By Merle Hertzler
It is amazing how religion can convince a person that he or she is right, and that those who disagree are wrong.
Is the Bible or the Quran a miraculous book in which the writer knew scientific facts far before they were known to others? Previously "Honey" argued at my blog that the Bible was such a miracle book, and that all such miraculous claims for the Quran were false. Now we find Iesha arguing that the Quran is a miracle book of science and the Bible is wrong. How is it that each can be so sure that she is right and the other is wrong? Each can see the obvious flaws in the other's arguments for her book. Yet each seems unable to see the faults in her own arguments, which are quite similar. Such is the grip of religion.
Is it a marvelous thing that an ancient book wrote, "The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:8)? Some months ago "Honey" wrote to us (see comments here) and implied that this was an example of great scientific wealth in the Bible. She was quite certain that this verse talks about ocean currents. But couldn't this also simply be a poetic expression, with the author having no knowledge of ocean currents? If the Biblical author meant this verse to indicate that the oceans have currents, did the author who wrote of the earth having four corners mean that the earth was flat and square? Well, no, "Honey" doesn't seem to quote that as evidence that the writer thought the earth was flat. Does it not appear that she is combing through vague poetic references, choosing those that match science, and bypassing those that don't? What would she be saying if it turned out that the earth indeed had four corners and the ocean had no currents? Does anybody doubt that she would be loudly proclaiming the amazing foresight of the Bible to know that the earth had four corners, and that she would be passing off Psalm 8:8 as a simple poetic expression? If a person is determined to find a match between modern knowledge and an ancient book, she can often find excerpts that she can quote as examples, provided she is willing to interpret any conceivable close match as a hit, and to ignore obvious references that differ with science.
Now we find again another woman insisting that a different ancient book had an amazing view of science. Iesha writes:
| In the 16th chapter the Qur'an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food.l2 Now, a person might guess on that, saying, "The bee that you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess female." Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the Qur'an is right. |
I have searched in vain for the place where chapter 16 says these bees are female. Whatever Iesha is referring to must be a very vague reference.
If the Quran does refer to them as female, does this prove that the writer somehow had knowledge of the sex of bees? Or could he simply be using a female pronoun for bees, as one would do for a ship? One cannot help to think that Iesha must be grasping for reasons here when she resorts to arguments like this. What about the obvious scientific flaws in the Quran, such as the verse that says the sun sets in a muddy spring, or that creation lasted six days? I don't see Iesha's response to those verses. No doubt she will tell us that these are just expressions, and that they do not really mean what they literally say.
Iesha finds verses that support her belief of special knowledge of the Quran, and is not at all impressed with Honey's attempts to do the same with the Bible. Iesha can overlook the obvious scientific flaws in the Quran, and can't agree when Honey does the same with the Bible. It's the same thing, different book.
In sharp contrast to the vague claims of scientific knowledge found in supposed revelation, look at the science that can be found in an ancient book of science. The Greek scientist, Epicurus, had astounding insight into modern science, writing in 300 BC with astonishing accuracy about atoms and molecules, the rain cycle, causes and nature of lightning, causes of earthquakes, and the existence of other planetary systems. Many of his statements may have been lucky guesses. He also got some things very wrong. But his guesses are amazingly accurate, for he had a wealth of accumulated science on which to base his conclusions. Using the accumulated observations and reasons of the Greeks, he painted a picture of the universe that is far more specific and accurate than anything found in supposed books of divine revelation.
If the science in Iesha's book proves it is the infallible word of God, does the science in Epicurus's work prove it is God's word? Why not?
Why can't a book that is reportedly written by God come close to the science content of a book written by a man many centuries earlier? If Allah was sneaking statements of science into the Quran in order to impress us, he certainly could have done a better job.
| In Islam we have to speak the truth or else we end up going to hell forever. |
Pity that. For Iesha previously invented words and said that I spoke them, even though I did not speak them. I am sorry that she believes that those who do not speak the truth go to hell forever. One would hope that if God exists, he is more merciful, and that those who misspeak, as Iesha did, will not end up in hell forever.
|
You tell me, if a person comes to u saying 2+2=5, and if u spend a decade convincing him that 2+2=4 and at the end he tells you that YOU are mistaken, what will u do? Won’t u get furious? So why doesn’t the Qur'an have a right to call such people cattle when they really were no more than cattle. |
I deal often with people who refuse to admit obvious things, and yes, it sometimes makes me furious. But I do not call them cattle. I maintain respect for the person, even though I thoroughly disagree with what they may be saying or doing. I believe in challenging the deed, not in insulting the dignity of the person.
| And why do you call this name calling? This is nothing as compared to what the bible does. Does it not quote Jesus pbuh as saying “Go not ye into the land of the gentiles for there is no good in throwing pearls before PIGS” of course we can never accept that Jesus pbuh said such a thing but isn’t this racist? |
It is name calling and insulting to call people a cow or a pig. Both are degrading comments. I do not treat people like that. I am sorry that ancient holy books report such insults without remorse.
| The reason that you don’t like this “name calling “ of the Qur'an is that you are applying it to every one and because u do not know about the heights of ignorance of the then Arabs. |
Uh, there is another false statement. And Iesha has told us that Allah burns in hell those who make false statements. Isn't it a pity that she worships such a God? No, this is not the reason I object to name calling. Please do not make stuff up about me. Would you want to make Allah mad at you?
|
Every time Prophet Muhammad pbuh would speak to them, they would say : “If thou art truly a prophet, then show us miracles like the prophets of old, make springs gush forth, make the sun rise from the east, and show us some real miracles.” And he would say: “When I come to thee with clear signs, and explain to thee with reason, ye still need miracles to reflect?” From his answer we come to know that according to himself he had tried his level best, but the people were indeed cattle, for they needed miracles. |
What reason can Muhammad give us to believe that the Quran is written by God, other than astounding miracles?
You are making a fantastic claim, that a book that appears to be poorly written and filled with evil recommendations (as well as good) was written by God. Don't you need to show us something miraculous in order to prove your claim? So far, your attempts to do that have fallen far short.
| But despite the authenticity of his message Prophet Muhammad pbuh did show miracles which numbered in thousands not hundreds, and as he has said “The one MIRACLE I claim is the Qur'an” and a miracle indeed it is [according to Reverend Bosworth]. |
Ah, but there is not one well-documented miracle that verifies the Quran that we can see, is there? So what good is the report of thousands of miracles, if these reports may have been invented?
|
One of the Great miracles was the SHAQAT-UL-QAMAR i.e. THE SPLITTING OF THE MOON. This was a miracle in which Prophet Muhammad pbuh was ordered to climb up a mountain. There Angell Gabriell came to him and said: “O Prophet of Allah, raise thy forefinger towards the moon so that Allah might show these blind people a sign.” He did exactly as he was told, and Lo! And behold! When he raised his finger, the moon actually split into two and rejoined! But far from being convinced, this added to the ignorance of his people. Coincidentally, in the history of the MALABAR, Islands south of India, we find an interesting piece of writing. It reads that one night the then King of Malabar was strolling in his lawn at night admiring the moon, when he thought that he actually saw the moon split! On calling on his courtiers, he told for the matter to be checked up Immediately. Months later owing to the good trade relations, merchants came with the news that it was one of the miracles at the hands of Muhammad, an Arab Prophet who preached Islam, the inert religion. This was enough for him to accept Islam, as he had seen it with his own eyes. |
Uh, if the moon had split in the ancient sky, would not thousands of people have seen it, and would it not be reported everywhere? This kind of legendary story is found all over the world. Do you really expect me to believe such ancient legends? You don't believe all of the ancient legends you read, do you? When I ask for documentation of a miracle, I expect documentation that historians would accept as valid.
We turn now to Iesha's attempt to explain Quran 9:5--"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them". I suggest that you begin by reading Quran 9:1-13 in context. We find there a horrible way to treat people of other religions: They are forced to either accept Islam or be killed. Now let's look at Iesha's interpretation of these verses.
|
• VERSE 1: “Freedom form all obligations is declared by Allah and his Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you had a treaty”. |
Well, yes, this is a call to break a treaty. It is a call for the Muslims to break the treaty first.
|
• VERSE 3: “And a proclamation from Allah and his Messenger to all men on the day of the Great pilgrimage is that: Allah and his Messenger are free from all obligations towards the idolaters. If ye repent it is better for you but if ye averse ye can’t escape Allah. Give tidings to the disbelievers of a painful doom”. |
Again, we find that it is the Muslims here that are being called to break the treaty. The author says the treaty can be valid only if the others "repent". We shall see shortly what is meant by "repent".
|
• VERSE 4: “But those of the idolaters with whom ye have a treaty and who have not abated any of your rights nor have supported the enemy against you, fulfill their treaty to them to their term. Lo! Allah loves those who keep their duty.” |
This verse does not say what happens to those who have not made a treaty. It does make an exception for those who make a particular treaty. However, as we look at the terms of that treaty as specified later, it is understandable that idolators might not find those terms acceptable. These verses force them to make and accept a treaty that to them is not acceptable, for it forces them to change religion.
|
• VERSE 5: “Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters where ever ye find them, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But leave their way if they repent… ” |
No, it does not say only to slay the idolaters that have broken the treaty. It says to slay those that have not fulfilled the specific treaty requirement of verse 4. If the idolaters did not make the treaty of verse 4, Muhammad's followers are clearly being told to kill them. Nowhere does verses 4 and 5 say that the idolaters have first broken a treaty. It merely says they can escape the doom by making a treaty and keeping it.
I see that Iesha conveniently stops at the word, "repent". What a pity. Had she quoted the whole sentence, we could see that it says, "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due ." The idolaters are required to "establish worship". Guess what. If they are idolaters, they have already established worship! Obviously, the wroship they had is not good enough for this verse. When it tells them they must repent and establish worship, it is saying that they must follow Islam. That is the problem. Here are people who want to worship in a way other than Islam. And the followers of Muhammad are told to inflict pain, and death on them, and to take them captive, unless they switch religion. That is a horrible act of religious conquest. Further, the idolaters are told they must pay the "poor-due". Well that is a nice expression, but in actuality such demands for payment at the end of a sword are nothing less than extortion.
|
• VERSE 7: “How can there be a treaty …save with those who made a treaty at the place of worship…AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRUE TO YOU BE TRUE TO THEM. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty. ” |
We find here that the only treaty that the writer consider to be valid is one made at the Muslim place of worship, and with people who keep their duty, apparently referring to their duty to Allah. Again, such terms are not acceptable. Some people do not want a treaty based on Muslim customs, Muslim temples, and Muslim duties. If they are forced at the end of a sword to accept such a treaty, that is evil.
Iesha tries to argue that this verse is simply teaching people to defend themselves. If the writer was trying to teach self-defence without teaching religious conquest, he is incompetent. A competent writer would have realized that the words written here could be used to justify religious conquest.
|
I belong to the first line of approach i.e. I believe it to be the word of God. So to me and people like me it is easier to distinguish where the Qur'an refers to God and where it refers to men, because we read it as if God is speaking in FIRST PERSON. So, on stressing our minds a little we know that when it plainly says “We shall punish them…” it refers to God. |
And yet Allah is continuously referred to in the third person in the Quran. Further, the book frequently uses the word "I" to indicate that somebody else is speaking other than Allah. (See also these verses, which indicate that somebody other than Allah wrote the Quran: 6:104, 6:114, 37:164-6, 51:50, 84:16 ) All of this makes it confusing to tell exactly who all is included in the word "we".
|
You hold that the Qur'an should explain and clarify such things like the usage of WE. What was Muhammad for? Before his death he has explained each and every verse of the Qur'an. |
Why does Muhammad need to later explain what the pronouns in his book refer to? Such things should be obvious from the content of any good book. If God had written this book, couldn't he have written it clearly?
|
Then if you want to proceed to prove that it is fiction; that’s your job. |
No, it is Iesha's job to prove to me that the Quran is all true. There are thousands of books that have been written. I do not have time to read every single book that was ever written, and to analyze them to see if they were written by God. If Iesha wants to make this miraculous claim, then it is up to her to prove it.
|
So, Did Muhammad and his followers torture the disbelievers? Did they pour scalding water on them? Were the disbelievers terrified of them? Lets see… |
You refer to certain stories, and yet most, if not all, of these stories of Muhammad--other than the brief mentions in the Quran--were written over 200 years after his lifetime. Those later stories could all be legend. We really have no means of confirming if any of those other stories you report actually happened.
For instance, Denis Giron writes:
The reality is we have no reliable sources from which we can make any decisions with regard to the role Muhammad played in the creation of the Qur'an. The Qur'an itself tells us nothing, outside of a few ambiguous mentionings of a certain muhammad, or "praised one." All information on Muhammad, who he was, his interaction with Jibreel, his prophethood, et cetera, are derived from a highly questionable source: the ahadith. These are traditions that were, for the most part, written down and compiled more than two hundred years after the events they are allegedly relating. In fact, by the admission of the Muslims themselves, the most respected ahadith are those compiled by Imam Bukhari, who died in the late ninth century (roughly 870 CE), nearly two hundred and forty years after the time that Muhammad allegedly lived. [source: Qur'an: A Work of Multiple Hands?]
But even if those stories happened, how does that prove there were not other instances where the early Muslims tortured others and engaged in wars of conquest? I am sorry to report, but some ancient Muslims--and some modern Muslims--did indeed torture and terrorize others. Read, for instance, about the massacre of 80 million in India.
|
You ask that SHOULD A PERSON BE PUNISHED IF HE LOGICALLY REACHES THE CONCLUSION AND DISBELIEVES IN THE QURAN? |
I see Iesha ignored the question. Let me ask again. Should a person be punished if he logically reaches a conclusion that leads him to disbelieve the Quran?
|
The Qur'an is too sure about itself, it believes that since it is the word of God, it has no errors and that it is rationally infallible. |
Ah, but the Quran has been shown to be wrong in many places. It says creation took only six days. It says the sun sets in a muddy spring. Of course there are rational ways to disprove the Quran.
|
So a man, who might reach the conclusion that Qur'an is not the word of God, is according to the Qur'an irrational. |
If a man is irrational, should he not be shown a better way? How can torturing a person for all eternity be a good solution to irrationality?
|
You want to know how I say that there is nothing in this vast ocean of Knowledge that could prove the Qur'an wrong? |
I see that Iesha evaded this question. I will ask her again--"How can you know there is nothing in the vast ocean of knowledge that disproves what you are saying?" Unless Iesha knows everything, she cannot be absolutely certain that there is some knowledge out there that refutes what she says.
|
The reason that I have complete faith in the Qur'an is that I believe that it is the word of God and God can not make a mistake. |
She is simply reasoning in a circle. She believes in the Quran because she believes in the Quran. What if the Quran is not what she says it is?
Would Iesha accept it if a Christian argues that she has complete faith in the Bible, because she knows it is true, so therefore there cannot possibly be any evidence against it? Would she accept this argument as proof that the Bible is true, and that there cannot be evidence against it? No? I thank she would regard such an argument as irrational. If she believes such an argument is irrational when used to prove the Bible, why does she make the same irrational argument for the Quran?
|
This movement is referred to as the rotation of the sun around its axis and conclusively proves that, as the Qur'an stated 1400 years ago, the sun does, indeed turn as it travels through space. |
Where does the Quran ever say that the sun rotates on its axis? Iesha certainly has shown us no verses that say this.
|
The concept that one family is having breakfast as the sun comes up while another family is enjoying the brisk night air is truly something to be marveled at, even in modern time. Indeed, fourteen centuries ago, a man could not travel more than thirty miles in one day, and thus it took him literally months to travel from India to Morocco, for example. And probably , when he was having supper in Morocco, he thought to himself, "Back home in India they are having supper right now." This is because he did not realize that, in the process of traveling, he moved across a time zone. Yet, because it is the words of Allah, the All-Knowing, the Qur'an recognizes and acknowledges such a phenomenon. In an interesting verse it states that when history comes to an end and the Day of Judgment arrives, it will all occurring an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the daytime and some people at night. |
The same claim has been made for the Bible (Luke 17:34-36), and that was written long before the Quran. But I think both interpretations are a stretch of a vague reference.
If the writer of the Quran understood time zones and that the earth was round, why does he say that a man traveled to the point where the sun rises, and then west to the point where it sets in a muddy spring?
|
IF AT A POINT OF TIME YOU GET ALL THAT IS NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE QUR'AN IS GOD’S WORD AND THAT ISLAM IS INFALLIBLE WILL YOU BE READY TO UNHESITATINGLY ACCEPT IT? |
Yes, of course, if I am given convincing evidence I will change my mind. The problem is, Iesha has shown us nothing that is even close to convincing evidence. She has shown us only certain vague references to science that fall far behind the science of the Greeks centuries earlier.
Now I will reword Iesha's question slightly and ask her:. "If at any point in time you get all that is necessary to show that the Qur'an is NOT God's word, and that Islam is NOT infallible, will you be ready to unhesitatingly accept that the Qu'ran is mistaken?"
Ieshas asked me if I would change my mind with convincing evidence, and I answered her. We will all be watching Iesha to see if she will be willing to answer her own question, or whether she will evade it.