakir Naik explains

 

“The creation of the universe is explained by astrophysicists in a widely accepted phenomenon, popularly known as the 'Big Bang'. It is supported by observational and experimental data gathered by astronomers and astrophysicists for decades. According to the 'Big Bang', the whole universe was initially one big mass (Primary Nebula). Then there was a 'Big Bang' (Secondary Separation) which resulted in the formation of Galaxies. These then divided to form stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc. The origin of the universe was unique and the probability of it occurring by 'chance' is zero."

 

 

 

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

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) When I was in school, I had learned that the Sun in respect to the Earth - it was stationary - the Earth and the Moon, they rotated about in axis, but the sun was stationary. But when I read a Verse of the Qur’an saying, in Surah Al–Ambiya, Ch. . 21 Verse No. 33, it says…. (Arabic). … ‘It is Allah who has created the night and the day.’…. (Arabic)…. The sun and the moon…. (Arabic)…. Each one traveling in an orbit with its own motion. Now Alhamdulillah, modern science has confirmed the Qur’anic statement. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Yasbahoon’, which describes the motion of a moving body. When it refers to a celestial body, it means it is rotating about its own axis. So Qur’an says the sun and the Moon, they revolve as well as rotate about their own axis. Today we have come to know that the Sun takes approximately 25 days to complete one rotation.

(Ali Sina) Dr. Naikr claims that the verse 21:33 which says the sun and the moon follow their orbits means they rotate around their axis because the word íóÓúÈóÍõæäó ysbahun means rotating around its own axis. This is simply not true. Dr. Naik is fabricating evidence and twisting the meaning of the words. 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 is what Muhammad observed and this is what he said. He stated what was obvious to him and to everyone else. See how this word is translated.

As one can see, Dr. Naik is in error. By bundling the Moon and the Sun together, it is clear that Muhammad thought they are alike with one being brighter than the other.

Attempts such as this, to twist the apparent meaning of the words reveal the desperation of Muslims to find miracles and science in the absurdities of the Quran and hide its errors. Why none of these so called miracles attributed to Muhammad are in clear language? Why Allah did not say the Earth is round and it is rotating around the Sun and the Moon is rotating around the Earth? Simple and clear! In none of the so called Quranic miracles you find clarity.  

Then again, if the Quran is full of science why the Islamic countries are most wretched? Muslim's response to this is that Muslims do not practice Islam, that is why. But how is it that the Kafir countries that do not practice Islam at all are better than Muslim countries that practice it a little? Why virtually all the kafir countries are more advanced than virtually all the Islamic countries? The more Islamic a country gets the more backward, barbaric and poor it becomes. Is there in this a lesson for us all?  

 

 

My Response:

 

As I explained in the beginning that translations are human handy-work and they are done by people who may not be having great knowledge of science. And even you if you read the last translation by Sale it says the same thing what Dr.Zakir Naik explained. It reads " [the celestial bodies] move swiftly, [each] in [its respective] orb.

" see the different meanings of the word "orb"

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orb

 

Muslims today have gotten backward because we have deviated away from the teachings of Islam. When we Muslims were close to the Quran we were on the top of the world. Did Ali Sina forget the discoveries done by Muslim scientists??? The discoveries done by Western Scientists are only in last few centuries. Western scientists rehashed many of the discoveries of Muslim Scientists. Did he forget the Muslims scientists who did brilliant discoveries about 800-1000 years ago?? Did he forget great scientists like Jabbir Ibn Hayyan, Ali Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Muhammad Zakaria Razi etc. For more detail, refer to this.

 

http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/index.html

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

A quick calculation reveals that the likelihood that a Jew wins the Noble Prize is 2088 times higher than a Muslim winning it. If all the science is in the Quran why all the Muslims are so miserable?  

 

 

 

My Response:

 

As I explained above. It is because we have deviated away from the word of Allah (SWT). Ali Sina also considers Bible unscientific. But we have many Christian scientists. Therefore, Religion has nothing to do with discoveries of science. The followers of many other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism etc. live in third world countries. They have not done many discoveries either. But Ali Sina doesn't highlight them. He is only concerned about targeting the Muslims.

 

 

Does the Quran say the Universe is Expanding?
 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered that the universe is expanding. The Qur’an says in Surah Dhariyat, Ch. 51, Verse No. 47, that…‘We have created the expanding universe’ - The vastness of space. The Arabic word ‘Mohsiana’ refers to ‘vastness’ – ‘the expanding universe.’

Regarding the topics on Astronomy, which Dr. William Campbell touched, I will deal in the rebuttal, InshaAllah.  

(Ali Sina) Dr. Naik claims that the verse 51:47 talks about the expanding universe. This is not so. Muhammad is simply saying that the universe is vast and not that it is expanding. This verse reads:

Arabic…

See how this is translated:
YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.  

The fact that the universe is vast is prosaic and obvious. There is no mention of expanding universe in this verse. Any illiterate man can look at the sky and see it is vast. To the ancient people even the Earth looked vast. To us it looks very small.

 
 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina previously quoted  atleast 7-8 translations for Quran 21:33. Now he only quoted three. Why?? The reason is because if he had quoted more he would have been proved to be a liar. Let’s read other translations of the verse of the Quran 51:47

 

Dr. Munir Munshey : " With Our power and prowess, We brought into being the universe. And indeed, We expand it (steadily)!"

 

Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan: "With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, we are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof."

 

Arberry: " And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide."

 

Khalifa : "We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it."

 

And if you read the translation by Muhammad Asad, it uses the same words which Dr.Zakir Naik used "Expanding Universe". The verse reads

Muhammad Asad : "It is we who have built the universe with [our creative] power; and, verily, it is we who are steadily expanding it."

 

"we are expanding it" is the translation of the plural present participle musi'una and of the verb ausa'a meaning "to make wider, more spacious, to extend, to expand"

 

 

 

 

Water Cycle in the Quran?

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of ‘Water cycle’ that Dr. William Campbell pointed out, certain things. The Qur’an describes the water cycle in great detail. And Dr. William Campbell mentioned 4 stages. In his book he mentions 4 (a) and (b) - the last one he did not mention in the slide - I don’t know why? It says... ‘The Driplinition’…‘The Water table.’ He missed out here - Maybe because it was not mentioned in the Bible. He said there is not a single Verse in the Qur’an, which speaks about ‘evaporation.’ Qur’an says in Surah Al-Tariq, Ch. No. 86, Verse No. 11, that….(Arabic)…. ‘By the capacity of the heavens to return.’ And almost all the commentaries of the Qur’an - they said, that this Verse of Surah Tariq, Ch. No. 86, Verse No. 11, refers to the capacity of the heavens to return back rain - meaning ‘Evaporation.’  

(Ali Sina) I don’t know which commentator said such a thing but if anyone has, he is mistaken. Let us read the first part of this Sura:

 

 

My Response :

 

He is insinuating that only he (Ali Sina) knows the Quran whereas any commentator who says so is mistaken.

 

 

 

Ali Sina continues :

Let us read the first part of this Sura:

086.001 By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein);-

086.002 And what will explain to thee what the Night-Visitant is?-

086.003 (It is) the Star of piercing brightness;-

086.004 There is no soul but has a protector over it.

086.005 Now let man but think from what he is created!

086.006 He is created from a drop emitted-

086.007 Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

086.008 Surely (Allah) is able to bring him back (to life)!

086.009 The Day that (all) things secret will be tested,

086.010 (Man) will have no power, and no helper.

086.011 By the Firmament which returns (in its round),

The entire Sura is gibberish. It just makes so sense. You can hardly find any text as obtuse as this.

 

My Response :

Ali Sina considers the Surah to be gibberish. To infidels the whole Quran may sound gibberish. And Ali Sina is one of them. Therefore, it does not really matter to us if this sounds gibberish to him. I won’t be touching to all six of his so called "errors" in the Quran. I'll just deal with the first and the last one.

 

"1) It appears that Muhammad is saying that each person has a star that protects him. This is fairytale fit for children.

 

Where is the verse saying that star protects the man?? !! The first 3 verses of the Surah are speaking of something different whereas the verse 4 is speaking about something different. If Ali Sina is dumb and cannot even understand plain English that does not mean Quran is wrong. Lets now come to the main topic of it which Dr.Naik touched.

 

"By the Firmament which returns (in its round)" (Quran 86:11)"

 

Ali Sina then goes on to say there are six “errors” in this Surah. I’ll just be dealing with the last one here which is relevant to the topic.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

6) Then he swears “by the Firmament which returns (in its round)”. Firmament is the stars, the sun and the moon, not vapor and rain. Muhammad saw that every night the stars are coming back and every day the Sun is returning. These heavenly objects were known as the firmament. This verse has nothing to do with evaporation and rain. Please pay attention how often Dr. Naik twists the meanings of the words to make his point prevail. 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. 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

As Ali Sina here rightly says that "sama" means heaven/sky. I want to know where did Dr.Zakir naik translate it as "rain"? He never did so. Here are the words of Dr.Naik

 

"By the capacity of the heavens to return.’ And almost all the commentaries of the Qur’an - they said, that this Verse of Surah Tariq, Ch. No. 86, Verse No. 11, refers to the capacity of the heavens to return back rain - meaning ‘Evaporation.’ "

 

Can anyone here see Dr.Naik translating "sama" as "rain"??? This is another terrible lie by Ali Sina. See how he is trying to deceive his reader. Dr.Naik simply explained what it is referring to.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes: 

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William Campbell who knows Arabic, may say…‘Why did not Allah Subhanawa Taala specifically mention….(Arabic) …. Meaning… ‘The capacity of the heavens to return back rain.’ Why did not Allah mention specifically? Now we have came to know why did not Allah do that, in His Divine wisdom. Because today we have came to know that besides - the Ozonosphere… the layer above the earth - Besides returning back rain, it even returns back other beneficial matter and energy of the Earth, which is required by the human beings. It does not only return back rain - Today we have come to know, it even returns back waves of Telecommunication, of Television, of Radio, by which we can see TV, we can communicate, we can hear the radio. And besides that, it even returns back the harmful rays of the outer space, back on the other side, and absorbs. For example the sun light… the ultraviolet rays of the Sun light is absorbed by the Ionosphere. If this was not done, life on the Earth would have ceased to exist. So Allah Subhanawataala is far superior and for more accurate, when He says…. (Arabic)…. By the capacity of the Heaven to return.’ And the remaining things as he mentioned is there in the Qur’an - You can refer to my Videocassette. The Qur’an describes the ‘Water cycle’ in great detail.

(Ali Sina) Wow! What a great logic. Why the Quran does not talk about the stage of evaporation? …Because Ozonosphere returns other beneficial matters such as radio waves too. That is why! 

Instead of answering the question, Dr. Naik tries to distract his audience by talking about red herring and by introducing non sequitor arguments. 

But wait a minute! Didn't Dr. Naik say that "the Firmament which returns" is about the capacity of heavens to return back rain? Obviously Dr. Naik could not even convince himself. After assuring us that "almost all the commentaries of the Qur’an - they said, that this Verse of Surah Tariq, Ch. No. 86, Verse No. 11, refers to the capacity of the heavens to return back rain - meaning ‘Evaporation’", he goes on to give us the reason why Allah did not mention this stage in the Quran. Come on Doctor! Don't make this too easy for me.    

 

 

My Response:

 

Quran mentions the stage of evaporation in this verse. But since Quran is superior to science. It goes beyond that. If the Quran mentioned specifically then it would only mean returning of rain. Rain is not the only thing which the ozonosphere returns. Quran is more scientific!! For more on the returning sky

 

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_22.html

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes: 

(Dr. Naik) Regarding what he said about the Bible, he showed stage 1 and stage 3 in the first slide, and in the second stage 1, 3, and then 2. ‘That the rain water is taken up’… he says… ‘and then the rain water comes down on the Earth.’ This is the philosophy of  Phasofmillitas,  in 7^th century BC. He thought that the spray of the ocean was picked up by the wind, and send to the interior as rain. There is no cloud mentioned there.  In the second quotation Dr. William Campbell gave - First is, according to him, ‘evaporation’ which we agree. We don’t mind having the concordance approach with the Bible. ‘…Then rain falls down, and then are the clouds formed.’ - That is not the complete water cycle. Alhamdulillah, the Qur’an describes the water cycle in great detail, in several places. How does the water rise, evaporates, forms into clouds - the clouds join together, they stalk up, there is thunder and lightning, water comes down, the clouds move into the interior, they fall down as rain, and the evaporation of the water table and Alhamdulillah in great detail. The Qur’an speaks about the water cycle in great detail, in several places. In Surah Nur, Ch. No. 24, Verse No. 43, in Surah Rum, Ch. No. 30, Verse 48, in Surah Al-Zumar, Ch. 39, Verse 21, in Surah Muminun, Ch. 23, Verse 18, in Surah Rum Ch. No. 30, Verse No. 24, in Surah Al-Hijr, Ch. 15, Verse No. 22, in Surah Araf Ch. No. 7, Verse No. 57, in Surah Rad, Ch. No. 13, Verse No. 17, in Surah Furqan, Ch. 25, Verse No. 48 and 49, in Surah Fatir, Ch. No. 35, Verse No. 9, in Surah Yasin, Ch. 36, Verse No. 34, in Surah Jathiya, Ch. 45, Verse No. 5, in Surah Qaf, Ch. No. 50, Verse No. 9, in Surah Al-Waqiah, Ch. No. 56, Verse No. 68 and 70, in several places, Surah Al-Mulk,Ch. 67, Verse No. 30, the Glorious Qur’an speaks about the ‘Water cycle’, in great detail.

(Ali Sina) Here is where Dr. Naik outperformed himself. His Muslim audience became ecstatic and started applauding and cheering as if he was a pop singer performing their favorite number. He said all those verses from memory, like pulling one rabbit after another out his had. Impressive indeed. Let us quote these verses and see if there is anything miraculous in them. While you are reading, note how often Muhammad forgets that the Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah and Allah should not refer to himself in third person.  

 

 

My Response:

 

Dr.Zakir Naik did not have enough time to explain them. Therefore, to cut short he only gave references. Muslim audience had every right to be ecstatic because Dr.Zakir Naik was convincingly refuting the falsehood promoted by Dr.William Campbell. The answer to the shift from first to third person etc. is here

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html

 

Ali Sina then goes on to quote all the verses and says that it is only observable phenomenon. He doesn't realize that Quran is 1400 years old. Today it seems to be observable phenomenon to us because all the data on the subject is with us. Water Cycle seems to be an observable phenomenon.

 

In the words of Ali Sina "What the Quran describes has been observable by any primitive man since eons."

 

If Water Cycle is an observable phenomenon then why is it considered only a recent discovery of about 500-600 years old? Why isn't it considered simply to be an observable phenomenon? Why is taught to children in school??  Dr.Maurice Bucaille knew that there would be people like Ali Sina who will think that water cycle is merely an observable phenomenon. Moreover, what the Quran mentions is not simply an observable phenomenon. I'll just provide one example here.

 

" And He sends down from the sky mountain masses (of clouds) wherein is hail:" (Quran 24:43)

 

Now if you are traveling by an aeroplane and when the aeroplane goes above the clouds. One can see that clouds appear like mountain masses. I myself have witnessed it. On which aeroplane did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) go to check this??

 

How come Ali Sina missed out this verse?

 

“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.” (15:22)

 

 

Dr.Maurice Bucaille writes:

 

"When the verses of Quran concerning the role of water in man's existence are read in succession today, they all appear to us to express ideas that are quite obvious. The reason for this is simple: in our day and age, we all, to a lesser or greater extent, know about the water cycle in nature.

If However, we consider the various concepts the ancients had on this subject, it becomes clear that the data in the Quran do not embody the mythical concepts current at the time of the Revelation which had been developed more according to philosophical speculation than observed phenomenon. Although it was empirically possible to acquire on a modest scale, the useful practical knowledge necessary for the improvement of the irrigation, the concepts held on the water cycle in general would hardly be acceptable today."

 

Note: Ali Sina also accuses Dr.Maurice Bucaille and Professor Keith Moore of fooling the people. I'll come to that later.

 

Do Mountains Stabilize the Earth  

Dr.Zakir Naik in his talk provided the source. He said that Dr.Frank Press said that mountains give stability to the earth and he asked Dr.William Campbell to prove on the contrary. Get any documented proof which says on the contrary.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes: 

(Dr. Naik) I have not come across a single Geological book, and I challenge Dr. William Campbell to produce a single Geological book - Not his personal correspondence with the Geologist. That does not carry weight. His personal correspondence with Dr. Keith Moore …. Documented proof. And if you read the book ‘The Earth’ which is referred by almost all the universities, in the field of Geology, one of its authors by the name of Dr Frank Press, who was the advisor to the former president of USA, Jimmy Carter, and was the president of the Academy of Science of USA. He writes in his book that…‘The mountains are wedge shaped - It has deep roots within. And he says that…‘The function of the mountain is to stabilize the earth.’ And the Qur’an says in Surah Ambiya, Ch. No 21, Verse No. 31, in Surah Luqman, Ch. No. 31 Verse No.10, as well as in Surah Nahl, Ch. No. 16, Verse No. 15, that…‘We have made the mountains standing firm on the Earth, lest it would shake with them and with you.’

(Ali Sina) I tried to contact Dr. Frank Press and wrote to two sites that had written about him asking to please put me in touch with him. Neither of them responded. I am not willing to buy his book Earth that costs $95.95 dollars just to verify this claim. However I doubt Dr. Press could have said such an absurd thing. Muslims are good in twisting things to make them look something else. I believe Dr. Naik has got this false information form  Another Islamic site  islam-guide.com that says: "A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world.  One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press.  He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.  [Earth, Press and Siever, p. 435.  Also see Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 157.] These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg 

 

My Response:

Does Dr.Frank Press really have time to contact every Tom,Dick and Harry?? Does he have time to contact people like Ali Sina who hide behind the internet like cowards? Ali Sina hides behind the internet, writes, and thinks that he is a genius.

 

How can Ali Sina simply accuse someone with mere assumptions?? He is firstly not willing to buy the book. Then he is accusing Dr.Naik of copying from this site. Dr.Naik said the same thing much earlier than this debate. He said so also in his talk "Quran and Modern Science - Conflict or conciliation” in 1996 and he had delivered talks on the same subjects before also. It reads on the site

 

"A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world.  One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press.  He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1  These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9)."

 

When Ali Sina quotes this site. He removed the reference to the footnotes. The site further provides us with 3 pictures and Ali Sina on it writes:

 

“These pictures have nothing to do with science. They are just more Islamic lies. These are taken from The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran a book written by a Muslims El-Naggar and falsely attributed to Dr. Press.” Source:

 

 

May I know where these people attributed the photos taken to Dr.Frank Press?? They even provide the source of it. Here are the 3 sources mentioned on the same site of pictures 1,2 and 3 respectively.

 

"Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)"

 

"Figure 8: Schematic section.  The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.) "

 

"Figure 9: Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.)"

 

See how Ali Sina lies. He thinks that people will simply believe him without verifying.

 

Further, Ali Sina doesn't agree with the verses of the Quran 16:15,21:31. And he starts giving his scientific explanation. Wait a minute, Where is the source of all his wishful explanations?? Dr.Zakir Naik atleast gave the source. He quoted a non-Muslim scientist Dr.Frank Press, who has no reason to favour the Quran. Nor did he write the book to bring a compability between the Quran and Science.

 

 

 

Ali Sina writes:

(Dr. Naik) And in reply to the statement…‘That if mountains prevent earthquakes, how come you find earthquakes in mountainous regions?’ The reply is, that - If I say that medical doctors, they prevent the sickness and disease in a human being, and if someone argues…‘If doctors prevent the sickness and diseases in a human being, how come you find more sick people in the hospitals, where there are more doctors than at home - where there are no doctors.’

(Ali Sina) What a ridiculous analogy! Patients go to hospitals AFTER they get sick because they are living and thinking beings and that is where they can get medical attention and get better. They do not become sick in hospitals (unless the hospital is in an Islamic country with Islamic hygiene). Is Dr. Naik trying to compare earthquake, a natural phenomenon, to humans? Do the earthquakes happen first elsewhere and then decide to conglomerate in mountains? This analogy is utterly ridiculous; yet Dr. Naik’s Muslim audience became so elated that they spontaneously cheered and applauded. One black guy was almost falling off his chair of excessive laughing. What these people were laughing at? At their own stupidity? Now the world can see them and laugh at them. It’s as if the more stupid is a statement, the more Muslims enjoy it. This reveals the deplorable intellectual bankruptcy of the wretched Umma.

 

 

My Response:

 

Dr.Zakir Naik clearly explained the verses of the Quran. He said this just as a joke and to expose the poor reasoning of Dr.William Campbell. Dr.Zakir Naik explained it very well. Muslim audience cheered because Islam was being defended and lies of Dr.William Campbell were being exposed. They have every right to be. Islam is criticized a lot in Western countries. If someone defends it then Muslims have all rights to cheer and applaud. See How Ali Sina in the ends throws insult at the entire ummah (community) of the Muslims. His foul-mouth never ends.

 

 

 

More insults in the next paragraph

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Believe me, absurd thinking is the trait of Muslims. Sometime ago I read an essay about a Muslim child asking his religious teacher that the Quran says Jinns will be sent to hell to be punished but the the Quran also says that Jinns are made of fire, so how fire can be hurt by fire? The teacher slapped the child and asked him if it hurts? The poor lad responded yes, with tears in his eyes. "Like that!", responded the teacher. "My hand is flesh and your face is flesh but it still hurts". Foolish Muslims think this is such a great reasoning. This is the fallacy of wrong analogy. But the Muslim brain is not equipped with enough rationality to think deep. He WANTS to believe and any nonsense will do. There are several sites that have written against me. I receive numerous emails from Muslims who have neither read my articles nor those written by Muslims trying to refute me. And yet these people tell me that I have already been refuted and give me links to the same silly sites. They WANT to believe that I am refuted. They will believe anyone who claims he has refuted me without searching the truth of that claim. The Muslim mind works in bizarre ways.   

 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

More foul-mouth from Ali Sina.

 

 I put the link above of brother Umar's article which exposes his insults and foul-mouth. I request brother Umer to add these as well.

 

 

 

 

Oceanology of the Quran,

 

Ali Sina writes (In response to Dr.Naik)

(Ali Sina) If the separation of sweet and salt waters is an observable phenomenon, as it seems that everyone agrees, then how could no one know about it until "the advancement of oceanology" made its knowledge possible? What Muhammad is referring to is precisely that and nothing more. 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. Waters don’t mix immediately because of different temperature and density but they eventually do, just like when you pour cream in a cup of coffee. It takes time to mix; that is why you stir it. Those who saw this phenomenon must have relayed their observation to others using figurative speech saying waters don’t mix AS IF there is an invisible barrier between them. Our ignorant Muhammad took this literally and claimed there is an “invisible barrier” between them, which is “forbidden to be trespassed”. Nothing can be further from the truth. All waters mix and there is no barrier, invisible or otherwise between them. When two rivers, carrying sediments of different colors meet, or when sweet water coming from rivers flows into the blue salty water of the sea, one can see the line of demarcation sometimes stretching for miles until they gradually blend. Where the waters merge, i.e. what Dr. Naik refers to as the “slanting homogenizing area”, is not a “barrier”. It is the opposite of it. There the waters are not forbidden to trespass but actually merge. 

It is amazing that Muslims emphasize on the flagrant errors of the Quran as its miracles. Who would buy this nonsense except a totally ignorant person?       

 

My Response:

 

Wait a minute, Where is the source of all this?? Dr.Zakir Naik atleast quoted one scientist Dr.Hay.

 

The same site which Ali Sina accused Dr.Naik of copying from explains this as well. It also gives the reference to the book on oceanology written by Non-Muslim scientists.

 

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-b.htm

 

 

 

 

Is Islam for All Mankind? 

 

Ali Sina writes:

(Dr. Naik) As far as this statement of his is concerned, regarding the Bible, I do agree with it totally - Because the Bible was only meant for the children of Israel , for that time. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 10, Verse No. 5 and 6, Jesus Christ peace be upon him tells his disciples… ‘Go ye not in the way of the Gentiles.’ Who are the Gentiles? The Non-Jews, the Hindus, the Muslims. ‘But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel .’ Jesus Christ peace be upon him said in the Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 15, Verse No. 24…  ‘I am not sent, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel .’ So Jesus Christ and the Bible were only meant for the children of Isreal. Since it was meant for them, to analyze the Bible, you have to use the meaning of the word, which was utilized at that time. But the Qur’an was not meant only for the Arabs of that time. Qur’an is not meant only for the Muslims. The Qur’an is meant for the whole of humanity, and it is meant to be for eternity.

(Ali Sina) Here again the Muslim audience broke in applause and the sign of joy was visible from their countenance. To them it was victory after victory. However, had Dr. Naik told them that the Quran says that Muhammad has come only for the Meccans alone and the people around it they would not have rejoiced that much.  

006.092 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.

The mother of cities, Umul Qura, is Mecca. The same thing is confirmed in verse:  

042.007 Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur’an: that thou mayest warn the Mother of Cities and all around her.  

In other places Allah says to Muhammad that he has come for the people who did not receive guidance yet. 

032.003  “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.”  

036.006 In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah).  

 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina here again quotes the verses and mispresents them. Both the verses 6:92 and 42:7 say "Mother of cities and All Around her"

 

ALL around her means the full world. Mecca is the centre of the world and ALL around it is the full world. The verses of the Quran do not prove that Islam is only for Arabs Alone.

And in other two verses Allah is saying that he has sent Muhammad (pbuh) to admonish the people to whom no guidance has come before. Does it say that "admonish only those people to whom no Warner had been sent"?? Definitely not !!! Allah (SWT) sends his final messenger which is for the whole of humanity from those people to whom a messenger had not been sent before.

 

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

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.  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. Of course, as he became powerful, his ambitions grew and he changed his mind later. Few Muslims know about these verses. What do they say about them?  If they truly believe that the Quran is the word of God, they should stop their da'wa and Jihad. The people of Mecca and its surrounding have already converted to Islam. If Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God, how do they dare to disobey Him and make da'wa elsewhere. Even if Muhammad said they should attack other countries and convert others into Islam, they should not listen to him but do what the Quran says. Whose word is more important? That of Allah or that of Muhammad? These verses should also convince the non-Arab Muslims, including the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Iraqis and all others now known as Arabs that Islam is not for them. Islam is only for the Meccans and its surrounding. They must leave Islam, if they truly believe that the Quran is the word of God.     

(Dr. Naik) Qur’an says in Surah Ibrahim, Ch. 14, Verse. 52, in Surah Baqarah Ch. No. 2, Verse 185, and Surah Zumar Ch. 39, Verses. 41, that the Qur’an is meant for the whole of human kind. And Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, was not sent only for the Muslims or the Arabs. Allah says in the Qur’an in Surah Ambiya Ch. No. 21, Verse No. 107------(Arabic)----That We have send thee as a mercy, as a guidance, to the whole of humankind.’ 

(Ali Sina) Verse 14:52 says “Hatha balaghun lilnnasi”. 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. For example nas is used in verse 7.116 when talking about the magic performed by the magicians of Pharaoh who bewitched the eyes of the people ‘nas’. Are we supposed to understand that all mankind were bewitched? The same word is used in 2:185, 39:4 and 21:107. In all these verses Nas means "people" and not all mankind. If we assume that the word 'nas' used in these verses means all mankind then we have to admit that there is flagrant contradiction in the Quran for the verses 6:92, 42:7, 32:3 and 36:6 clearly state that the Quran is for the people of Mecca and its surrounding.  

 

 

My Response:

 

Most of the Translations translate the word 'nas' as 'mankind' in the verses which Dr.Zakir Naik quoted. But even if Ali Sina doesn't agree. Still other verses prove that Quran is for entire humanity. Nowhere does the Quran say that it is only for the Arabs. He deliberately mispresented the verses he quoted to prove that.

 

More verses confirming Quran to be for entire humanity

 

"Blessed be He Who sent down the criterion (of right and wrong, i.e. this Quran) to His slave (Muhammad SAW) that he may be a warner to the Alameen (mankind and jinns)." (Quran 25:1)

 

"But it is nothing less than a Message to all the worlds." (Quran 68:52)

 

"Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:" (Quran 81:27)

 

"And no reward you (O Muhammad SAW) ask of them (those who deny your Prophethood) for it, it(the Quran) is no less than a Reminder and an advice unto the Alameen (men and jinns)." (Quran 12:104)

 

The word used in the above 4 verses is "Alameen" meaning "worlds".

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

However, Muhammad also claimed to have been sent to "creatures of both worlds". lilAAalameen. means everything in both worlds. (That includes dogs and pigs.) That is because he was a megalomaniac narcissist and narcissists talk big. He even claimed to have come as guidance for Jinns, which are mythical beings.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

He considers Jinns to be mythical beings. They are mythical for him not for us. Its the matter of belief. Science has not proven Jinns mythical. They may assume them to be but there are no proves at all. He again insults our beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and calls him narcissists (someone who is fascinated with himself). Brother Umar has responded to this false charge. I too will deal with it in the next para.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

"Narcissists have grandiose ideas about themselves.  In a Hadith Muhammad makes his Allah say to him:  “Were it not for you, I would not have created the universe.” [3]

 

Muhammad ibn Ali has narrated that Muhammad said: "Among all the people of the world God chose the Arabs; from among the Arabs he chose the Kinana; from Kinana he chose the Quraish; from the Quraish he chose Bani Hashim; from Bani Hashim he chose Me. [Tabaqat V. 1 p. 2]  This man was full of himself - a true narcissist. So much for the alleged equality in Islam. Arabs are the chosen race. Arabs have known that always and they treat non Arab Muslims with disdain. If you are a non-Arab Muslim, you are accepting to be inferior. "

 

The source of it is given in the footnote

 

As-Saghaanee (d.650) said, this hadith is "maudu (fabricated)" ['al-Ahaadeeth al-Mawdoo'aat' of as-Saghaanee (pg. 7)] and likewise al-Albaanee ['Silsilah ad-Da'eefah' (1/450 no.282)] ash-Shaykh Mulla Alee Qaaree (d.1014) said, "maudu, but it's meaning is correct."

 

 

 

My Response:

 

All Ali Sina can do is quote fabricated hadith. This hadith is a fabricated one according to scholars. But even if we assume it is correct. Still it doesn't prove that he is narcissist. Reasons :

 

1. Muhammad (pbuh) was considered an honest and Truthful man even by the pagan Arabs before his prophethood.

 

He spoke whatever God Almighty commanded him.

 

2. It is not only mentioned in the Hadith but it is also said by God Almighty to Adam (pbuh) in the Gospel of Barnabas. Chapter 39. It reads

 

"'Adam, having sprung up upon his feet, saw in the air a writing that shone like the sun, which said: "There is only one God, and Mohammed is the messenger of God." Whereupon Adam opened his mouth and said: "I thank thee, O Lord my God, that thou hast deigned to create me; but tell me. I pray thee, what meaneth the message of these words: "Mohammed is messenger of God. Have there been other men before me?"

   

           'Then said God: "Be thou welcome, O my servant Adam. I tell thee that thou art the first man whom I have created And he whom thou hast seen [mentioned] is thy son, who shall  come into the world many years hence, and shall be my messenger, for whom I have created all things; who shall give light to the world when he shall come;"

 

http://www.barnabas.net/barnabasP39.html

 

Christians deny the Gospel of Barnabas. The Historians do not deny it. For the authenticity of Gospel of Barnabas refer to :

 

http://www.natheal.com/NaturalHealingMethodologies/WorldReligions/history_of_the_gospel_of_bar.htm
 

http://www.barnabas.net/

 

 

Paul said about Barnabas.

 

"If he comes unto you, receive him. (Colossians 4:10)"

 

Muhammad (pbuh) is not narcissist. But its again allegations and lies by Ali Sina. Refer to Brother Umar article for responses to all the charges against Muhammad (pbuh) by Ali Sina

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/true_face_of_ali_sina_2.htm

 

 

 

 

Embryology continuation

 

Ali Sina again claims that Dr.Zakir Naik fooled the audience. According to him Dr.Keith Moore and Dr.Bucaille fooled the Muslims.

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Ali Sina) Are we supposed to believe that Dr. Keith Moore, who was the chairman and the head of the department of Anatomy, of a major university did not know how human embryo looks? The truth is that Dr. Moore and Dr. Bucaille fooled Muslims by telling them what they wanted to hear and in this way they ingratiated the Saudi King  who in turn lavished them with a lot of petrodollars

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Now this is turning out to be funny. In Brief, I will tell you the sick mentality of Ali Sina.

 

If a Muslim scientist writes something about Science that matches the Quran then he is a liar and a deceiver. If a non-Muslim scientist does it then he is doing it for the sake of petrodollars. This is turning out to be more and more stupid from Ali Sina.

 

Ali Sina believes Dr.William Campbell spoke the Truth. Why? Because he opposed the Quran. The reason is obvious.

 

 

 

Ali Sina writes:

(Dr. Naik) What Dr. William Campbell showed you is the other perspective of it. If I show this book - it looks like a rectangle - If I show you like that, it is a different perspective. That diagram is given in the book - The diagram which you saw on the slide is even there - And I’ll deal with it InshaAllah.

(Ali Sina) Here again the gullible audience became euphoric and clapped without realizing that Dr. Naik is engaging in the fallacy of suppressing the evidence. Dr. Campbell showed the picture of the embryo from the front and from the side. Dr. Naik wants to convince his audience that they should look at it from one angle only – the angle that it most resembles a leech. Of course one who is determined to be fooled would be willing to look at things by standing on his head, if that helps him to see them from the exact angle that would reconfirm his unreasoned faith. That is why Muslims are unable to see the truth. Their tunnel vision does not allow them to see things from all angles. If only they changed their perspective a little, they would see that Islam is nothing but a big lie.  

 

My Response:

 

I told you people its turning out to be more and more funny. This is the photograph, which Dr.Zakir Naik showed.

 

http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-a.htm

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore, after about 80 questions were asked to him, he said… ‘If you would have asked me these 80 questions, 30 years ago, I would not have been able to answer more than 50 percent - Because embryology has developed recently in the past 30 years.’ He said this in the eighties.

Now, do we believe Dr. Keith Moore whose statement is available outside in the foyer - his videocassette is available… ‘This is the truth’...’Anna-ul-Haq’... recorded statement. So will you believe Dr. William Campbell’s personal conversation with Professor Keith Moore, or the one mentioned in this book, with Islamic edition as well as the photograph that I had shown to you? And in the videocassette available outside you can see it - He makes those statements. So you have to choose which is more logical - Personal discussion with Dr. William Campbell or his statement on Video. Like how Dr. William Campbell showed my video - 100 percent proof what I said…  

(Ali Sina) This is again a false reasoning. What Dr. Moore said to Dr. Campbell and what he said in the videos intended to be sold to Muslims could be two different things.

 

My Response:

 

If Dr.Keith Moore had done such a thing. If someone had caught him then it will completely ruin his reputation and no more "petrodollars.” Furthermore, his book is used more by non-Muslims than Muslims. More non-Muslim medical colleges use this book than Muslim medical colleges. Dr.Keith Moore wasn’t an Arab Muslim. Therefore, we have no reason to doubt him. Since more Non-Muslims refer to his book, he would NEVER write in favor of the Quran if he was really greedy of “petrodollars.”

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

. He would have made a fool of himself telling Dr. Campbell what he says for Muslim consumption. We are not here to probe whether Dr. Moore is a liar or Dr. Campbell is reporting him erroneously. We must look at the medical science. We don't need the opinions of the experts when we can easily find the facts on our own. Appealing to authority is called argumentum ad verecundiam and this is another logical fallacy. We must see whether what the Quran says is supported by science or not. We must not accept the words of anyone just because they are authorities. They could have some ulterior motives. They might have lied and misrepresented the truth for some personal gain.  The ultimate authority is science, not Dr. Moore, Dr. Bucaille or Dr. Campbell. Dr. Campbell has proved his case backing his argument with pictures. Unless someone can produce pictures that tell a different story, the claims of this doctor or that doctor are irrelevant. Once things are demonstrated to us, we can dispense with the opinions of authorities.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

We actually do not need experts to tell us about science but we need Scientists like Ali Sina to tell us that. Dr.William Campbell showed the slides and Dr.Zakir Naik convincingly answered to them. He did it from the medical book written by a well-reputed scientist Dr.Keith Moore.

 

Ali Sina tells us that scientific data is available and we do not need experts to tell us.

 

Wait a minute, which scientific data? The scientific discoveries done by the world’s greatest scientist Ali Sina?? Which science is he talking about? Who writes the books of science if not the great scientists?? Are they written in heavens and thrown down to us from there? As I proved above. Dr.Moore was not a Muslim either and he has no ulterior motives. If he lies then it can simply ruin his reputation. Moreover, he will have no more "petrodollars.”

 

 

 

Ali Sina writes:

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

And whatever additional information he got from Qur’an and Hadith, it was incorporated later into this book…‘The Developing Human’ - the 3^rd edition and this book got an award for the best medical book written by a single author in that year.

(Ali Sina) Is Dr. Naik telling us that Dr. Moore got an award for the book he wrote claiming the ridiculous Quran is scientific? Who gave that award? Al Azhar University or the Grand Mosque in Medina? What is the name of that award?    

 

My Response:

 

This is turning to be more and more funny every time. Al-Azhar University and Grand Mosque don't go around giving awards. It definitely got the award from medical authorities. He considers the Qur'an ridiculous. Thats what ALL islamophobists do.

 

Dr. Keith Moore had earlier authored the book, 'The Developing Human'.After acquiring new knowledge from the QUR'AN, he wrote, in 1982, the 3rd edition of the same book, 'The Developing Human'. The book was the recipient of an award for the best medical book written by a single author. This book has been translated into several major languages of the world and is used as a textbook of embryology in the first year of medical studies. In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Dr. Moore said, "It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the QUR'AN about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to MUHAMMAD---sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam--- from GOD or ALLAH, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that MUHAMMAD---sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam--- must have been a messenger of GOD or ALLAH{The reference for this statement is the video tape titled 'This is the Truth'.For a copy of this video tape contact the Islamic Research Foundation}

 

Ali Sina then goes on to tell us about the scientific discoveries done by him. He keeps making a joke and a fool of himself. He did not give any source of all his crap. Ali Sina always says "this is not true" and "that is not true" without giving us any source from any medical book.

 

After explaining all the embryological stages, When Dr.Zakir Naik mentioned that the Quranic stages on embryology are based on appearance.

 

 

 

Ali Sina writes:

 

(Ali Sina) Here our good doctor is making a major shift of strategy. Now, he is no longer insisting that the Quranic description of the embryo is scientific. He says that the Quran talks about the “appearance” that exist between a clot, a leech and the embryo in its different stages of growth. If so, why claim that the Quran is scientific and miraculous? In the past, women had miscarriage way more than today. The fetus was aborted and they could see that it remotely resembled, first to a clot of blood and then to a leech. In the absence of a microscope this is all they could see. So, where is the miracle? Why make so much ado about it saying “how could Muhammad have known this 1400 years ago?” when such a prosaic knowledge was available to anyone for eons? In fact as Dr. Campbell noted, Hippocrates described  the embryonic growth much more accurately.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

When did Dr.Zakir Naik ever insist that all the stages are based on function? He always insisted that stages are based on appearance. The appearance of the embryo in all the stages was not known at that time. How did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) know that embryo looks like a leech? (Which I proved above with a photograph which was shown by Dr.Zakir Naik from the book of Dr.Keith Moore)

 

 

 

Ali Sina writes:

(Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore took plastic seal, and bit between his teeth to make it look like a ‘Mutga’- The teeth marks resembled the ‘somites.’  Dr. William Campbell said… ‘When the ‘Alaqa’ becomes a ‘Mutga’ the clinging is yet there - It is there till 8 and a half months- So… the Qur’an is wrong.’ I told you in the beginning, the Qur’an is describing the appearance. ‘The leech like’ appearance and the ‘clot like’ appearance, is changed to the ‘chewed’ like appearance. It yet continues to cling till the end - There is no problem. But the stages are divided on appearance - Not on the function.

(Ali Sina) Alaqa either means something that clings or clot of blood. One word in one sentence cannot have two different meanings. If alaqa is something that clings, then the fetus should be called alaqa during all its gestation. Why then the Quran says it becomes mutga? If it’s only the appearance to the clot, then we should discard Dr. Bucaille’s suggestion who says this word should be translated as “something that clings”. If the Quran is clear, then why this much confusion?

 

My Response:

 

The Quran is speaking about the embryological stages based on appearance. When it describes Alaqa , Also the function befits here. But even if you ignore the function here. Still the embryo looks like a clot as well like the leech as Dr.Zakir Naik proved in his talk and Ali Sina agrees that embryo does look like a clot. The Qur'an is not confusing. The Islamophobists will find it confusing irrespective how clear it is. The translation may be confusing. But the Arabic text is very clear.

 

Dr.Zakir Naik then spoke about Mudga and formation of muscles and bones. To that Ali Sina writes :

 

 

 

Ali Sina:

 

(Ali Sina) This description is wrong no matter how many times it is repeated. I quote again what Dr. Campbell said in the conclusion of his talk on embryo:  “There is no time when calcified bones have been formed, and then the muscles are placed around them. The muscles are there, several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than being added around previously formed bones, as the Qur’an states.” This statement is scientific. The Quran is not.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Wrong according to who? Scientific discoveries done by Ali Sina? Dr.Zakir Naik responded very convincingly to Dr.Campbell and Dr.Campbell did not say anything against it.

 

 

 

Ali Sina writes:

(Dr. Naik) As Professor Keith Moore said that… ‘The stages - that how it is described in modern embryology… stage 1,2,3,4,5, is so confusing, The Qur’anic stage on embryology describing on the base of appearance, and the shape, is far more superior.’ Alhamdulillah.

(Ali Sina) This is ludicrous. How can the Quran be superior when it is all wrong? Josef Goebbel, Hitler's minister for propaganda said: "If you tell a big enough lie, frequently enough, it becomes the truth." This is what Dr. Naik wants to achieve. He wants to repeat a lie frequently enough, until it becomes true. I am sorry. It does not work in this case. The description of the embryo in the Quran is all wrong. It won’t become true even if it is repeated a billion times. Bones are not created first to be covered with flesh later. Period!

 

My Response:

 

The Qur'an may be all wrong according to the scientific knowledge and discoveries done by Ali Sina. Let me remind you he has NOT given any source from where he got his information. Now shall we agree with Dr.Keith Moore who is a reputed scientist or Islamophobists like Ali Sina?? He goes on to quote minister of Hitler. Dr.Zakir Naik didn’t lie frequently. He quoted all from great scientists like Dr.Keith Moore etc.

 

Note: 

 

 

Up till now, Ali Sina has not quoted a single medical book to back any of his claims!

 

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) Therefore he said… therefore he said that… ‘I have no objection in accepting that Prophet Muhammed is the messenger of God and that this Glorious Qur’an has to be a Divine Revelation, from Almighty God.’

(Ali Sina) If Dr. Naik is speaking of Dr. Moore, it should be noted that he did not convert to Islam. This tells us that his interests were this-worldly. He did not see any miracles in the Quran. He simply fooled the Muslims and laughed his way to the bank.

 

My Response:

What bank? What Money?? Ali Sina has not provided any proof whatsoever. The Quran says

 

"Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful." (Quran 2:111)

 

Dr.Moore did not accept Islam because of other reasons. If he had accepted Islam then Ali Sina would have called him a liar. Ali Sina considers Muslims to be liars by nature

 

Source

 

If he didn’t accept then he fooled the Muslims. In either way, he'll be spoken against. Why?? Because he wrote something good about the Qur'an.

 

Did Ali Sina forget about other scientists and learned men who have embraced Islam?? Like Professor Thagada Shaun , Jeffery Lang and others.

 

Ali Sina further goes on to call Allah (SWT) a saddist. He comes up with a ludicruous example of a cat. He is comparing cats with human beings. He says that he wouldn't do such a merciless thing to a cat. But he wants worse to be done to Muslims. He says "As long as Muslims are Muslims they do not deserve to be treated in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Right."  (Source:)

 

He further says “They must be colonized and ruled with iron fist” (Source:)

 

According to Ali Sina "Muslims are not humans"  (Source:)

 

For more insults, refer to

 

Ali Sina’s foul mouth exposed

 

He forgot that we human beings are not allowed to do such a thing to any other human being.. Human beings are responsible for their own actions. The Qur'an says

 

"...it is not God that hath wronged them, but they wrong themselves." (Quran 3:117)

 

If Allah (SWT) starts punishing us for good deeds, he will not leave a single of us on earth. On the day of judgement no human being can claim that he is treated against the mercy of Allah. Allah (SWT) besides being merciful is also just. He will treat everyone in a just way. Suppose that today someone catches Hitler. What punishment can one give him for the incineration of 6 million Jews?? and indirectly his life caused death of 30-60 million human beings. Maximum we can do is kill him and burn him once. But who will compensate for 5,999,999 other lives?? That is why we must also conclude that this life is not complete. A person may be punished and may not get punished. Allah will even forgive blasphemous people like Ali Sina, Sam Shamoun etc. if they repent. The Qur'an says :

 

"Say: "O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 39:53)

Our good deeds are multiplied by Allah (SWT) by 10 and our bad deeds are not multiplied even twice. The Qur'an says

 

"He that doeth good shall have ten times as much to his credit: He that doeth evil shall only be recompensed according to his evil: no wrong shall be done unto (any of) them" (Quran 6:160)

The Holy Quran says :

 

"....but if any does evil, the doers of evil are only punished (to the extent) of their deeds."(Quran 28:84)

 

This had nothing to do with the debate between Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.William Campbell. Therefore, I won’t go into the detail of it. Lets continue with the main point of it.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

If it was not so depressing, it would have been funny that Dr. Naik should choose such a macabre statement of the Quran to prove its alleged miracle. What part of this stupid verse is miraculous? All it reveals is a sick mind of a fool. Dr. Naik speaks from the position of utter ignorance. In the old days no one knew that brain had anything to do with sensing pain or even thinking. Aristotle thought that brain acts like a radiator to cool the body. Thinking was done with heart, they believed. We still say memorizing things by heart. People feel pain right where it hurts. Pinch or slap yourself and see where do you feel it? Do you feel it in your brain? You feel the pain right where you are hurting yourself. So what part of this simplistic statement is miraculous?  Muhammad is stating the obvious. There is no miracle in these harebrained verses. They do not reveal any science.

 

 

 

My Response:

 People may have known that skin is responsible for pain. But people did not know that if you burn a skin continuously it will lose the tendency of burning anymore. That is what doctors do today when a patient of burn injury comes. They take a pin and prick in that area. If the patient feels pain the doctor is happy because its a superficial burn. If the patient does not feel pain then its deep burn. That is the miraculous point about it. And we may well ask. If this was known since ages. Then why is the discovery of pain receptors considered a recent discovery. Why isn't it considered a discovery that was done eons ago?

 

 

 

Ali Sina on Professor Tegatat Tagashaun.

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Ali Sina) Professor Thagada Shaun must be a fool. Heaven knows if such an idiot actually exists or he is a fabrication of Muslim wishful thinking. These verses are stupid. Not only they reveal that Muhammad was a sadist, they also contain no scientific information whatsoever. Muslims have based their entire faith on logical fallacies. "Doctor so and so has confirmed the Quran so Islam must be true" is an asinine argument. 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?

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina forget that the joke is on him. He is not a fabrication of Muslim wishful thinking. He is/was a professor at Chang Mai University in Thailand. Ali Sina,a coward who hides behind the internet and thinks he is a genius. Which doctors proved the Quran to be unscientific?? 'Dr' Ali Sina or some doctor from his clowns?

 

 

 

 

Ad Hominem in the Quran

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) Qur’an calls such people, as in Surah Baqarah Ch. 2, Verse 18…(Arabic)… ‘The deaf, the dumb, the blind, they will not return to the true path.’ The Bible says the same thing in Gospel of Mathew, Ch. No. 13, Verse No. 13… ‘Seeing they see not, hearing they hear not, neither will they understand.’

(Ali Sina) This is called poisoning the well or the famous ad hominem fallacy. The Quran fails to give one solid argument that cannot be successfully refuted. Instead of proof, Muhammad tried to undermine the intelligence and sincerity of those who did not agree with his irrational claims. He did not stop there. He then went  on ordering his demented followers to fight, and wage war against the unbelievers, to crucify them, to cut their fingertips and to slay them wherever they find them. 

 

My Response:

 

The Quran has given many points. This whole site is dedicated to it.

 

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

 

 Yes, Muhammad (pbuh) did ask his followers to fight and slay the idolaters in battlefields in self defence and against oppression and tyranny.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Ali Sina) Both the Bible and the Quran contain absurdities, obscenities and innumerable scientific errors. 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.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Quran contains no absurdities. No unscientific points. No contradictions. Musims have kept refuting the so-called unscientific pionts, absurdities and contradictions. Dr.Zakir Naik refuted all of them in the debate to which Ali Sina responded and I am writing a counter-rebuttal to it. The Jews and Christians change their religion because it has problems and is not practicing anymore. The Muslims do not do that because we do not have any problem with our religion and we keep practicing it till today and thousands of non-Muslims are accepting Islam everyday throughout the world.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Because Muslims think the Quran is the verbatim words of God, they can’t change it. They are stuck in the 7^th century and can’t go forward. Other religions are living. They are growing and changing. Islam is fossilized.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Hilarious indeed !! Those who change their scripture are good according to Ali Sina. I want to know, Do Christians agree that changing scripture is alright? Do they have authority to change their religion however they like?? Do they agree that any Christian can write his own bible? Definitely not!! This is again falsehood from Ali Sina.

 

He considers other religions to be growing. He doesn't really realize that he is making a fool of himself once again. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Non-Muslim sources also agree with that. e.g Guiness World Records, CNN etc.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

This will bring the downfall of Islam. Because Islam is unchangeable it is bound to break and fall apart. Precisely because of this reason, other religions have a future, but Islam has none. Other religions will survive this century and many more, but Islam will not. Islam will meet its death, thanks to its own rigidity.

 

 

 

My Response:

Much to his wishful thinking. Yes, Islam is unchangeable; it will remain as it is till the day of Judgement. Its an eternal religion unlike others which change with the passage of time and are no more practicable today. According to Ali Sina Islam will not survive this century. I believe he is watching cartoonnetwork more and more everyday. Islam is Alhumdulillah growing more and more everyday and it will prevail over the full world. Thats the promise of Allah (SWT) in the Qur'an.

 

"It is He Who hath sent His Apostle with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it)." (Quran 9:33)

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

The  Christians and the Jews can overlook those errors and attribute them to the fallibility of the scribes. The Biblical prophets were humans and they could have erred

 

 

My Response:

 

Oh Really?? I want to hear from team if they really believe that bible contains errors. I also want to hear on that from other Christian sites. Christians are the ones who shout on the top of their voices that BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD.

 

Note : Ali Sina is telling everyone that Bible has errors, unscientific points and absurdities. But still team have put him on their site.

 

They too are pathetic people like Ali Sina. They don’t mind anyone saying anything against their religion. They are happy as long as Islam is attacked.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

They must either accept the Quran as one package or reject it in its entirety. This claim of authenticity that Muslims think is the strength of the Quran, is actually the cause of its fall.   

Jesus said: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth". John 16:12 -13 

 

 

My Response:

 

Yes, We believe the Quran to be 100% authentic and correct. Ali Sina here quoted Jesus (pbuh). He din't realize that the joke is on him. This "Spirit of Truth" is none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

The spirit of the 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. Christians know that knowledge of God is not limited to what is in the Bible. They know that truth is infinite. They are open to learn new things. Muslims don't know that. Muslims foolishly think God’s knowledge is limited. That everything He wanted to say He has already said it in the Quran and there is nothing more to learn. They think the hands of God are tied and his wisdom is dried out. That is why Christianity, and all other religions that allow change  are alive and Islam is dead. 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

New Truths are being revealed everyday and every aspect of Islam is being proven to be the Truth. More and More people are embracing Islam everyday. Other religions are not true; they cannot stand the test of times. But Islam is the Truth, it will stand till the eternity.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik)  purpose of my presentation on ‘Bible and science’ is not to hurt any Christian’s feeling. If while presenting, if I hurt your feelings, I do apologize in advance.

(Ali Sina) Dr. Naik is gauging Christians with Islamic yardstick. It’s Muslims who get offended, make riots, burn churches and embassies and kill innocent people if their religion is criticized. 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. 

 

My Response:

 

Yes,Muslims do get offended. We love Islam more than our own family. What if I enter your house and abuse your mother?? Will anyone let me go Scott free? NO !!. We love Islam more than our own family, we feel proud to be Muslims and we do get offended if someone insults it (not criticize). Most of the human beings get offended if their religion is being attacked including Christians.

 

Ali Sina here calls Christianity a “Living faith” and he also quoted Jesus (pbuh). It makes more and more difficult to believe that he is a Former Iranian Muslim. Since no-one knows him in person. There is no proof whatsoever that he is a Former Iranian Muslim.

 

I believe he too is a Pathetic Christian who attacks Islam.

 

 

 

 

Creation of the Universe in the Quran

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) First we deal with Astronomy. The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1^st Book, Book of Genesis, 1^st Ch. , it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days. Qur’an too speaks about six ‘ayyams’. The Arabic word singular is ‘yaum’ plural is ‘ayyam’. It can either mean a day of 24 hours, or it is a very long period, a ‘yaum’, an epoch. Scientists say we have no objection in agreeing that the universe - it could have been created in 6 very long periods.

(Ali Sina) Here Dr. Naik is vividly revealing the hypocrisy and the double standard that characterizes the Muslim mind. The story of the creation stated in the Quran is borrowed from the Bible. So, logically, what is true about the original version is also true about its copy. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. 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?

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina again proves himself stupid. Dr.Zakir Naik made it very clear that why it is referring to 24-hour day because it speaks of a MORNING & EVENING. Morning and Evening refer to a 24 hour day. I'll quote the verses here from Genesis 1:3-5

 

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

 

The Quran does not speak of evening and morning when describing the days. Therefore, the Biblical verses refer to six 24-hour days whereas the Quranic verses refer to 6 eons

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

It is because the Muslim mind is a sick mind, bereft of fairness and commonsense.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

More insults from Ali Sina on Muslims. I request Brother Umar to add these as well.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

This story, whether in its original version stated in the Bible or in its plagiarized version rehashed in the Quran is fairytale. No scientist has ever said that the universe has been created in six phases. Geologists have divided the history of the Earth in several epochs, which have nothing to do with the Biblical and the Quranic version of creation, but the history of the universe is not demarked by phases. This is clearly an error.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Dr.Zakir Naik never said universe is created in six phases. Note the words of Dr.Naik " Scientists say we have no objection in agreeing that the universe - it could have been created in 6 very long periods." Ali Sina lies once again. Regarding Quran copied from the bible. I put the answer from Dr.Zakir Naik above. I'll put it again

 

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t18/t18a/pg1.htm

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Six or eight days of creation?

Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 say that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But this is contradicted in Sura 41:9-12

 

My Response:

 

This is another so called contradiction brought by Ali Sina. I think he is too desperate to write something against Islam. Dr.Zakir Naik himself replies to this.

 

Refer to question no.14 here.

 

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t15/t15b/pg1.htm

 

Read the response and see how clearly Ali Sina is deceiving the reader.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Furthermore, verse 7.54 says “Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over , each seeking the other in rapid succession."

This statement can be accepted as poetry but it is not scientific:  Darkness is the absence of light, therefore the cannot be compared to a "veil" drawn over the day.  

 

My Response:

This is the way human beings speak. If Ali Sina is not a human that does not mean the Quran is wrong. This is how everyone speaks in day-to-day life. If I say "there is too much silence here." Can anyone stand up and object that I am unscientific?? Silence is absence of sound. But no one will ever stand and point that I am unscientific. Suppose if I says "There is too much darkness in the cave" can anybody say I am unscientific?? Darkness is absence of light. But no will still say that I am unscientific. This is how human beings speak INCLUDING scientists. Allah (SWT) has given the Quran for the human beings so that we can understand.

 

The above answer by Dr.Zakir Naik answers all the other points which Ali Sina has raised on the order of the creation heavens. Heavens and the Earth were created together. But there is one more point which he raised that I'll be touching.

 

Regarding Seven heavens.

 

Ali Sina fails to realize that the Quran is originally in Arabic. In Arabic and other Semitic languages "Seven" is used often to describe indefinite form of Plural. Many commentators like Muhammad Asad etc. have explained. "Seven" is used in several other places in the Quran as an indefinite form of Plural.

 

"To it are seven gates: for each of those gates is a (special) class (of sinners) assigned" (Quran 15:44)

 

"And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of  Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom." (Quran 31:27)

 

Again in the above 2 verses "seven" is used as indefinite form of plural. It was even used in the texts at the time of the Quran and even in several Hadith

 

 

 

 

Contradictions in the Bible and the Quran

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Ali Sina) Yes indeed, there are many contradictions in the Bible. But there are even more contradictions in the Quran. I will list a few of them at the end of this paper. Let us mention one of them here. 

 

My Response:

 

See how Ali Sina tells everyone that Bible has got contradictions. But yet team puts this response in their rebuttal section to Dr.Zakir Naik. They are like drowning men catching at straws. They do not care if someone calls the bible wrong. They are simply too desperate like Ali Sina to write something against the Quran and Muslims.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

22:47 and 32:5 say that Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years. But 70:4 says that it equal to 50,000 years. 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Regarding the above contradiction. I can again do no better than post let Dr.Zakir Naik himself reply to this.

 

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t15/t15b/pg1.htm

 

For more refutations to so-called "contradictions" in the Quran. Refer to:

 

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

 

 

 

Is Sky a Dome?

 

Ali Sina comes up with another pathetic response. He on his site gives some stupid diagrams of his to show that earth is flat. No where does the Quran say that earth is flat. There are certain verses, which critics may assume. The most common one is

 

"And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out)."

[Al-Qur’an 71:19]"

 

Ali Sina hasn't quoted this verse here. But I came across many other articles on his site which have used this verse to "prove" earth is flat.

Dr.Zakir Naik also responds to this.

 

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t15/t15b/pg1.htm

 

(See question 8 in the above link)

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

022:065
Seest thou not that God has made subject to you (men) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail through the sea by His Command? He withholds the sky from falling on the earth except by His leave: for God is Most Kind and Most Merciful to man.

Yusuf Ali realizing the absurdity of this verse deceptively has added (rain) in parenthesis after the word sky. No other translator has done that and there is no mention of rain in the Arabic version. 

 

 

My Response:

 

To know what Yusuf Ali really meant. Read footnote 2874 of his commentary.

 

Ali Sina again I believe is too desperate. He uses the word "version" for the Quran. In reality there is no such thing as "version" of the Quran. Quran is only one throughout the history and is maintained in its original Arabic text.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran is the most deceptive and the least trustworthy. If you have to read the Quran in English I suggest read several translations simultaneously and trust the most damaging translation because it is the most truthful

 

 

My Response:

 

Hilarious indeed!! Anyone broad-minded person who reads this will realize that Ali Sina is not only unscholarly in his approach but he is also mentally unstable at the same time. He considers the most "damaging" translation to be most truthful irrespective whatever it is !! Hilarious Indeed !!

 

 

 

 

Ali Sina then quotes the commentary of Ibn-Kathir and writes

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

 So scholars debated whether the dome of the sky is sustained by invisible pillars or it is hovering over earth without pillars miraculously thanks to Allah's power. But everyone agreed that the sky is a dome. "

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Irrespective whether you take that sky has pilars or not. The negative side of the picture is that sky has pillars. Any unbiased reader who reads will realize that Quran is only speaking metaphorically. It is in no way speaking in literal sense. The sky is a dome. I agree with that. I gave a link. I'll put it again.

 

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_21.html

 

What the Quran is speaking that sky is a dome. If Allah (SWT) does not hold it back. It will fall on the earth. This holding back of sky by Allah, The Quran describes as "Without any pillars that ye can see." It still doesn't prove Quran to be unscientific even if I agree with the interpretation of Ali Sina.

 

Then he goes on to quote some Muslim from medieval ages. He puts some pictures from some old books. He quotes this person, that person.

 

Give me a break Ali Sina !!

 

Are we talking about Muslims of medieval age or are we talking about the Quran??

So why is Ali Sina desperately bringing irrelevant points??

 

I believe his blood pressure is getting high. He is too desperate to write against Islam.

Poisonous Plants

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Ali Sina) The fact that some plants and seeds are poisonous is not a new knowledge. This was known by very ancient people. Any reasonable person can understand that when the Bible says “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”, it does not mean that you should eat even the poisonous ones.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Lets read the verse properly

 

"30 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)

 

The bible says "EVERY GREEN PLANT FOR FOOD." Do words have any meaning in the language of Ali Sina?? Well I cannot help if he cannot even understand plain English. Such irresponsible statements can be made only by human beings and not by God.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

The poisonous plants can have medicinal benefits. The Bible makes it clear that as far as Jehovah is concerned no seed or plant is a forbidden food. It is up to humans to discover the benefits of each plant and use it in a way that would improve their lives.

 

 

My Response:

 

Medicinal benefits, NOT for eating purposes. God has told us what to eat and what not to eat. The things which he commanded to be unlawful are unlawful where has things which he has permitted to have are lawful.

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Prohibited foods in the Quran are specified, human flesh is not among them. Does that mean that Muslims are licensed to consume that? The god of the Christians and the Jews has given to his followers some commonsense too.

 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina is getting more and more desperate. No where does the Quran say that human flesh if permitted and no where does the Quran even say irresponsible statements like "All food are permitted".

 

Is Human flesh permitted??

 

Ali Sina is so pathetic, I really feel ashamed to even reply to such points. Nevertheless, I'll reply as briefly as I can to this absurd point of Ali Sina.

 

The only way in which we will be allowed to have human flesh is if we slay the human being the way we slay the animal. If the human being dies, we cannot eat because dead flesh is prohibited (Quran 2:173,6:145,5:3 and 16:115). We are forbidden to slay any other human being. The Quran says :

 

"...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:" (Quran 5:32)

 

I have NEVER come across Ali Sina quoting this verse of the Quran. Maybe he has quoted somewhere I don’t know. Until now I have NOT come across any article on his site which has quoted this verse.

 

The Quran besides forbidding us from unlawful meats. It also tells us which meats are permitted.

 

"O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals, with the exceptions named:" (Quran 5:1)

 

We are only allowed to have four-footed cattles except the ones which are prohibited and we get the know the prohibited foods from the Quran as well as from the authentic sayings of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

 

Human flesh is not permitted to have. It is so absurd even when someone says that Islam allows people to have human flesh.

 

 

The Test of the Bible 

 

Regarding the verses of the Bible Mark 16:17-18

 

Ali Sina considers these verses to be figurative.

 

We may first ask. Why is Ali Sina defending the Bible here?? .This test was for Dr.William Campbell not for Ali Sina. Ali Sina then talks about some amazing feats performed by people which sound impossible. What is Ali Sina trying to prove by this? Is he justifying the bible by putting forth lame arguments? Lets read those verses from Mark 16.

 

"[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

[18] 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."

 

Does one need any explanation for these verses? They are in pure simple English of King James Version. Christians today to claim that they cast out demons in the name of Jesus and they heal people in the name of Jesus (In reality its fraud.) They try to deceive people in public but they will NEVER do such a thing in hospital). So this is obviously not figurative speech.

 

 

Authenticity of these verses :

These verses are considered to be fabrication by revisers of RSV (Revised Standard version). They threw them out of the bible in 1952 but were put back again in 1971.

 

Ali Sina then brings verses of the Qur'an like 2:65,5:60 and 7:166 which say that the Jews (A group of them) were turned into apes.

 

We Muslims consider this to be a miracle. It may sound ridiculous to critics. This is attributed to Allah (SWT). He is the creator of the heavens and the earth. It is not difficult for him to do such a thing. Now the question may arise that why do Muslims point absurdities in the bible??

The reason is that the things mentioned in the bible that are absurd, most of them are attributed to common people. They are not attributed to God. If one attributes such things to God, we do not take exception to that. Miracles are attributed to Allah. The Quran tells its reader in the beginning only.

 

"1. A.L.M.

 

2. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.

 

3. Who believe in the UNSEEN, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; " (Quran 2:1-3)

 

The Quran doesn't say that a believer can do these things in the name of Allah. Allah himself did it as a punishment from him.

 

This explanation is replies all so-called “ridiculous” claims.

 

Speaking Tongues 

 

I believe I responded to this above. When the bible tells us that they will do it in the name of Jesus it means they will do it miraculously as Christians claim of performing many other miracles in his name. Ali Sina is so desperate to attack the Quran, he does not even mind saying something to defend the bible. Anyone who has to a foreign land needs to know the language to communicate with people. It doesn't make him a True Christian believer. THe test above is to check whether the person is a true believer or not.

 

 

 

Unscientific Statements in Bible and Quran 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Ali Sina) Yes the Bible is full of unscientific statements. But is the Quran without them? 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. Tu quoque, or the “you too” argument is a logical fallacy. If the Bible is proven unscientific, it does not mean that the Quran is scientific.   

 

 

My Response:

 

It was Dr.William Campbell who initiated the debate and not Dr.Zakir Naik. Dr.Naik doesn't go around asking people to debate him. In all these years he has had very few public debates. It was Dr.Campbell who wrote a book against Islam. Dr.Naik refuted the points on the Quran and turned the tables against him.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik) In the field of medicine, the Bible says in the book of Leviticus, Ch. No.14, Verse No.49 to 53 - it gives a novel way for disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy…  disinfecting a house from plague of leprosy. It says that… ‘Take two birds, kill one bird, take wood, scale it - and the other living bird, dip it in water… and under running water - later on sprinkle the house 7 times with it. 

Sprinkle the house with blood to disinfect against plague of leprosy? You know blood is a good media of germs, bacteria, as well as toxin - I hope Dr. William Campbell does not use this method of disinfecting the OT, the operation theatre.

(Ali Sina) Yes this is quite silly.

 

My Response:

See how Ali Sina is reminding people over and over that bible silly and unscientific with errors. team still puts him on their site. They too are pathetic and desperate to attack Islam like Ali Sina.

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

4:43 “…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.”

How scientific is this? I’d like to ask Dr. Naik, if by accident he falls into a cesspool and does not find water to clean himself, will he become clean if he rubs his hand and face with clean dirt?  There is nothing scientific in this ritual. If the instruction was to rub the soiled part with clean dirt this would have made some sense, but how can one become clean by rubbing his hands and face with dirt when another part of his body is soiled?

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina again lacks basic knowledge of Islam. If someone falls in a cesspool he has to wash himself from head to toe before he can offer his Prayers. The Quran in above verse is talking about Tayummum. Suppose if I go to answer the call of nature and after few minutes I have to offer my Prayers. Its obligatory to do Wudu (Ablutions) before Prayers (Quran 5:6). Suppose if I find no water for that, I can take clean sand and rub my face and hands with it instead.

 

Wudu (ablutions) are not for merely physical cleanliness but for purification. If Ali Sina does not know basic things of Islam that does not mean Quran is wrong. Lets read the full verse here.

 

"O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. 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)

 

Ali Sina does not mind misquoting the verses of the Quran. If this was by mistake then its inexcusable and if its deliberate then its devilish.

 

The Quran tells us real clear that if one is in a state of ceremonial impurity he has to wash his whole body.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

A claim of Muhammad about Jesus that is utterly ridiculous and not even in the Bible is the verse 5:110 where Allah say to Jesus “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.” Is this scientific? Why Muhammad could not perform miracles like that?

 

 

My Response:

Ali Sina here is comparing miracles with science. He is comparing apples and oranges. Why Muhammad (pbuH) couldn't perform those miracles?? Hilarious indeed. This is a typical question which was even asked by the pagan Arabs. Such questions by Ali Sina suggest that he is a fake apostate along with that it also shows his pagan mentality. Such questions were even asked by pagan Arabs. The Quran says

 

"They say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" Say: "The Unseen is only for Allah (to know), then wait ye: I too will wait with you." (Quran 10:20)

 

"And We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false:" (Quran 17:59)

 

"They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: "Certainly (all) signs are in the power of Allah. but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) signs came, they will not believe.?" (Quran 6:109)

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Bukhari 4:54:537  
The Prophet said "If a house fly 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."  

Does Dr. Naik practice this kind of medicine for himself and his loved ones? God knows how many people must have become sick and died during these centuries by foolishly following the prescriptions of Dr. Muhammad bin Abdullah.   

 

Response:

 

note: The debate was not about the Hadith. It was only on the Quran and the Bible. But anyways I’ll reply on that even.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

Bukhari 7:71:590 says that Muhammad prescribed the urine of camel as medicine. Is there any scientific proof that drinking the urine of camel is beneficial? Urine is the concentrated toxin and refuses of the body. How can this utterly unhygienic thing be medicinal? Does Dr. Naik follow his beloved prophet’s instruction for his own health and longevity? Beer is prohibited in Islam,  why not bottled camel urine served chilled for Muslims? The world’s dependency on oil is going to end within a few decades. Bottled camel urine exported to all Muslim countries could be a good source of income for Saudi Arabia.   .  

 

 

Response:

 

Ali Sina is here going crazy. This simply reveals how sick and demented person Ali Sina is. The detailed reply on camel urine used as medicine.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

According to the Islamic law, the a'yan najisah are nine in number. They are as follows:

1. urine;
2. stool;
3. semen;
4. blood;
5. corpses;
6. dogs;
7. pigs;
8. kafir;
9. Alcoholic liquids.

Source: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?print=4759

9:28 says "Verily, the Mushrikûn (unbeleivers) are Najasun (unclean). Is this scientific? How can one become unclean by just discovering some errors in Islam and deciding not to believe in it? And how can a kafir who is unclean become clean simply by saying his shahada? This is not scientific. It is hocus-pocus.

 

 

My Response:

 

This is metaphorical as well as literal. Muslims are obliged to be in the state of ablution. Non-Muslims are not in that state therefore they are called as unclean.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

Does Dr. Naik believe that alcohol is unclean? Alcohol is used to disinfect things that are unclean. Did he use camel urine to disinfect his instruments instead of alcohol, when he was practicing medicine? How can alcohol be considered unclean? You can say drinking it is unhealthy, but certainly it is not unclean. This is as absurd as using bird blood as disinfectant.    

 

 

My Response:

 

Point to be noted, nowhere does the Quran or any Sahih Hadith call alcohol "najis." Since Islam bans consumption of intoxications in Toto. Therefore some scholars consider it to be najis. The Quran tells us very clearly.

 

"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and SOME PROFIT, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (Quran 2:219)

 

It is unclean only in metaphorical sense. No Quranic verse or Hadith calls it najis

 

 

 

In Response to Numbers 5:11-31.

Ali Sina Writes:

He completely ignored that the Quran contains far more ridiculous statements. Take for example the verse 3.61

“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!"

Here Muhammad is challenging his opponents to engage in a “cursing contest" to see who is telling the truth. This is really funny. How can truth be revealed through cursing and invoking Allah’s wrath on each other? This shows the prophet of Islam was superstitious and a fool. He was indeed a very stupid man. Does cursing work? If it does why Muhammad asked his followers to wage war for him and kill innocent people? All they had to do was sit at home and curse their enemies and wait for calamity to strike them.

 

 

My Response:

 

The Jews considered themselves to be the righteous servants of God and were rejecting Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). No True Believer will invoke the curse of Allah upon him. Its not a "contest" as Ali Sina describes. No one was getting a prize for cursing more. Invoking the curse of Allah does reveal the truth in many cases. I have witnessed many such cases. In most of the cases, the Truth gets revealed. Anyone who is even little God fearing will not invoke the curse of God upon him.

 

Muhammad (pbuh) never asked to kill any innocent human beings. This is the same lie which critics use against him.

 

For refutations on false charges against Muhammad (pbuh) refer to :

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/ac4.htm#links

 

If you doubt me then try it yourself. If you doubt whether a Christian is speaking the Truth or not. Ask him to invoke the curse of Jesus (pbuh) on himself if he is lying. Believe me no good Christian will ever invoke the curse of Jesus upon him if he is really lying.

 

Try that on a Muslim. Ask him to invoke the curse of Allah upon him if he is lying. No Muslim will do it if he knows he is lying.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Cursing does not work. Mr. Edip Yuksel once tried it and he was so confident that it would work that he wrote by February 19th 2004 a calamity will strike me. Well, that day came and passed and nothing happened to me. God cannot be manipulated by the whims of people.  

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Hilarious Indeed !! He doesn't even realize the difference between Prophet and other people. Even if he knows nothing will happen to him in this world. Still a God fearing person, who even has little fear would not dare invoke God's curse on him if he is a liar.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

Abu Dawud 28:3875 The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: No spell is to be used except for the evil eye or a scorpion sting. 28.3879 says that spell is also good for snake bite  

Is spell an antidote to scorpion sting and snake bite? Is this what they use in Islamic hospitals? Why Muslim doctors learn the western science when they have these divine teachings?  Evil eye? Isn’t this just superstition?  

Dr. Muhammad pbuh had more medical advises:  

Abu Dawud 28.3878  
Narrated Ash-Shifa', daughter of Abdullah,:  
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) entered when I was with Hafsah, and he said to me: Why do you not teach this one the spell for skin eruptions as you taught her writing." 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Abu Dawood has many Daeef (weak) and Mawdoo (fabricated) Hadith. Shaikh Nasir Ud Din Albany who was a great scholar of Hadith in recent times separated the fake, weak hadith from the True ones. Only 1 Hadith before this. Prophet (pbuh) considers spells to be polytheism.

 

Book 28, Number 3874:

 

    Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud:

 

   “ Zaynab, the wife of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, told that Abdullah said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) saying: spells, charms and love-potions are polytheism.

 

    I asked: Why do you say this? I swear by Allah, when my eye was discharging I used to go to so-and-so, the Jew, who applied a spell to me. When he applied the spell to me, it calmed down. Abdullah said:

 

That was just the work of the Devil who was picking it with his hand, and when he uttered the spell on it, he desisted. All you need to do is to say as the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to say: Remove the harm, O Lord of men, and heal. Thou art the Healer. There is no remedy but Thine which leaves no disease behind."

 

Spell means

 

1. a word, phrase, or form of words supposed to have magic power; charm; incantation:.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spell

 

The Quran condemns magic and sorcery in very strong terms.

 

"…But sorcerers will not prosper." (Quran 10:77)

 

"...Quickly will it swallow up that which they have faked what they have faked is but a magician's trick: and the magician thrives not, (no matter) where he goes." (Quran 20:69)

 

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) classified it among the seven major sins

 

"Volume 8, Book 82, Number 840:

 

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

 

    The Prophet said, "Avoid the seven great destructive sins." They (the people!) asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What are they?" He said, "To join partners in worship with Allah; to practice sorcery; to kill the life which Allah has forbidden except for a just cause (according to Islamic law); to eat up usury (Riba), to eat up the property of an orphan; to give one's back to the enemy and freeing from the battle-field at the time of fighting and to accuse chaste women who never even think of anything touching chastity and are good believers."

 

Magic is strictly condemned in the Quran and Hadith. Only one hadith before that Spell is called polytheism. The hadith is a fabricated one.

 

 

 

 

Mathematical Errors in the Bible and the Quran

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad? 

-         54:19  a day of violent Disaster (one single day)

-         41:16 days of disaster (this is a form of plural indicating at least three days)

-         69:7   seven nights and eight days in succession

 

 

 

My Response:

Do you know the funny part here?? If you don’t then I'll tell you. Ali Sina and team use the same words exactly. Who is copying from who is the question? Its likely that Ali Sna copies things from because its much older than Ali Sina's site. Ali Sina, if your so-called errors don't fall into these 110 then only bring them. Instead of wasting others’ time

 

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

 

Response to how many days did Allah "need" to destroy the people of Aad.

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/i006.htm

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

 Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)?

 

 

 

My Response:

 

I have touched this point above. The answer is there on answering-christianity but Dr.Zakir Naik also responds to this

 

http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/t15/t15b/pg1.htm

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

According to Sura 56:7 there will be THREE distinct groups of people at the Last Judgment, but 90:18-19, 99:6-8, mention only TWO groups (left hand and right hand).

 

 

 

Response:

 

By Osama Abdullah

 

By Karim

 

There are other people on answering-christianity who have also responded to this but these are sufficient.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

How many angels announced the birth of Jesus to the Virgin Mary? One angel 19:17-21 or several angels? 3:42-45

Allah can’t add simple fractions: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 state the Quranic inheritance law. When a man dies leaving behind three daughters, his two parents and his wife, they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the available estate. A second example: A man leaves only his mother, his wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to 15/12 of the available property. For more examples see this.

 

 

 

Response:

 

How many angels announced the birth of Jesus??

 

Response:

 

 

Inconsistency in the Bible and the Quran

 

Ali Sina goes to give a difference between the verses revealed in Makka and the ones revealed in Medina.

 

He fails to realize that they both were in different context. The Muslims were forbidden to fight in Makka even for self-defence. They were asked to remain patient.

 

In Medina the situation was change and Khilafat being established and they were given permission to fight against oppression and tyranny and in self-defence. All the verses about fighting and killing are in the context of battlefield. Its a pity that critics don't mind quoting verses out of context. But still in general the verses do not contradict each other, The verses of fighting and killing are in context of battlefield only.

 

Many verses which speak about fighting and killing. The next verse immidiately tells us that if they incline for peace you too incline for peace. Lets take few examples here.

 

Quran 9:5

 

" But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

Next verse states

 

" If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. " (Quran 9:6)

 

See how the Quran tells the believers to not only let the go but even take them to some place where they can be secure. The context starts from verse 1. Dr.Zakir Naik explains

 

 

 

Refer to question 3 in the above link provided.

 

Quran 2:191

 

Lets read in context .

 

From verse 2:190-193

 

"190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

 

191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

 

192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

Note: Ali Sina quotes verse 191 and 193. He skips the above verse.

 

193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

 

Aren't the above verses talking about fighting back the oppressors?? Don't they say that we should keep not transgress? Don't they say that hostility should be only for those who practise oppression?? Don't they say that if the enemy stops fighting you too stop it.

 

Lets take another example 8:60

 

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." (Quran 8:60)

 

Ali Sina quotes this and stops. Lets read the next verse

 

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

 

See how these critics quote verses out of context. If it is by mistake then its inexcusable and if it is deliberate then its devilish!!

 

 

 

 

Moon Light 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Ali Sina) Earlier Dr. Naik ridiculed Genesis 1:16 for saying ‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night.'   The same error also exists in the Quran.

 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina doesn't know that it is Dr.Campbell who attacked the Quran for stating that the moon light is not reflected where as the bible clearly tells us that moon has its own light. Dr.Zakir Naik highlited the same point from the bible on which Dr.Campbell attacked the Quran.

 

On the difference between sunlight and moonlight I'll come later.

 

After giving the commentary of Ibn-Kathir .

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

Dr. Naik says "Allah beside having light of his own ... [He] reflects his own light." How is this possible? Assuming that God is within a niche, (which is a ludicrous concept)

 

 

 

My Response:

 

The Quran does NOT say that Allah is within a niche. lets read the verse.

 

"God 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:..."(Quran 24:35)

 

The light above is referring to guidance as Ali Sina states from the commentary of Ibn-Kathir. So if you replace the word "light" with "guidance" the verse would read

 

"God is the guidance of the heavens and the earth. The parable of his guidance is as if there were a niche and with it a lamp..." (Quran 24:35)

 

So the verse means that God is the ultimate source of this guidance and he Himself reflects this guidance on human beings.

 

The Quran makes it very clear that it is a parable.

 

Difference Between Sunlight and Moonlight in the Quran :

 

The Holy Quran differentiates between the sunlight and moonlight.

 

In the words of Dr.Zakir Naik

 

“The Arabic word for Sun is ‘Shams’. It's always described either as ‘Siraj’ meaning a torch, or ‘Wahaj’ meaning a blazing lamp, or ‘Diya’ – ‘meaning a shining glory’. The Moon - the Arabic word is ‘Qamar’. It's always described as ‘Munir’, meaning borrowed light or ‘Noor’, which is a reflection of light.”

 

Ali Sina doesn’t agree that “noor” means reflected light. He goes on to quote various verses of the Quran where the word “noor” is used. I’ll just quote few of them here.

 

2:257
He bringeth them out of darkness into light

4:174
We have sent down unto you a clear light

5:15 
There hath come to you from God a (new) light

5:44
We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light

 

In all these verses we see that “light” is referred to as guidance. The guidance, which is reflected by Allah (SWT) on human beings. Nowhere in the entire Quran is “munir” or “noor” used for something that emanates light or something that has its own light.

 

Muhammad Asad the famous translator and commentator explains:

 

“He is is who has made the sun a [source of] radiant light and the moon a light [reflected]” (Quran 10:5)

 

Footnote #10

 

“The nouns diya and nur are often interchangeable, inasmuch as both denote “light”; but many philologists are of the opinion that the term diya (or daw’) has a more intensive connotation, and is used to describe “a light which subsists by itself, as that of the sun and fire” – that is , a source of light- while nur signifies “a light that subsists by some other thing” (Lane V, 1809, of the authority of Taj al-Arus): in other words, light due to an extraneous source or – as in the case of the moon – reflected light”

 

Still if one doesn’t agree I want to know why is there not one place in the Holy Quran where moonlight is described as Siraj’ meaning a torch, or ‘Wahaj’ meaning a blazing lamp, or ‘Diya’ – ‘meaning a shining glory’??

Why is there not a single place where sunlight is described as “munir” or “ noor”??

 

The reason is that the author of the Quran who is the All-Knowing Creator of this universe knows the difference between the two lights.

The above explanation is sufficient to prove that the light of the moon is not its own light but it’s reflected light.

 

 

 

 

Zulqarnain and the Setting place of the Sun

 

Ali Sina Writes:

(Dr. Naik)  The other point that Dr. William Campbell raised was regarding Sura Kahf 18:86. The Sura says the sun setting in murky water, in turbid water. Imagine, sun setting in murky water! Unscientific! The Arabic word used here is: it’s wajada meaning, it appeared to Zulqarnain. Dr. William Campbell knows Arabic. Wajada means… you can look in the dictionary also; it means it appeared. Allah (swt) is describing what appeared to Zulqarnain. If I make the statement that a student in the class said 2+2=5 and you say “oh Zakir said 2+2=5. I didn’t say. I am telling that the student in my class said 2+2=5. I am not wrong, the student is wrong. There are various ways to try and analyze this word. One is this way, according to Muhammad Asad, that vajada means it appeared to. It appeared to Zulqarnain.  

(Ali Sina) Dr. Naik is again trying to give a new meaning to a commonly used Arabic word. Wajada means “found”, not “appeared”. All the ten translators of the Quran that I consulted have translated this word as found. URL. Dr. Naik is lying again

 

 

 

My Response:

Dr.Zakir Naik made it very clear when he said “One is this way, according to Muhammad Asad”

Lets read the translation of Muhammad Asad on this verse :

“(86) [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].” (Quran 18:86)

 

Answering-christianity has written a very beautiful article on this topic. It explains these verses in detail:

Did the Noble Quran really say that the sun sets and rises on Murky Spring on earth?

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

The word wajada is used twice. Are we supposed to understand that the people whom he saw were not real but also an apparition? How could he reward and punish such imaginary people? Again we find the same word in the same sura: 018:085
And he followed a road.

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found (wajada) it setting in a muddy spring, and found (wajada) a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

The word wajada is used twice. Are we supposed to understand that the people whom he saw were not real but also an apparition? How could he reward and punish such imaginary people? Again we find the same word in the same sura: 

 

 

 

My Response:

 

Where does the verse say they were imaginary? The verse says that Zulqarnain found/appeared. Either of the meanings in the second case will befit because “appeared” does not mean they were imaginary. If something appears to me. It can be an illusion. It can be real. As I said that the right meaning is to be used depending upon the context.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Dr. Naik) Point # 2: The Arabic word used is Maghrib. It can be used for time as well as place. When we say sunset, sunset can be taken for time. If I say the sun set at 7 PM, I am using it for time. If I say the sun set in the West, it means I am taking it for place. So here if you use the word Maghrib for time. So Zulqarnain did not reach that place of sunset –use it for time- he reached there at the TIME of sunset. Furthermore you can solve it in various ways.  

(Ali Sina) The verse in Arabic says Hatta itha balagha maghriba alshshamsi. This literally means: Till when he reached the setting-place of the Sun. All the translators have invariably translated maghrib as "setting-place" and not "time of setting". The structure of the sentence does not allow for such an interpretation.

 

 

 

My Response:

 

In the verse 18:86 “Balagha” isn’t literal. Its metaphorical and is used for time determination. As Dr.Naik rightly said that, it can be used for time.

 

“When Joseph attained (balagha) His full manhood, (Quran 12:22)

 

"But when the children among you come (balagha) of age, (Quran 24:59)

 

As we can see “balaga” is not literally reaching but its metaphorical.

 

“wajada” as Dr.Zakir naik rightly explained can also mean “appeared”. The Translation of Muhammad Asad makes it clear. Even Razi and Ibn-Kathir agree with it.

 

So if you put the things correctly. The verse would mean

 

 “When Zulqarnain reached the place (at the time) of sunset it appeared to him that it was setting in murky water”

 

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

“(Ali Sina) Earlier Dr. Naik told us that this was an error committed by Zulqarnain who thought the Sun is setting in murky waters and Allah is simply reporting what appeared to Zulqarnain. Here Dr. Naik is shifting position and is saying that Allah is only using a figurative speech. Which explanation is the correct one? 

Yes indeed the word sunset, although technically wrong, is still part of our lexicon, but this does not explain the difficulty that we find in the Quran. Is Allah speaking figuratively? Verse 018:085 says: 

And he followed a road.

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, 

And  018:089
Then he followed a road

Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun,

The text does in no way allow us to take the setting and the rising places of the sun figuratively. The story is clear. Zulqarnain followed a road till he reached the setting place of the Sun. He took another road till he reached the rising-place of the Sun.  Anyone can see sunrise and sunset from anywhere in the world. This is hardly worthy of mention. But only Alexander the Great (Zulqarnain) who was believed to have conquered the world form one end to another had the unique privilege to see the setting and the rising places of the Sun. That is why this story was deemed to be important to be mentioned. 

 

 

My Response:

 

Ali Sina claims that the speech is not figurative. Its literal. He says that Zulqarnain reached the ends of the earth. No, where does the Quran says so.

 

Lets analyze the verse

 

“Then he followed a road” (Quran 18:89)

 

Transliteration

"thumma ittaba'a sababa", literally read as:

thumma - then.

ittaba'a - he walked; he followed; he proceeded.  It could also mean he continued to walk/follow/proceed.

sababa - path; way; avenue.

Does one path take you to the end of the world? NO!

The text just doesn't at all say or refer to Dhul-Qarnayn going to the farthest western point on earth where the sun sets, and then he went back to the farthest eastern point on earth where the sun rises, and then went back somewhere in the middle and stopped at between two mountains!

The Quran in these verses doesn’t tell us that Zulqarnain reached one end of the earth and reached the other end and then came back to the mountains. He only traveled short distances.

 

For more details refer to the article above. The verses are analyzed in detail.

 

https://www.answering-christianity.com/sunrise_sunset.htm

  

Allah Almighty in the Glorious Quran said that earth is:        -  Spherical: "egg-shaped" [1].        -  Is rotating around itself.        -  Is moving in space in curvy orbits [2].        -  Is in constant motion.        -  Is suspended in space.        -  Is swimming in space.        -  Is traveling through the constantly expanding universe [3].        -  The sunsetless North Pole miracle in the Glorious Quran [4].  At the top of the North Pole, the sun never sets, and I showed the video for that, and also quoted the scientific sources for that. Also in the lands near by, it almost never sets either, and I quoted sources for that as well, and also showed pictures of the "polar night" skies on these lands.    He saw the Aurora Lights covering: Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, saw the aurora lights covering the horizons of space above the earth when he was taken up to Heaven: Narrated Abdullah: "Regarding the Verse: “Indeed he (Muhammad) did see. Of the Signs of his Lord, The Greatest!” (Quran 53.18) That the Prophet had seen a green carpet spread all over the horizon of the sky قَالَ رَأَى رَفْرَفًا أَخْضَرَ سَدَّ أُفُقَ السَّمَاء." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 456) Visit also: Islamic proof that the sun prostrates to Allah Almighty when it is above Mecca.    Regarding Dhil-Qarnayn (literally means "man of two horns"), Allah Almighty said this about his journey to the farthest northern lands and people: ‏18:90 حتى اذا بلغ مطلع الشمس وجدها تطلع على قوم لم نجعل لهم من دونها ستر "Until he reached near حتى اذا بلغ where the sun is up مطلع الشمس, he found it above وجدها تطلع على people قوم whom We made no cover for them from it لم نجعل لهم من دونها ستر.  (The Noble Quran, 18:90)" Noble Verse(s) 18:91 Rodwell: [018:091]  Thus it was. And we had full knowledge of the forces that were with him. Arabic (Read from right to left.  Also, all png image files: [1] [2]): ‏18:91 كذلك وقد احطنا بما لديه خبرا     Prophet Muhammad "did see" (Quran 53.18) the Aurora Lights covering the horizons above the earth from space.  Dhil-Qarnayn went up to the farthest northern lands where the sun is up, and "Thus it was", Allah Almighty completed the "full knowledge" regarding Dhil-Qarnayn's mission.  This further supports the story below about Dhil-Qarnayn's journey to the farthest northern lands and people (The sunsetless North Pole Quran-miracle).  They also spoke unintelligibly, the Quran says.  They hardly spoke intelligibly (18:93).  Historians have proven that the Barbarians of the North used to speak unintelligibly.  The description of the people of the North, whose North Pole is truly sunsetless (see ample pictures), perfectly fits the Barbarians of the Vikings in the Scandinavian and other Barbarians in the near by lands: Dhil-Qarnayn literally means "man of two horns" Dhil = One who has. قرنين Qarnayn = two horns.  Qarnayn is a dual plural of Qarn (horn). Three or more horns is Quroon, in Arabic.    I believe Noble Verses 53:18 and 18:91 are prophetically linked together; that Prophet Muhammad also saw what Dhil-Qarnayn ذي القرنين  saw.  Also visit:  Aurora Lights Hadith    Other pronunciations to "Dhil Qarnayn"ذي القرنين  name:  Zul-qarnain, Dhul Qurnain, Dhu'l Qarnain, Zulqarnain, Dhu'l-Qarneyn, Dhu'lkarnein, Dhul-Qarnain, Dhu'l Qarnain, Dhool Karnain, Zul-Qarnain, Dhoulkarnain.        -  The Glorious Quran also speaks about many earths [5] and not just earth.        -  The Glorious Quran predicts 11 planets in our solar system [6].    In the end, Allah Almighty uses the Glorious Quran to "...Thus doth God leave to stray whom He pleaseth, and guide whom He pleaseth..." (74:31).  The infidels misuse the Glorious Quran to find "scientific errors".  The Glorious Quran is Allah Almighty's Perfect Divine Holy Book.  It contains no scientific error.  Visit the following example and the link to see 1000s of Numerical and Scientific Miracles: 1-  The root for message and all of its derivatives, such as messenger and others occurs 513 times throughout the Glorious Quran.  The Prophets' and Messengers', peace be upon them, actual names (Muhammad, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Lot etc....) were also all combined mentioned 513 times in the Glorious Quran.  The detailed breakdown of all of this is thoroughly listed here. Coincidence?  See 1,000s of examples! [1]. (zip file). Quran's Stunning Numerical & Scientific Miracles.

 

 

 

Regarding Quran 25:45-46

I don’t think we need any explanation for that. Allah has power over all things and he can make the sun stationary if he wills. Anyways, Dr.Zakir Naik explained very well and proved Dr.Campbell to be a liar. Dr.Campbell added his own words to prove the Qur’an wrong.

 

 

 

 

Solomon’s Death

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William Campbell spoke about Solomon’s death - Surah Saba, Chapter 34, Verse 12 to 14, and said that… ‘Imagine a person standing on the stick, and he dies, and no one come to know, etc.’ here are various ways to explain - Point no 1, Solomon peace be him, he was a Prophet of God, and it can be a miracle. When Bible says that Jesus Christ peace be upon him, could give life to the dead, Jesus Christ is born of a virgin birth. Which is more difficult to imagine’ - Being born of a virgin birth, giving life to the dead… or standing on a stick for a very long time. Which is more difficult. So when God can do miracles through Jesus Christ peace is upon him, why cannot he do a miracle through Solomon Alai Salaam. Moosa Alaika Salaam parted the sea. He threw a stick - stick become a snake - Bible says that… Qur’an says that. So when God can do that, why cannot God let a man rest for a long period? Any way I have give him various different answers - No where does the Qur’an say that Sulaiman Alaika salaam rested on the stick for a very long period - No where does it say. It just says that… animal…. May be some say… ‘Ant’… may be other animal of the earth came and bit - May be possible. May be, that Sulaiman alaika salaam was just dead, and any animal may have shook the stick, and Sulaiman alaika salaam may have fallen down. But I assume - I use the conflict approach with the Qur’an - because irrespective whether you use the conflict approach or the concordance approach, the ayat I quoted in the beginning of my talk Surah Nisa, Chapter 4 Verse, 82, says… (Arabic)… ‘Do they not consider the Qur’an with care?’ Had it been from anyone besides Allah, there would have been many contradictions.’ Irrespective, whether you use the conflict approach or the concordance approach, if your logical, is you will not be able to take out a single Verse of the Qur’an, which is contradicting - neither a single verse which is against established science.

(Ali Sina) 34:12-14 say that Solomon was dead for a long time while standing and leaning on his staff and no one noticed it until a creeping creature of the earth gnawed away his staff and he fell.  

Now, this story is ludicrous. Dr. Naik can’t explain it logically. So, instead he resorts to the favorite Islamic tactic - the fallacy of tu quoque; and says that in the Bible there are more incredible stories. This is not an answer. This is a logical fallacy. Just because the Bible has many unproven and unscientific stories, the ridiculous stories in the Quran do not become true.  

 

 

 

My Response:

 

The things of the Quran sound ludicrous to the unbelievers. So if they sound ludicrous to Ali Sina it makes no difference.

 

Lets read the verses.

 

Quran 34:12-14

 

“[034:012]  And to Solomon (We made) the Wind (obedient): Its early morning (stride) was a month's (journey), and its evening (stride) was a month's (journey); and We made a Font of molten brass to flow for him; and there were Jinns that worked in front of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

[034:013]  They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places): "Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!"

[034:014]  Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff: so when he fell down, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task).”

 

Does anyone find here mentioned “Solomon stood on the stick for very long time”??  Dr.Naik made it clear that it can even be that Solomon (pbuh) had just died and some creature bit the stick and he fell down. Its possible but not probable.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

“Then he sneers and says "it could be a miracle". This is also a logical fallacy. There is no proof that any of the miracles claimed in any book has ever happened. There is no scientific proof for miracles. Dr. Naik is using one fallacy to prove another fallacy. If we take miracles as proof, we have to take every charlatan for his word. This debate was about science not miracles. Scientifically speaking the story of the dead Soloman standing on his feet leaning on his staff for days or maybe months without anyone noticing until termites or other creeping creatures gnawed at his staff is ludicrous.  “

 

 

My Response:

 

Miracles are events that are unusual, for which we humans cannot give a description and they are attributed to Allah (SWT). Dr.Naik didn’t say that the mentioned of virgin birth in the bible is a fable or an incredible story. The Quran too mentions the same miracles of which Dr.Naik talked about.

Yes, I agree the debate was about science and not miracles. This he should go and tell Dr.William Campbell because it is he who brought up the point. When Dr.Zakir Naik mentioned the unscientific points in the bible, he did not mention any miracles talked about in the Bible.

Miracles haven’t been proven and They haven’t been disproved either. The scientists may assume that the miraculous birth of Jesus is unscientific but no scientist has even proven that Jesus wasn’t born miraculously. I read an article few months ago that there was a baby child born in whose womb was another child. This really sounds ludicrous but it happened in reality. The doctors have not been able to tell that how did it happen.

 

As a Muslim I say its Allah (SWT) the maker of the universe did it.

 

The followers of almost all faiths believe in miracles including Muslims.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

“Dr. Naik says “Anyway, I give him various different answers”. Truth is only one. Various different answers that are illogical and can be refuted do not make up for one solid and logical answer that can’t be refuted. If the Quran was true, one logical answer would have sufficed. When a suspect is interrogated, one way the investigators determine whether he is lying or telling the truth is by seeing how many times he changes his story. If he keeps changing his story and gives various answers to the same question, the cops determine that he is lying. The very fact that Muslims come up with several answers to every question is because none of them is convincing. Truth is only one, lies can be many.  “

 

 

My Response:

 

The Quran has narrated the story of what happened. Dr.Campbell wanted to know how it happened. Therefore, Dr.Naik went onto give the explanation. The reasons can be more than one for something. Its not necessary that it should be only one.

 

When a suspect is caught and if suppose he agrees that he is involved in the crime. He can give more than one reason why he did such an act.

Dr.Zakir Naik isn’t changing the story anywhere. Any rational person knows it.

 

Further explanation of Dr.Zakir Naik on this point. Ali Sina does not mention that on his site.

 

Dr.Zakir Naik:

 

“I agree with Dr. William Campbell, that Sulaiman Alai Salaam stayed for a long time. The answer is given in the same verse that after Sulaiman Alai Salaam fell down; the Jinn’s said that… ‘If we would have known that Solomon, peace be upon him died, we would not have toiled so hard.’ Indicating, that even the Jinns do not have ‘Ilm-e-gaib’ - They do not have knowledge of the unseen. Because the Jinns thought themselves to be very great - So Allah is teaching them, that even they do not have ‘Ilm-e-gaib’.

 

This explanation makes it very clear why Allah (SWT) made Solomon (pbuh) stand on a stick for very long time. It is to teach a lesson to the Jinns. Now it may again sound something very odd to the unbelievers. Therefore, The Quran tells its reader in the very beginning.

 

“[002:001]  A.L.M.

[002:002]  This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God;

[002:003]  Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;”  (Quran 2:1-3)

 

 

 

Conclusion: 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

 

“As I said. Dr. Naik is a great magician and he is good at what he does. But what he does is not true. He has mastered the art of deception. Both speakers were right when they pointed out to the errors and absurdities contained in the holy book of the other. However, Dr. Campbell, in my view is the  winner of this debate. That is because Dr. Campbell proved to be an honest man, a true scholar. He knows the difference between truth and falsehood. He is not willing to falsify the truth just to win the debate. When he was shown the errors of the Bible, he did not try to lie and present lame apologias or twist the meaning of the words as Dr. Naik often did. He simply said I don't have good answers for them. This quality has endeared him to me and I have utmost respect for Dr. Campbell. “

 

 

 

My Response:

 

As I have been proving in this rebuttal that the Liar here is Ali Sina and not Dr.Zakir Naik.
 

And give me a break, Does his judgment on who won the debate carry any weight? We may well ask the question who made him the judge.

The reason why he says he wins all the debates against the Muslims is because he is the judge and he is the jury. He will NEVER have a live debate with brother Osama or Brother Zatari. They both have challenged him for a live debate. Ali Sina fails to address those challenges because he is a LIAR.

 

 

 

Ali Sina Writes:

“Unlike his opponent, when the errors of the Quran were presented to him, Dr. Naik denied the obvious. He even tried to give completely new meanings to common words such as nur (light) which he said means "borrowed light",  wajada, (found) which he said means "appeared to him",  ysbahun (follows its orbit), which he said means rotating around its own axis, museoon (vast), which he said means expanding, sama (sky/heaven), which he said means rain, etc. “

 

My Response:

Dr.Zakir Naik as I have been proving in this entire rebuttal never twisted and denied the obvious. I further clarified the meanings of the things that Dr.Zakir Naik mentioned.

The problem really is that Ali Sina thinks he is an expert on the Quran and tries to analyze it deeply by being dependant on the translation only.

And he lied that Dr.Zakir Naik translated “sama” as rain. He never did such a thing and I have clarified other things as well.

 

Conclusion:

By now, the reader must be convinced that Ali Sina is nothing but a pathetic infidel-fraud. He not only is unscholarly but he even lacks ethical values. He ridicules Islam and has a racist attitude towards Muslims.

I replied to Ali Sina not because he is really worth responding. I only responded because this article has been on the front page of his site for a long time. Therefore, I thought that this is the best he could write. So, I have responded thinking that this is one of the best article which he has ever written in his life.

May Allah give guidance to All !!   Ameen !!