Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of
Science – Other Topics
25 Nov 2012
S. Science – different other topics
S1. (From ExamineTheTruth):
“It (the Quran) is not the word of a poet - - -“. This seems to be true – Muhammad was no poet. But he may very well have been a teller of tales, a maker of apocryphal stories (large parts of the Quran are part of the apocryphal literature, but so far out apocryphal that it normally is not reckoned even together with that group), or even a teller of fairy tales – some persons do much to gain power.
ETT also here refuses to believe that “these verses which correlates with science/prophesy are all coincidences - - -“. But there are literally billions of scientific facts of all kinds, and Muhammad said tens of thousands of things. It is statistically impossible that there should be no correlations here and there – especially as Muslims are very “free” with what they claim are correlations (many points are twisted or far out to be able to claim correlations). Statistically there should be hundreds or a few thousand correlations by coincidences. In addition no Muslim has ever proved that a statement from Muhammad which are claimed to come true, was meant to be a prophesy – and a statement not meant to be a prophesy is no prophesy but a coincidence. (The closest we know about, is where Muhammad said the Romans would win against the Persians “within “bedd” - 3 to 9 – years”. The Romans did win, but it took 12 or more years – and Muhammad’s words hardly were meant as a prophesy, but was part of a pep-talk.)
In addition we are back to the facts: Muhammad in the Quran says he was just an ordinary man = unable to make miracles or prophesies (which means that every time a Muslim claims Muhammad did so, that Muslim claims that the Quran is untrue on these points). Aishah said the same in Hadiths, and Islam of today – its scholars – says that “there are no miracles (which also includes prophesies, as also prophesies are miracles) connected to Muhammad, except the delivery of the Quran”.
S2. (From kaheel7.com = kaheel):
“New facts about the pyramids: a new miracle of the Quran”. A claimed new theory about the building of the pyramids – claimed proposed by the French professor Joseph Davidovitz – says that may be the stone blocks which makes up the pyramids, are not stone, but burnt clay from the Nile. And not only that, but the material is transported as clay up the pyramid, put into (wooden?) boxes there, and burnt to stone on the spot. As the Quran in 28/38 says: “Light me (pharaoh Ramses II (a few scientists believe it was his son and successor ---------------- *) a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace - - -“, kaheel quickly jump to the conclusion that the professor’s theory backs the Quran, and he further makes the long wishful jump that the theory is a fact, and that the Muhammad needed a miracle to know this, and kaheel then claims to have discovered a new miracle in the Quran. But:
· No theory is a fact.
· Without proved facts to build on, no proof.
· The theory also is not a new one, like kaheel claims – it is 20-30 years since we read about it the first time. It during all these years has got little or no following from science.
· Huge blocks of stone are not bricks like the pharaoh demanded in the Quran.
· A pyramid are not “a lofty palace” like the pharaoh demanded.
· A reason behind the professor’s theory was that modern professors have problem with understanding how the old Egyptian could make the shape of the blocks as exact as it is. To mould them by clay seemingly would solve that problem. But only seemingly: Take a look at any burnt brick you ever find, and you will see that with the exception of a few using modern technology, not one burnt brick is in ideal “brick shape”. The reason is that the brick shrinks some during burning, and not homogenously. A big block would shrink even more and more unevenly. This technology thus would not solve the enigma of the exact shape of the block. (A possible reason for that the theory has got little following from scientists.)
· Another fact: The old Egyptians did not use burnt bricks, but sundried ones. One reason was that they used straw for strengthening them, and the straws would burn up if the brick was burned. It therefore is extremely unlikely that Ramses II demanded bricks burnt in a kiln. One more likely mistake in the Quran.
· To our knowledge there is found no traces of pure carbon (soot) in the stone blocks, something there would have been – microscopic such - if the stone blocks were burnt ones from clay.
· He/she further claims that holes/bubbles in the stone is a proof for that the stone is not natural. But there exists plenty of eruptive stone containing holes/bubbles. More to the point: Take a look at the clay-stone Angkor (Cambodia) is made from and get a surprise; it is full of holes/bubbles!
· But the real clincher which makes the “new” theory impossible is: Where in the desert and agriculture country of Egypt did one find the enormous forests necessary to heat millions and millions and millions of tons/tonnes to “a high temperature” to burn it to stone? This even more so if it is burnt on the spot, and thus the fire only could reach 2 – 4 (normally 3) of a block’s 6 sides, and in addition one had to reheat the neighboring stones and the ones underneath each time a new stone was burnt, to get high enough temperature in the block one was preparing. And not to forget: In a kiln you “concentrate” the temperature/hot air. With on spot burning this impossible, and one needs even much more wood to reach high enough temperature.
The theory is impossible – if not for other reasons then for the lack of the enormous quantities of firewood needed.
But all the same when kaheel saw the word “burn”, he/she jumped to a wishful conclusion – based on the “magic of similarity” Muslims often use (“when an aspect of two or more things are similar, that means ‘fact’ or ‘proof’ if it is possible to conclude in a way ‘we’ like – no matter if other aspects or facts make our invalid logic or wishful thinking impossible” – you often meet this “magic of similarity” (and also “the magic of numbers”) in Muslim arguments and invalid “facts”): The unlikely theory is a fact, and as it is a “fact” with some similarity to texts in the Quran, it is a proof! – and as it thus is “proved”, it is a miracle that Muhammad knew about it. – and as it is a “miracle” that Muhammad knew it, it is an unavoidable “proof” for the Quran. Not “a possibility” but “a clear proof”!!
Much – too much – of Islamic debate and arguments are on this logical and intellectual level.
“The Quran tells that in Hell when your skin is burnt through, the Devil put a new skin on you, so as to continue your pain. This proves that Muhammad knew that the feeling sits in the nerve ends – something humans did not know at that time. This is a strong proof for involvement from Allah!”
This is one of the typical miracle hunter’s miracles – and nonsense. Serious burning has happened now and then throughout the times since man started to use the fire – and sometimes even before that. The fact that after deep burns later the burned part is unable to feel anything, definitely needed no divine information. Worse: This is a fact so well known that there is no chance that at none of the miracle scholars or other Muslim scholars or other educated – and even uneducated Muslims does not know this - - - but not one have stepped forward and told the truth – at least we have heard no-one – that this is a well known physical phenomenon.
As mentioned: To many Muslims it is not the truth which counts, but to make the Quran look like being the truth.
>>> Go to Next Part
>>> Go to Previous Part
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".