Prev / Home / Next

By Merle Hertzler

Iesha continues her support of Islam, sending me another email which I have posted here. This is my response.

---

 

Iesha,

Let's begin with the question that you continually refuse to answer: Should a person be punished if he logically reaches a conclusion that leads him to disbelieve the Qur'an?

Your book speaks of eternal punishment of people who disbelieve Islam. For instance:

4:56 Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty,

But what about those of us who disbelieve for intellectual reasons? Many of us do not believe the Qur'an is perfect, and we have reached that conclusion based on what we consider to be sound reasoning. If it turns out we are mistaken, should we then be tortured for all eternity because we made a mistake on this issue? The question will not go away. If you refuse to deal with the question, we will all see that you have no real defense of the Qur'an in its central problem in the area of punishment of disbelievers. Would you like to actually address the question?

Moving on, you write:

Merle says "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." The reference is Chapter Number 16 & verse 68& 69. which is as follows "AND THY LORD INSPIRED THE BEE SAYING: 'CHOOSE THOU HABITATIONS IN HILLS AND TREES AND IN WHICH THEY BREED. THEN EAT OF ALL FRUITS (you wish to eat) AND FOLLOW THE WAY FROM THY LORD MADE SMOOTH.'  THERE COMES FORTH FROM THEIR BELLIES A DRINK OF DIVERSE HUES; WHEREIN IS HEALING FOR MANKIND. LO! HEREIN IS INDEED A PORTEN FOR PEOPLE WHO REFLECT."... The Arabic language has no neural gender i.e. "it"; consequently objects or actions are either masculine or feminine. Eg: Instead of "to do" we have "he does" or "she does" and instead of "to read" we have "he reads" or "she reads". This is how the Arabic language has evolved and this is how gender is expressed in verbs in the Arabic language...Now coming to the verse 68: The word TAJAZI is translated as She chose or She chooses in English (depending upon the Tense)

Ah, just as I thought, the reference to female bees is a very vague reference. The Arabic language has no word for "it chooses" so the Qur'an has to say either "he chooses" or "she chooses". And since the Qur'an says "she chooses" you take this as divine revelation that these bees are female?

If Allah wanted to inform us that these bees are female, why didn't he just say "and the Lord inspired the female bee"? That would have been so simple and clear, and it would translate readily into other languages. One would think that if Allah was trying to reveal the gender of these bees, he would realize that simply slipping in a female verb is not a clear way of communicating. After all, the writer had to pick either "he chooses" or "she chooses". Most people just ignore the gender of the verb chosen in this case. Even translators ignore the gender of the verb. If they thought it was meaningful, they would have included it in their translations.

If someone refers to a ship and reports that she sailed out to sea, we would not look around on the ship for a vagina. We realize that this is just an expression and ignore the gender of the pronoun or verb. So if you are going to prove miraculous knowledge in the Qur'an, you will need to do better than this.

You go on to imply that these verses reveal marvelous things about bees, such as the nature of their hives, the way they find honey, and the virtues of their honey. Oh really? Please tell me on the basis of these verses alone, how is a bee's hive structured? On the basis of these verses alone, how do bees find their way to food, and what are the specific benefits of their honey? The answers to these questions simply are not in these verses. And yet you write about these findings of science as revealed in these verses. If the scientific answers were revealed here, why didn't people know these things simply from reading the Qur'an before science told them about it?

I have shown you how another woman at this site used similar arguments to find science in the Bible (while denying that you were finding science in the Qur'an.) Do you agree that she was finding marvelous science in the Bible? Or can you understand that she was simply finding a way to make the poetic expressions of the Bible sound like modern science? If you understand that she was mistaken in her attempts to find science in the Bible, why is it that you cannot understand that you may be mistaken?

This Mr. Miller was a leading mathematician of his time. He lived to expound on the Scientific correctness of the Quran and proved that it was flawless. He was grown in an orthodox Christian household and grew up to be a leading Missionary. But as he read deeper into the Bible he accepted that there were obvious contradictions in it and gave up Christianity. At this time he came to know how Muslims considered their Book, the Quran to be FROM GOD, ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESS. And as he himself says "At first i expected that like the Bible the Quran too would have Both Truth and falsehood, both good and evil mixed together but what I found was THE TRUTH".

I don't know about Dr. Miller, but I know about others such as Dr. Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore who have written about science in the Qur'an. It turns out that they made much money by writing what they did. Many Muslims love to hear western scientists speak favorably of Islam. Could it be that these men were simply taking advantage of this fact in order to get rich on petro-dollars? For more information, see How Western Scientists Discovered $cience in Quran!

Your argument is nothing more than an argument from authority. Arguing from authority is considered to be a logical fallacy. In the scientific world, it does not matter that an authority agrees with you. The authority could be mistaken on this point, joking, or lying. That is why true science is never based on what an authority says.

I am curious why you mention only those that convert to Islam, and not those that convert away from it. For isntance,  what about the story of Jahed Ahmed. What about the many that have converted from Islam to Christianity? (see Why They Converted) If you only mention those conversions that support your case and ignore the other conversions, are you not merely selectively choosing from the data? If you throw out most of the data on conversions, how can it be significant that the data that you retain supports your cause?

"He Who created the Heaven and the Earth and all that is between them in SIX DAYS…" The Arabic word used in the verse is AYAAM, which is the plural of YAWM. The word YAWM doesn't necessarily mean a 24 hr Day. YAWM simply means a PERIOD or EPOCH.

Ah, you appear to interpret the Qur'an's claim of creation in six days as meaning long periods of time consistant with science. Sorry, but the Qur'an simply is not scientific in its view of origins. Look at Qur'an 41:9-12:

Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals ? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds. He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask; Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower. [emphasis added]

We find that there were 4 days in which earth was created, followed by 2 days for the heavens, which included the stars.This is completely wrong from the viewpoint of science. The stars were created long before the earth. So no, this is not a scientific account of creation. For more details, see Does the Qu'ran Have any scientific Miracles?

And what can these 6 "days" possibly be referring to? If you study the scientific account of origins, it does not divide naturally into six periods. But the Qur'an repeatedly refers to 6 days. Why? Even if theose 6 days mean 6 long periods of time, the concept of 6 periods adds nothing to our knolwedge of origins.

Now, coming to THE SUN SETTING IN A MUDDY SPRING: Obviously the reference is to Verse 86 of Chapter number 18. where Mr. Merle alleges that the Qur'an believes the sun to set in a Muddy spring... Now with these few English words if we were to construct a sentence it would look like this "Till he reached place sunset" and this is the first half of the sentence. Now to make sense out of the translation and without INVENTING our own words the translation could be rewritten as :  "Till he reached the place AT sun-set" where sun-set denotes a TIME of the day and so the sentence would convey that He reached his destination at the time of sun set. And I believe no one has a problem with that; even I have many a time reached my destination at sunset. Or it could mean: "Till he reached the place WHERE the sun sets" where sun set would be a verb and the sentence would be denoting a direction or place and hence meaning that he reached the destination; which is the place where the sun sets.

Ah, so you don't think he saw the sun literally set in a muddy spring. Aha, you responded just as I thought you would.

Mr. Merle earlier accused me of inventing lies against him But here Merle has INVENTED A VERY BIG LIE AGAINST ME! How can you say WITHOUT DOUBT that I will tell you that "these are just expressions and that they do not mean what they literally say"? You can not deny having spoken these words can you? It's just AWFUL how a person can make such a strong supposition and say "NO DOUBT She will tell us…"! Do you suppose yourself to be super human or some thing? Only a very stubborn and close minded person will use expressions like that without actually knowing having any concrete proof for such claims. And NO, I WON'T say "that these verses don't actually mean what they literally say".And  There; That proves you to be a liar.                                                        Seems like Merle is "caught up in his own net".  When I had told about you what you did not literally say, I had deduced it from your way of writing. Well maybe my inference was wrong and I might have not clearly understood what you wanted to say and that angered you. But here you are actually presuming something without any basis.

Wow! Where do I begin to unravel all of the error here?

First, it turns out I was correct when I predicted you would say the Qur'an is not saying the sun literally sets in a muddy spring. Look above! That is exactly what you are saying, that it could mean that Zulqarnain traveled to some specific location, or that he traveled until sunset. Both the interpretations you offer are figurative ways of interpreting the expression, "when he reached the place where the sun set" (Qur'an 18:86) And so, no, I was not lying when I predicted you would not take this expression literally. So why do you scream (in all caps) that this is a big lie?

Second, when I used the expression, "no doubt", I was not saying that I knew with absolute certainty what you would say. Rather, "no doubt" is an expression I used to indicate I was very sure--but not absolutely certain--of what you would say. I do not claim to know such things with absolute certainty.

Third, even if I had been mistaken in my prediction of what you would say, that does not prove I am a liar. Sometimes people say things by mistake, and they are not intending to deceive, and hence are not lying. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. I do not call you a liar when I think you said something wrong. I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you may simply have been mistaken. Can I ask you to extend the same courtesy to others that I have extended to you? Why not say, "I think this statement is not correct", rather than saying, "[You] invented a very big lie...That proves you to be a liar"?

Fourth, when you had misquoted me (here), you claimed that I say something that I do not say. Nowhere had I said anything close to the thing that you claimed. You wrote things in quotes and said that I say them. That is clearly wrong. And now you suggest that you "deduced it from my way of writing." Oh, please! Show me what it is about my way of writing that infers the false statements you wrote about me. And even if you deduced it from what I had said, it would still be wrong to put your words in quotes and say that they are my words. Those simply were not my words.

Now to understand the sentence word by word: 1. WAJADAHA means IT APPEARED TO HIM (WAJADA in Arabic means TO APPEAR and the HA suffix is masculine.)...Now to rearrange the words to make out some sense in English we get: "It appeared to him to set in a muddy spring and appeared thereabout a nation." Now, this sentence NOWHERE says that the Sun sets in a muddy spring. It says that IT APPEARED TO ZULQARNAIN to be setting in a Muddy spring.

I have access to three translations of the Qur'an at a website, and not one agrees with you. (Click here to see the verse in those three translations.) All three translations say Zulqarnain saw the sun set in a muddy spring (or black sea). None say it merely appeared to be setting in the spring.

If your interpretation is correct, why is it that the expert translators do not agree with you? I am no expert in ancient Arabic, but I tend to trust the word of multiple trusted translators over the word of one person with an agenda.

It is easy to mislead someone who does not understand a language by pointing out definitions of a word from a dictionary. To prove you are right, you will need to convince those who actually understand the ancient language. For as far as I can see, among translatores who understand ancient Arabic, there is a consensus that, in context, the original words mean something different from what you say they mean. The translators say that, in context, these words mean that the sun set in the spring.

And so the Qur'an appears to be wrong here. For, according to the expert translators, it says that this man reached the place where he found the sun setting in a muddy spring. The sun does not set in a muddy spring.

If the Qur'an believed that the Sun sets in a muddy spring then would it not say in veres 90 that Zulqarnain reached a place where It rose from the Muddy spring?

Verse 90 is also problematic, for it says that Zulqarnain reached the place where the sun rose (although one of the translations seems to translate around this problem). (Click here to see the verse in three translations). The fact that the Qur'an does not mention a muddy spring for the sunrise in no way negates verse 86. Perhaps the author thought the sun rose in a different way from how it set. Or perhaps he just didn't bother to mention the muddy spring. At any rate, it appears that this verse teaches that this man traveled far enough east to reach the place where the sun rose, but that event, of course, could not have happened on a spherical earth.

You see, the Qur'an infers that the earth is flat. See Allah's Flat Earth.

So, regarding the identity of Zulqarnain, if we get together the facts about History we will find out that the Information about Zulqarnain fits Cyrus LIKE A GLOVE. So, it could be quite possible that Zulqarnain is Cyrus. But, Allah knows best.

I won't argue on who the Qur'an means by Zulqarnain, but many think there is good evidence that it indicates Alexander the Great. See Who was Zul-Qarnain?

IF THE QUR'AN WAS TALKING ABOUT A MAN ACTUALLY TRAVELLING TO A PLACE IN THE SKY WHERE THE SUN SETS IN A SPRING; THEN this wall should be somewhere in thy SKY, RIGHT? Or It should be Non-existent, RIGHT?

Nope. The author of the Qur'an could have been mistaken, and have thought the sun set in a spring at the edge of the earth.

5.    Merle asks: 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."... The SCIENCE in Epicurus's book can not be used to prove that it is the WORD OF GOD because as Merle himself admits "he got some things VERY WRONG" and any book claiming to be from God must not have any WRONGS. If the Qur'an or Bible or any HOLY book is proved to have even a SINGLE mistake then it can not be THE WORD OF GOD. And while the book of Epicurus, the Bible and the Veda have Mistakes, the Qur'an has not a SINGLE! And if Merle thinks it does, he should show us at least ONE! And if he does, I WILL THEN AND THERE DENOUNCE ISLAM! But if he can't, and for sure he won't; He will have to accept that ISLAM IS THE TRUTH.

You claim that the Qur'an has no errors, but I have pointed out several to you. I have also shown (here) that there are verses that teach intolerance and violence (as well as the verses that teach peace). You can find out more about the errors of the Qur'an at The Qur’an and Science: Do They Agree?, The Skeptic's Annotated Quran, and Answering Islam.

So it appears to me that both the Qur'an and the work of Epicurus have errors.

You say that the science of the Qur'an exceeds the science of Epicurus. Have you ever read the book of Epicurus? On what basis do you make this claim, if you have never even read what Epicurus wrote? See Epicurus vs. Mohammed

You say you will denounce Islam if I show you an error in the Qur'an. Okay, but will you approach the subject with an open mind to see if there are errors? If you will approach the subject with a closed mind; if you will conclude before you ever start that there are no errors; and if you will not seriously examine the book for errors, then of course, you will find no errors. To find errors, you must search with an open mind. Are you willing to search for errors with an open mind?

Suppose I would find no errors in the Qur'arn. Would that prove it was God's word? No, of course not. Is every document in which you find no errors the word of God? If you can find no errors in the Gettysburg Address, for instance, does that prove that these words are God's words? No, of course not. Not every error-free document is God's word. So no, even if you show the Qur'an is free of known errors, that would not prove it was God's word, and would not prove that the things we cannot test in the Qur'an are true. It would merely indicate that we have found no errors.

And since Merle him self admits that "Using the accumulated observations and reasons of the Greeks, he painted a picture of the universe…" Well then that's PLAGIARIZATION!

No, it is not plagarization to learn things from others and to write about what you have learned. Plagarization means copying words that somebody else has written, and claiming it as one's own writing. That is a completely different issue.

And for God's sake Merle… do us a favour…stop reading those MISLEADING translations and start reading the real STUFF! You're not to Old to learn Arabic are u? And if that should not be TOO MUCH to ask for; unless u r really a close minded person!

Yes, it is too much to ask for me to become an expert in ancient Arabic. If you want me to understand the Qur'an better than what I see in modern translations, then I would need to devote years to studying the ancient language. It would not do to simply study modern Arabic, or to read Arabic/English dictionaries.

If you want me to study the language of your book, would I not also need to study the language of every book that ever claimed to be divine? Why should I waste my time studying every language of every book that has been claimed to be God's word?

When this discussion began, you made no mention of the fact that I need to learn ancient Arabic.

And no one has anything to loose by following the Qur'an. It teaches great things including submission and tolerance and does not contain even a hint of immorality.

Not a hint of immorality? How quickly we forget! Remember all those verses in the Qur'an I quoted (here) that promote intolerance, torture, and hatred?

And remember also that I can find good moral teaching elsewhere, so I can learn such things without reading the Qur'an.

And yes, I have much to lose if I choose to follow Islam. You see, I find things I disagree with in the Qur'an. If I choose to go ahead and adopt Islam anyway, it would mean giving up my intellectual integrity. If I were to accept Islam, would I be allowed to freely mention the errors I find in the Qur'an? And would I need to stop thinking for myself, lest I experience the serious consequences for turning back from Islam? (See The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law.) Strangely, you haven't mentioned those consequences for apostacy, which are a major drawback to the faith. Why not?

So I have very much to lose if I accept Islam. Do I have anything to gain from following Islam? I can't think of anything that I would gain from it. So, having very much to lose, and nothing to gain from following Islam, the decision is quite easy for me.

In short since it is the Word of God, we should be sure that what it teaches is for our eternal Peace and it is the WAY OUT from eternal torture.

There is an easier way out of eternal torture. It is called death. Once a person has died, his brain stops functioning. Science has shown that, if the brain is not functioning, we don't feel pain. So there can be no torture after death.

You have taught that this eternal torture is being done by your God. And you describe this God as torturing people who believe things you consider to be wrong. But what if those with non-Islamic beliefs are sincere? What if somebody really thinks the Qur'an is not true? How can God torture somebody for all eternity because he was mistaken about religion? You avoid those question, concentrating on people who willfully rebel. But people like me disbelieve Isalm, not because we rebel against God, but because we find that the facts lead us away from Islam. Many millions of sincere people reject Islam because they sincerely think it is wrong. What about us? You may try to say that we are all rejecting Islam with evil intentions, but those of us who reject it know that it is not evil that causes us to reject it.

If you could ever find the time to spend a few hours in a church or an atheist meeting, you would understand what I mean when I say we are sincere in our beliefs. If we are mistaken, eternal torture seems to be for our mistaken beliefs seems to be grossly unfair.

9.    Merle says "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?" Merle says "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." Does Merle mean to say that every event of history that he believes to have happened, he has been shown DOCUMENTED PROOF for it? What about the Crucifiction of a man called Jesus our so-called HISTORIANS tried tooth and nail to prove to us that THE CRUCIFIXION actually took place however recent researches suggest that it was a HOAX. I don't know hoe Merle expects such things to be REPORTED EVERYWHERE keeping in mind the fact that historians through out human history have tended to accept only what was FAVOURABLE while leaving out the other and have also many a time TWISTED THE TRUE FACTS. HISTORIANS are not the ultimate authority; they are not HOLY COWS who can't commit mistakes. In fact many events in history have more than one version.

Well, no, I do not have documented proof for every thing that I believe happened in history. Where I do not have documented proof, then I cannot be certain that those things occurred, and cannot claim that those undocumented events are evidence for some point. That is the problem. You claim that Mohammed split the moon in two, but you have no real proof of that assertion, other than a biased writer. (And what, may I ask, was that writer drinking the night he saw the mooon split in two?) And so you cannot claim that Mohammed's splitting of the moon proves the truth of the Qur'an. Your argument has been defeated.

And no I don't believe in the story of the resurrection, and I even doubt the historicity of Jesus, as I have explained elsewhere.

You mention that historians distort facts. Yes, that is sometimes true. That is your problem. If historians distort facts, how do you know that your historians are not also distorting facts? You seem to simply choose those historians that agree with you, while rejecting those who disagree. That proves nothing.

If the moon really had been split in two, many people would have reported it. It strains the imagination to think that people saw the moon split in two before their eyes, and decided not to mention it because they didn't want to give a god credit for his obvious deeds. Surely this great display, had it actually happened,  would have been reported by at least some historians who saw it.

So no, you cannot use the splitting of the moon as proof of Islam, unless you first prove that the moon was indeed split in two.

I believe the DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS of Arab particularly Muslim Historians about Prophet Muhammad pbuh, his life and works should not be completely discredited.

I never said we should completely disregard the writings of Muslim historians. We should look at their documents, as we look at all historical documents, to learn as many views of the ancient world as possible.  Just like all ancient documents, some of the writings in ancient Muslim documents may be true, some of it may be legend. And so historians use the Historical Method, to try to decipher what really happened.

Its unfortunate that an educated man should say About Prophet Muhammad's Good works that "THEY COULD ALL BE LEGEND" while he refuses to accept that the West has build its Idea of Islam and Prophet Muhammad pbuh on PREJUDICES which were propagated by the Church as a tool for CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. And these PROPAGANDA are the actual LEGEND about Prophet Muhammad pbuh

What educated man are you referring to, who suggests the writings about Muhammed might be legend, but refuses to accept that the documents of the West might be legend? This certainly doesn't describe me, for I have frequently referred to Western accounts of "history" that I think are legends. The historical method recognizes that all ancient documents may be legends.

Why do you insist that we need to consider that other historical documents may be false, but object when somebody mentions that stories about Muhammad could be false? Why not allow people to question those assertions also?

THE IDOLATERS [in Qur'an 9]...PLOTTED TO KILL Prophet Muhammad pbuh, THEY SOWED DISCONTENT AMONG MUSLIMS...WHENEVER THEY FOUND A SMALL GROUP OF MUSLIMS TRAVELLING IN THE DESERT WITH GOODS OF TRADE THEY WOULD LOOT THEM, KILL THEM AND RAPE THEIR WOMEN. THIS WASN'T ACCEPTABLE. THIS CALLED FOR A WAR!

Then why doesn't the Qur'an say that these things were happening, and that this is the reason for the call to arms? If this chapter said to defend yourselves against murderers and rapists, we would have no problem with it. The problem is, these verses demand that peaceful folks of other religions be killed unless they submit to the terms of Islam.

And your tales of the plotting against Islam seems quite one-sided. History seems to indicate that the terror was happening more in the opposite direction. See The Root of Terrorism.

No one is asking for extortion money at the point of the Sword.

You might want to read The Jizyah Tax for another view of this.

11. Merle says..."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 want to tell me abt the Masscre of 80 million in India? Will you tell us what is Genocide? Will You tell us what is evil using the sword? WE Muslims are the nation against who the most genocides have been committed, we are the nation who even today face the worst type of discrimination, we don't need anyone to teach us how it feels when you are uprooted from your homes because we have experienced the Palestine tragedy, we don't need any one to teach us what it means when you are not allowed to practice your religion because we are discriminated against in France, we know what it means to have your Lands snatched by Conquerors.

Uh, yes, I am sure that Muslims have suffered unfairly in the past. My point was not that only Muslims practice genocide. Rather, I was mentioning that Muslims sometimes have practiced genocide. And I was trying to show you that, even if you can show some stories of Muslims doing good things, that this would not negate that Muslims have sometimes done acts of terrror, and that they used the Qur'an to support those acts. One would think that a loving God would write a book in such a way that it would not so readily lend itself to support of terror. It seems you have simply ignored that point. What about the maasacre of 80 million in India by Muslims? Doesn't that negate your argument that, since (some) Muslims have done good things in the past, that therefore the verses in the Qur'an don't teach violence?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE QUR'AN ENCOURAGES TERRORISM

I'm sorry, but I disagree. I have previously quoted verses in the Qur'an that do support terror (here). And if those aren't enough try these 164 Jihad verses.

For Instance, The Quran says that The EARTH IS SHAPED LIKE AN OSTRICH'S EGG (........) that THE SUN AND MOON TRAVEL FOR AN APPOINTED TIME AND DO NOT OVERTAKE EACH OTHER (……..) that EVERYTHING IN SPACE FLOATS i.e. FALAQ or the HEAVENLY BODIES FLOAT (……) that ALL LIFE WAS CREATED FROM WATER(……)  that THERE ARE COMMUNITIES OTHER THAN HUMANS (…..) that WHILE ASCENDING IN SPACE THE CHEST GETS CONSTRICTED (……) that IN OLD AGE A PERSON RETURNS TO INFANCY (……) that MAN IS HELPLESS BEFORE THE FORCES OF NATURE, that THERE IS NO SUPERIORITY ON BASIS OF RACE OR COLOUR (……) that THE AAD AND THAMOUD (their ruins are found in Arabia)  WERE GREAT NATIONS BUILT WITH GREAT ARTISTIC EXPERTISE (….) that IN A DEEP SEA A MAN CAN NOT SEE HIS HAND(…….) that MOUNTAINS STABILISE THE EARTH (…)that A BARRIER SEPARATES THE SWEET AND SALTY WATER (……) that CLOUDS CAUSE RAINS(……)  et cetera

If the Qur'an explains so many facts of science, and is written by God himself, then it must be a most wonderful primer on science! For surely an all-knowing God must be the ultimate communicator. If the ultimate communicator has written so much about science, why doesn't someone collect all of these marvelous verses about science and put them all together, to create a great introductory science textbook? The reason this is not done is obvious. These facts of science really aren't clearly revealed in the Qur'an. Rather, people find poetic references that could be interpreted as science, and claim that these teach science. The verses themselves don't clearly say what people claim that they say.

You can find the answer to many such claims of science at the Qur'an and Science section of the  Answering Islam site. Also read  Does the Qur'an have Scientific Miracles and Qur'an and Science. I won't take the time to address all of the arguments above, but I will illustrate the problem by looking at one claim, the claim about sweet and salty water.

Scientists have found that when fresh water enters the ocean, it tends to float on top of the heavier salt water, and then tends to evaporate into the air. Frequently Qur'an 25:53  has been quoted as though it teaches this fact. The verse say, "And he has set free the two seas; one is fresh and palatable and the other is salty and bitter; and he has built between them a formidable, inviolable barrier." But how does one know this verse refers to this phenomenon in the ocean? Could it not be describing the natural boundaries between fresh-water lakes and oceans? At best, this verse has the barest of hints as to what science knows about oceans. On the other hand, let's look at what Aristotle said many years before the Qur'an was written:

Rivers not only flow into the sea but originate from it, the salt water becoming sweet by filtration. But this view involves another difficulty. If this body is the source of all water, why is it salt and not sweet? [...] Now the sun, moving as it does, sets up processes of change and becoming and decay, and by its agency the finest and sweetest water is every day carried up and is dissolved into vapour and rises to the upper region, where it is condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth. [...] The drinkable, sweet water, then, is light and all of it drawn up: the salt water is heavy and remains behind, but not in its proper place. [...] The place which we see the sea filling is not its place but that of water. It seems to belong to the sea because the weight of the salt water makes it remain there, while the sweet, drinkable water which is light is carried up

Here we find a clear explanation of the science, written far before the Qur'an. So how is it that you quote a vague reference from the Qur'an, which probably isn't even relevant, and you ignore the fact that many centuries before the Qur'an people gave a complete explanation of this science? If it is miraculous that the Qur'an knew this, why is it not miraculous that Aristotle knew far more about this science years earlier? (For more information, see Like Water for Dawa.)

In fact I have been so convinced of the Truth of Islam that no FORCE ON EARTH can shatter my faith because it is based on REASON AND UNDERSTANDING and not mere Belief.

You seem to be saying that you have closed your mind on this issue. Is your mind closed? If you do not consider your mind closed, how can you possibly write the above words? And if your mind is indeed closed, why are you so quick to condemn others whom you think have a closed mind?

I know what it is like to be caught in a world of faith. I dared not question the faith too seriously, for fear that it would anger God or fellow believers. And then one day it occurred to me that a great God of the universe would not be upset if one of his creatures was curious and asked questions. It would seem that God would want such curiosity. There is something more important than following the dictates of the religion one inherited, and following the dictates of other people. Sometimes it is nice simply to think about these things for yourself. Perhaps some day you will try a little exploration. Perhaps some day you will take a brief minute to consider life from a different view and ask questions about your religious views. Perhaps you will someday set your mind free in matters of religion, if only for a minute. Its okay to ask if there is evidence against your faith. Its okay to ask if your faith needs to be modified. Its okay to wonder why other people believe what they believe. Its okay to explore. God will not torture you forever if you choose to explore. God does not hate the curious.

It is your life, and you must decide. Do you want to explore, or do you want to insist that what you have already found must be true, and cannot in any way be modified? I think you really would like to explore.

And always remember, there is no stopping the mind set free.