Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of
Astronomy - Description of the Universe
25 Nov 2012
B. Astronomy: Description of the Universe.
Ab1. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“It was thought (in Arabia at the time of Muhammad*) that these mountains were pillars that kept the vault of heaven high above”. This is not what the Quran says – it says: “Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see - - -“ (13/2).
· The Quran tells something else than what MI/SMQ says was the belief.
· The Quran directly says that the heavens rest on pillars.
· The Quran in addition says you cannot see the pillars (they are invisible ones) = not mountains.
· The Quran says “havens“ (plural). The book tells that there are 7 material (if not material, the stars could not be fastened to one of them, nor resurrected Muslims walk on them, fruit trees grow on them, mansions be placed on them, rivers run on them, etc.) heavens, a fact MI/SMQ conveniently “omits” to mention.
(The claim that there are 7 heavens you find no less than 9 places in the Quran (2/29, 17/44, 23/27, 17/86, 42/12, 65/12b (here Allah also claim there are 7 Earths), 67/3, 71/15, and 78/12). In 67/3 and in 71/15 it is specified that they are placed one above the other, and in 13/2 it is said they are resting on invisible pillars (“without any pillars that ye can see”). In 37/6, 41/12, and 67/5 it is specified that the stars are fasten to the lowermost heaven - which means they are material ones (if not you could not fasten the star to it) , and that the stars are weapons to chase away bad spirits (67/5*), that and bodily resurrected humans in heaven could not walk on them, etc.) and strong (if not they could not span the world and carry the stars and the gardens and rivers and resurrected humans of Paradise)).
Perhaps MI/SMQ believe what they say, perhaps they know something is wrong but use an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) to promote Islam (Islam advises Muslims to use dishonesty - al-Takiyya, Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful circumventing/pretending), etc. “if necessary” to promote or defend the religion).
Ab2. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“Before the Big Bang, there was no such things as matter. From a condition of non-existence in which neither matter, nor energy, nor even time existed - - -“. As for the non-existence of time, this is in accordance with modern science. But what exploded was not nothing, but a singularity, according to science. Science is unable exactly to describe a singularity, but that it is “something” and not “nothing” is definite. And that it may contain energy the Big Bang is the best proof for – the energy released in that Bang, only could come from the singularity.
These are so well known facts, that if MI/SMQ has some education they have got to know this – and if not they should not write big words without checking if they are true. But dishonesty is an accepted part (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah – even disuse of words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2)) of Islam when it comes to defending or promoting the religion.
“Allah is He who raises up the heavens (plural and wrong, but not commented on by MI/SMQ for some reason or other*) without any support - - -“. This is what MI/SMQ tells 13/2 (they say 38/2, but that likely is an accident) says. Abdullah Yusuf Ali – according to Islam likely the best translations ever of the Quran to English says: “Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see (= invisible pillars*) - - -“. M.H. Shakir – one of the other 3 top translators to English according to Islam – says exactly the same.
No comments – and none necessary. It is not uncommon that Muslims twists words and facts to make them fit correct science or other facts, and thus “prove” that f.x. science “proves” the Quran. Also lies, etc. are permitted – even advised – to defend or promote Islam.
Ab4. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“The word “heaven” - - - is used various places in the Quran in the meaning of space and universe”.
· The Quran never mentions other parts of the universe than the 7 Earths (wrong), the 7 Heavens (wrong), the stars fastened to the lowermost heaven, and used as weapons – shooting stars – against jinns and bad spirits + the sun and the moon which are between the heavens. This has extremely little to do with real astronomy.
(The claim that there are 7 heavens you find no less than 9 places in the Quran (2/29, 17/44, 23/27, 17/86, 42/12, 65/12b (here Allah also claim there are 7 Earths), 67/3, 71/15, and 78/12). In 67/3 and in 71/15 it is specified that they are placed one above the other, and in 13/2 it is said they are resting on invisible pillars (“without any pillars that ye can see”). In 37/6, 41/12, and 67/5 it is specified that the stars are fasten to the lowermost heaven - which means the heavens are material (if not you could not fasten the star to it - , and that the stars are weapons to chase away bad spirits (67/5*) - and bodily resurrected humans in heaven could not walk on them) and strong (if not it could not span the world and carry the stars and the gardens and rivers and resurrected humans of Paradise)).
· The Arab word meaning universe in the modern meaning of that word, is nowhere used in the Quran = the real universe is never mentioned.
· Islam is the only one of the big religions which not only accepts, but advices, the use of dishonesty “if necessary” to defend or promote the religion (al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie, Kitman – the lawful half-truth, Hilah – the lawful circumventing/pretending, the use of deceit, even the use of broken words/promises/oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2)).
No further comment should be necessary.
Ab5. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“- - - the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit” (21/33). Yusuf Ali says “rounded course”, Shakir “celestial spheres” (= some of the 7 heavens) – none of them use the modern word orbit (perhaps MI/SMQ uses that word because it sounds more scientific – in Islam the result counts more than honesty).
That the Quran mentions that the sun and the moon move in rounded courses has nothing to do with a miracle or foretelling - this simply is something everybody can see, and something Greek and Persian science had found out a millennium before Muhammad (they had the trajectories wrong, but knew there were trajectories).
It is symptomatic, though, that some Muslims often “translate” words and texts into more modern or scientific words than the original Arab texts use, in order to make the Quran and its claims seem more correct. Honesty is not always the main thing for Islam.
Ab6. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“There are about 200 billion galaxies (about correct according to science*), consisting of nearly 200 billion stars in each (wrong – the majority are smaller*). Most of these stars have planets (guesswork – among all those trillions of stars, science as of today (July 2012) knows of only some 700 planets*), and most of these planets have satellites (more guesswork – to our knowledge not one planetary satellite (moon) outside our planetary system is found by science*).
No comment necessary.
Ab7. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“- - - this (the whole universe and the movements of the celestial bodies*) was openly declared to us in the Quran - - -“. There is not one such declaration – not to mention an open one – in the Quran. But Muslims – and Islam – often twist facts and words to make the Quran seem true and if possible also “prove” a divine connection. This one, though, is too “openly” wrong.
We here specially mention that the verse MI/SMQ refers to – 51/7 – and which they claim says “By the sky full of paths and orbits”, according to M. Yusuf Ali says: “By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths” (the sun, the moon, and all the stars had their paths), and Shakir: “I (Muhammad or Allah*) swear by the heaven full of ways”. Not one word about orbits.
But even the text in MI/SMQ’s doctored version proves nothing at all – all paths and even the made up(?) orbits may easily refer to what everybody could and can see from Earth, and then it proves nothing about a divine connection.
Remember: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here the underlying facts are not proved to be caused by Allah (on the contrary; all the errors in the Quran proves no god was involved in its delivery – if it was delivered), and in addition at least two conclusions are possible (“divine” or “what man see on the firmament”).
Ab8. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“By (an oath – most sentences in the Quran starting with “by” are oaths*) Heaven with its cyclical systems - - -“ (86/11). We are sorry, but we rely more on translators like M. Yusuf Ali: “By the Firmament which returns (in its round)”.
MI/SMQ claims that this refers to the different layers of air and other physical facts above Earth, and their power to stop dangerous rays, etc. Yusuf Ali’s translation makes a joke out of those claims. In addition the atmosphere’s and higher layers’ power to stop, deflect or reflect rays, etc., are not “cyclical systems”.
This “proof” simply is one of the hopeless ones.
Ab9. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
“One fact about the universe revealed in the verses of the Quran, is that the sky is made up by seven layers” – references: 2/29 and 41/12.
Wrong – and a claim not very often used today, as it so obviously is wrong. The Quran – included the mentioned verses – claims that Allah made 7 heavens, “one above the other” above Earth. There is nowhere – not one single place – in the entire Quran where it is even hinted about layers in the atmosphere or higher. 41/12 even states that the stars are fastened to the lowermost of the heavens – what MI/SMQ calls layers in the sky – a fact MI/SMQ has got to know, but does not mention. It also is a fact that if the stars had existed in our atmosphere, nothing had been left neither of us nor of the Earth – another fact MI/SMQ has got to know unless he/she lives at least 1000 miles from the nearest primary school , but a fact he/she “forgets” to mention.
In this claim cherry-picking and twisting of facts are so strong that this claim is pure dishonesty. (But it is very normal for Muslims to “explain” one aspect of a point or a mistake, etc. in the Quran, but “forget” that other points in th Quran – or in reality – “kill” their conclusion or claim. Sometimes they have no more knowledge or brain, sometimes it is dishonesty.)
Ab10. (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).
The space above Earth can be divided in layers (see Ab9 just above). How many depends on your definitions of the layers and how high up you go. There are minimum 1 layer (the atmosphere) and maximum quite a number – as said depending on how you reckon the layers and how high you go.
Islam found that if they used convenient definitions and stopped at the right place, they got 7 layers. And Holy Allah – that was just the number of Heavens the Quran claims: This must be a proof for that the Quran was correct on this point – the 7 layers were the 7 heavens. Or the other way round: The 7 Heavens in the Quran foretold the claimed 7 layers above Earth!!
We must add that this claim partly has fallen into disrepute because it so clearly is wrong: F.x. the Quran tells that the stars are fastened to the lowest heaven, which here must be the top of the troposphere - - - but there are no stars fixed to the top of the troposphere. And the same with the good Muslims going to Heaven – there are no resurrected Muslims, not even Abraham or Jesus or Moses or Muhammad, walking around on top the different layers up there, and no shady fruit trees or long rows of thrones, no rivers, etc., etc. Also a cold place and little air to breathe for Muhammad and his followers in the upper heavens.
This claim simply is extreme stupidity and based only on number magic: It was possible to find the number 7 – like in 7 heavens – at a “convenient” place. The fact that other points in the Quran strikes the claim dead and impossible, in the beginning did not matter – it is quite normal for Muslims to promote even impossibilities to “proofs” even if other points even in the Quran prove the impossibility. It also is very normal for them to launch “solutions” and “proofs” solving one or two aspects with a question or a problem, in spite of that other aspects make the “solution” or “proof” impossible – just like here. But in this case the nonsense was too obvious, and the claim is not often used any more - - - but MI/SMQ seriously argues for it.
It also is quite an irony in the fact that Muslims sometimes claim that “heaven/heavens” means the universe, but other times that it means layers in our atmosphere.
No comment should be necessary – except that there exists a similar claim concerning layers in the Earth – a claim as stupid and unrealistic as this one, and based on the same magic of numbers only, just like this claim.
Ab.11. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT. www.freewebs.com/proofofislam )
According to EIT 51/47 says: “- - - it is We (Allah*) who are steadily expanding it (heaven)”. One thing is that EIT promptly claims that “heaven” means the Universe, in spite of that the Arab word meaning Universe in the modern meaning of that word does not exist in the entire Quran, and in spite of that the Quran makes it very clear that Muhammad/Allah had not the slightest idea about how the Universe really is – the Quran f.x. states that the stars are fastened to the lowest of the 7 heavens for decoration and for use as weapons – shooting star – against jinns and bad spirits spying on the heavens.
Another thing is that some years ago science discovered that the Universe is not steadily expanding – the expansion is accelerating. The Quran is wrong once more.
Yet another fact: A. Yusuf Ali tells that 51/47 says: “- - - for it is We (Allah*) Who created the vastness of Space” – not one word about expansion. M. H. Shakir tells in 51/47: “- - - most surely We (Allah*) are the makers of things ample” – not one word about an expanding heaven, not to mention universe. It seems once more to be the case of a Muslim who has cherry-picked – or made - a “good” translation not to find the truth, but to find the answer he wants.
And one more fact: In Aa11 EIT uses Yusuf Ali’s translation of 51/47 – there that version fits better the answer EIT wants. Here he does not even mention Yusuf Ali and his translation. Convenient – just choose what version you want of the texts, to get the answers you want.
And even one more fact: There is the word “coincidence”. Even if Muhammad really said the heaven (not the universe, but the heaven – the Arab word meaning the Universe in our meaning of that word, is not at all used in the Quran) was expanded by Allah – f.x. to stress his claimed power – it proves nothing unless it is proved that expansion of the “modern” universe was what Muhammad meant. If this was not what he meant, this is a coincidence, not a proof for divine knowledge. You are free to believe what you want, but as the claim partly is built on presumptions, and also that at least two conclusions are possible, this claim in any case is just a claim, not a proof.
Ab12. EIT here claims that 55/37 says: “When the sky is torn apart, so it was (like) a red rose, like ointment”. Accompanying this is a picture showing a star which went nova some hundred or thousand years ago - a stellar nebula – formed roughly like a rose. This he/she lists among the claimed proofs. But 55/37 talks about what will happen at the Day of Doom, whereas this picture has nothing to do with that day. A meaningless “proof” to say the least of it. Not to mention the difference between a single star and its stellar nebula, and the entire sky – where is the brain of some Muslims?
But as we have indicated other places: Muslims and Islam often have a strange understanding of what words like “proof”, “evidence”, etc. really mean.
As bad just here: A Yusuf Ali tells that 55/37 says: “- - - becomes red like ointment”, M. H. Shakir says: “- - - red like a red hide”, and M. Asad: “- - - becomes red like (burning) oil” in the English 2008 version, and “- - - pink like newly prepared leather” in the more reliable Swedish 2002 edition. Rather different from a planetary nebula (nebula = cloud, a planetary nebula is a spherical cloud surrounding a star, and is the result of a super nova explosion).
“Choose what version you like – or twist a version a little – and get the answer you wish for”.
Ab13. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT. www.freewebs.com/proofofislam ).
The Quran a few places (f.x. 21/33) mentions that the sun, the moon, and the planets follow (rounded) courses, and indicate that this is new knowledge, and thus a proof for that the Quran must be from a god.
But each and everybody can see that the sun, the moon, and the stars raise low in the east, follow a roundish course to the top of the sky and onwards to the low horizon in the west. Anybody knew this, and it absolutely needed no god to be told. One more totally invalid “proof”.
Another fact is that this movements in their “rounded course” is an illusion made by the spinning of the Earth – a fact any god had known, but Muhammad not, and a fact never mentioned in the Quran. Then who made the Quran?
EIT also mentions the motion of galaxies – something not even touched in the Quran. But he/she only mentions their spin, not their trajectories – far from circular mostly – in the galactic clusters, and also not their speeding towards the mysterious “Great Attractor” – a trip which definitely is not circular. And our sun? In contradiction to EIT’s claim it does not make a circle around in the galaxy – it moves in a billowing way above and below the galactic plane on its way around the galactic center – any god had known this - - - if he had mentioned the galaxy in the Quran, which neither he nor Muhammad does.
Cherry-pick the movements you want to use and forget the rest + cherry-pick the texts you want to use in the Quran – and also twist facts or texts if necessary – and get what answers you wish for.
Another point here and in many other claimed “proofs” for the Quran:
· In the Quran there are some 6200 verses. Lots of them contain more – often many more – than one claim, statement, piece of information, etc. An educated guess: Perhaps 20ooo points or more.
· The different Hadith collections contain a few tens of thousands Hadiths all together – the better part of them containing more than one point of claim, statement, claimed piece of information, etc. Perhaps 50ooo – 100ooo points all together.
· In the world there are billions of facts of all kinds.
· If you check all the points in the Quran and the Hadiths against the billions of facts in the world, you have got to find some points which fits together – either directly or with some twisting. The law of chance is like that.
· If you want to use such coincidences (a word Muslims looking for “proofs” for the Quran never use) for circumstantial proofs (such proofs hardly can be stronger than “circumstantial”) you first have to throw out all “hits” which become “hits” only after twisting of something – they are without value. Then you have to calculate if the rest of the hits are measurably more frequent than the law of probability for coincidences indicates. Only if the “hits” are measurably more frequent than the law of probability says, these “hits” start becoming an indication and – if frequent enough – slowly a circumstantial proof (to become more than “circumstantial” the percentage of real hits must be very high).
· In the Quran Muhammad hardly has on single 100% hit and only a limited number of partly hits. And then there are all the hundreds and more of mistakes. They count against the “hits” and really are proofs for that something is seriously wrong.
· Using these simple rules for logical deductions will show that Islam’s many claims about that such “hits” are proofs, by far are too few – especially when you take away the more or less twisted ones – to reach a classification even as an “indication”, not to mention as a “proof”. Please calculate yourself: Some billion facts (= some billion possible “hits”) in the world, compared to some dozen or at the very most a couple of hundred hits (after you have retracted the twisted ones and the obviously wrong ones). Especially if you then compare the result with the unbelievable high number of errors for such a small book, the result will not be even a circumstantial “proof”. (And the many errors prove exactly the opposite of what miracle hunters try to prove it their often dishonest ways.
· It is some 150 years since philosophers in France proved it was impossible for humans to prove a god. But sometimes it is possible to prove the non-existence or at least the non-involvement of a god (in Islam all the mistakes in the Quran makes this possible, because the book claims to come from an omniscient and omnipotent god, but such a god does not make mistakes – something is very wrong).
Ab14. (From “Evidence that Islam is True” - EIT).
“And We (Allah*) have made the heaven a roof, safe and well guarded” (21/32). This is proved by the Earth’s magnetic field, EIT claims.
But for one thing there is no roof up there. For another thing EIT does not prove that Muhammad meant a force field and not f.x. the material 7 claimed heavens up there (which is ever so much more likely). For a third thing even the magnetic field guards only against one kind of danger and even not all versions of that one – only parts of the cosmic rays from the sun.
Ask f.x. in Australia how many cases they have of skin cancer because of the sun. And then there are the meteors, etc. They do not kill often, but sometimes they do so in a grand scale – at least two of the major mass extinctions on Earth is strongly suspected to be because of meteors, and science is practically sure that the big dinosaurs disappeared because of the meteor which landed in Yucatan some 64 million years ago and made the Chicxulub crater – 112miles/18okm across. And the meteor which landed in the taiga in Siberia (in 1904 if we remember correctly) easily had wiped out Mecca or Cairo or Baghdad or Teheran if it had landed there.
A roof which guards only for parts of the dangers, far from is “safe and well guarded”.
And even if it had been, it would be no proof for anything in the Quran unless it in addition is proved both that this force field was the “roof” Muhammad meant, and for another that it is made by Allah and not by any other god or f.x. by nature. “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Like more or less all Islamic claims about scientific (and other) proofs for the Quran, the under lying claimed facts are not proved, and in addition very often – like here - 2 or more conclusions are possible. The claimed proof is invalid.
Ab15. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT.)
“And what will explain to thee (humans/Muslims*) what the Night Visitant is? – (It is) the Star of piercing brightness…”. Islam does not know what star is meant, but guesses that it is the Morning Star. EIT finds that this must mean pulsars – something which never is mentioned neither in the Quran, nor in Hadiths. The claim is impossible for at least two reasons: Pulsars are not “stars of piercing brightness” – it simply is not even possible to see them without very strong telescopes – they normally are registered on radio wavelengths only. And the other fact is that they are no night visitants – somebody or something coming at night – as they are just as strong and hearable (on radio) all day.
One of many made up “proof” for divine knowledge in the Quran.
And the old fact: Islam has – like for all such claimed “proofs” – been unable to prove that for one thing the pulsars are caused by Allah and not by any other god (f.x. Yahweh) or by nature, and for another thing it is not proved that this was what Muhammad meant – EIT only claims so. In this connection also see Ab13 above. One of the sillier made-up “proofs” as pulsars definitely are not “piercing” bright stars.
Ab16. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” – EIT.)
“Blessed is He (Allah*) who made constellations in the sky and placed therein a lamp, and a moon giving light” (25/61). “It is He (Allah*) who made the sun light up (the sky) and the moon that is lit”. (10/5) (A. Yusuf Ali here says: “- - - the moon to be a light (of beauty) - - -“, and M. H. Shakir: “- - - and the moon a light - - -“. In Arab like in English the words used here for shining lamps (“diya” and “nur”) are interchangeable and means the same. Modern Islam – which very well knows that the moon just is reflecting light from the sun (and a little re-reflected Earth-shine), tends to claim that “nur” may mean “light from another source” (one translation even uses the words “reflected light”, but the Arab word meaning reflected or similar is not used in the entire Quran), but the oldest such claim we have found is from 1809 AD – long after science had found the reality of the moon-shine, and long after Muslims had started “adjusting” things to make the Quran look like the truth.
This “proof” is absolutely invalid, unless the claims it builds on – and the main point is that Muhammad really meant reflected light – first are proved. One more case where words like “perhaps” might be acceptable, though unlikely if one has enough goodwill, but the word” proof” or “evidence” does not belong to a speculation like this. It is extremely likely that the reason why Muhammad used different words, simply was that he saw that the sun and the moon were very different.
Ab17. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT. www.freewebs.com/proofofislam ).
“And the Sun runs its course for a period of time determined for it - - -“.(36/38)”. “- - - each (the sun and the moon*) runs its course for a determined time”. The fact that science tells stars has a limited lifetime here is indicated to be a proof for that the Quran is proved right when it tells that the sun will come to an end, and thus must have divine knowledge.
For one thing: Which human being is unable to think that things – all things – may come to an end? For another: As the Quran several places states that Allah has predestined the future for absolutely everybody and everything, it is quite natural that he also has predestined “a determined time” also for the sun. And for a third “a period determined” may mean a period of one day each day and night.
Besides this is about the future – it is not sure the time for the sun really is determined. For one thing if the sun runs into one of the big clouds during the next some billions of years, it may soak up hydrogen and prolong its life. If it collides with another star its life may be prolonged or shortened or come to a sudden end. For a third there is the unlikely, but possible possibility that it can come too close to another star and be torn apart or become part of a double star – and in the last case perhaps loose matter to the other star or steal matter from it. All these possibilities will lead to that its life time – its time determined – will change and the claim in these verses will be wrong. Until the sun is finished it is impossible to know the outcome. In addition it is not clear what is meant – and the claim in addition needs no more than a mediocre human brain to be thought. (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion/outcome”).
This “proof” definitely is invalid.
Ab18. 24/35 compares Allah to a burning lamp, bright as if it were a brilliant star. What that has to do with astronomical “proofs” for anything in Islam or the Quran, we are unable to understand. May be this tells something about EIT or about Muslims eager hunt for “proofs”?
Ab19. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. )
“The plural use (of the word “heavens”*) is one of the miracles in the Quran”. ICCI here refers to the fact that according to the Quran, there are 7 heavens, and it claims that there are 7 layers in the atmosphere, and that this proves that Muhammad had divine knowledge and the Quran thus is from a god. This claim over the last years seems to have been drifting out of vogue, because it so obviously cannot be true, but Iceland is far from the main streams of thinking and knowing it seems. Therefore this, even though we have mentioned it before.
The atmosphere can more or less arbitrarily be defined as layers (with unclear and wobbling borders). How many to a large degree depends on the one doing it – from 1 (“the atmosphere”) and up. How many depends on how you split and how high you go. And if you continue into space like some do, you will be able to find more.
What Muslims do is to use convenient definitions and stop at a convenient higth - - - and O Miracle! There are 7 levels!! Just like the number of heavens in the Quran!! “The Quran is proved!!!”. Honesty or the search for the truth are not always the main thing for some Muslims, but to be able to “prove” the Quran and its claimed divine origin.
But apart from the nonsense and dishonesty in this kind of argumentation there are at least four facts – facts there are no chance that the writer on Iceland (and all others who know the Quran) does not know:
· According to the Quran, the stars are fastened to the lowermost of the 7 heavens. But there are no stars in the lower part of the atmosphere. (The lowest heaven should be the top of the troposphere, but according to science the stars are not there.)
· As the moon according to the Quran travels “between the heavens”, the lowest one and its stars has to be below the moon, whereas at least the 7. has to be outside the moon (according to some Hadiths far outside). But outside the moon means far outside the atmosphere.
· The seven heavens – or at least the lowest one – has to be material (78/12 even says they are strong according to M. H Shakir). If not the stars could not be fastened to it. But there is no material heaven up there in the atmosphere – and also not further up for that case. Not even the Voyenger satellites on their way to the stars have collided with one.
· The 7 heavens also are the place for Islam’s Paradise – where shady trees grow, cool rivers flow (f.x. the Nile and the Euphrates starts up there, believe it or not), and resurrected material humans walk around in a lazy life, living in tall buildings and sitting on thrones. But nothing of this has ever been observed – and how can humans walk around on air? – and how can the resurrected Muhammad live in the 7. heaven? – the air there has to be too thin for breathing (hardly existing if it is outside the moon).
· An extra interesting point: ICCI in their chapter “The Sun and the Moon” quotes 78/12-13: “We (Allah*) have built 7 strong heavens, and placed among them a (radiant) lamp (the sun*) - - -“. That the sun is among the heavens, means that at least one heaven is above the sun. Then it is way above the atmosphere (difficult for Muhammad to breathe?). This ICCI knows, but all the same claims that layers in the atmosphere prove the 7 heavens in the Quran – but the atmosphere stops very long before it reaches the sun. Dishonesty? Stupidity? Al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie)?
· For an extra point we may add that ICCI is one of the “strong” ones to use claims, unproved or wrong “information”, wishful thinking, invalid logic, etc. as basis for “proofs” – and it is no coincidence that we put the word between quotation marks.
It is so overly typical for Muslims and for Islam this that they “explain” or “prove” one aspect of a theme or an error, but “forget” that other texts or facts make their “explanations”, “proofs”, etc. impossible and invalid. Worse: In too many cases the texts they omit, are – like here – so well known that there is no chance that a knower of the Quran does not know about it. Similar goes for the disuse of facts. Such disuse is not a mistake, but pure dishonesty. But then Islam is the only of the big religions which not only accepts the use of dishonesty within wide limits, but also advises the use of it “if necessary” to defend or promote Islam. And the use of this “proof” for the 7 heavens and for the Quran, shows that the writer on Iceland are among the ones using dishonesty (al-Taqiyya, Kitman, Hilah, etc) – he knows the Quran so well that there is no chance he does not know the 4 points we mentioned.
But what is a religion worth if it has to rely on dishonesty? And what is their “information” and claims worth if they at least partly – and who knows which parts – rely on dishonesty? Not to mention: How much is true of what they and of what Muhammad – who also according to central Islamic literature accepted the use of dishonesty and himself practiced it – tells/told about Allah and about Islam?
Ab20. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“- - - can you (humans*) see any flaw (in the sky*)?” When we see up, we see the space – simply vacuum. How can there be visible flaws in vacuum?
In addition: Even if the Quran is right that there is no visible flaw in the vacuum, it proves nothing about a divine connection. The lack of such flaws is a fact anybody, included Muhammad, can/could see.
Ab21. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“It (space*) is a “system” consisting of countless stars, solar systems, planets, satellites and comets”. And ICCI indicates that this is what the Quran tells – and thus proves a divine origin of the book.
But what the Quran really tells, is that there is a flat Earth (it is not specified that it is flat – that was too much a matter of cause for Muhammad – but everything it is compared to, are flat things). Over it there are 7 material heavens (if they were not material, the stars could not be fastened to one, and no Paradise like described in the Quran could be placed there). They are resting on invisible – not non-existing, but invisible – pillars (pillars nobody and nothing has ever bumped into). And as mentioned the stars are fastened to the lowest of the material heavens, whereas the moon (and likely the sun) travels between the heavens.
Also these “facts” are so well known that there is no-one who really knows the Quran does not know it. Which means that this writer sitting on Iceland is no believer in the use of honesty – like too many Muslim agitators, miracle scholars, and miracle hunters. But how much is true in a religion partly based on the use of dishonesty? Muhammad even lied in the Quran itself.
Ab22. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“Do you not see how Allah has created seven heavens - - - and has made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a (radiant) lamp?” Many a Muslim makes a big story from the fact that the Quran describes the sun and the moon differently. This must mean that the Quran has divine knowledge about atomic fire in the sun and the moon only reflecting sunshine!! – and thus that the Quran is from a god!!
But the “normal” human being who does not both see and feel that there are big differences between the sun and the moon, does not exist. The only thing the differences in the descriptions prove, is that the old Arabs knew there were qualitative differences between the two. But no god had to tell them this.
To use points like this for “proofs”, tells not a little about Islam and about some Muslims. And perhaps something about their readers.
Ab23. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“We (Allah*) have built over you (humans*) seven strong heavens - - -“. But where are they? – none of the many rockets has collided against one, even though the Quran here claims they are strong?
Ab24. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“When the sun, which is a star - - - is referred to, the (Arab for light*) word ‘kandil’ is used. The word ‘kandil’ also used when referring to the stars - - -. Yet a very important distinction is made where the word “nur” (another Arab word for light) is used for the moon. In this way, the stars and the objects that are not stars are distinguished from one another. This fact, which could not have been known 14 centuries ago, is one of the miracles of the Quran”.
· It is not a miracle unless Islam proves this was what Muhammad meant to indicate.
· We cannot find that the word “nur” is used for planets.
· We cannot find that the word “nur” is used for shooting stars.
· We cannot find that the word “nur” is used for comets.
· As far as we can find “nur” only is used for the moon – which only makes it possible to make a conclusion about the moon. ICCI’s claim that this covers “objects that are not stars” is wrong.
· The moon is only one object. A sample of one – among several/many others – is statistically invalid, and proves nothing.
· Worse: The ones not able to see there is a quality difference between the light from the moon and the much sharper light from stars and the sun, need glasses. Muhammad needed no miracle from Allah to see this.
This “proof/miracle” is one more case of wishful thinking combined with omission of obvious facts, but cherry-picking of others.
Ab25. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
Stars were the only means of navigation, ICCI claims.
Before the compass there f.x. was the sunstone. Any person on Island should know that – the old Vikings used it. But that aside: What does the fact that stars were used for navigation prove about a divine connection to the Quran? That this was done, was very common knowledge, and needed no divine revelation to become aware of.
“In the Quran Allah says: “Nay, I (Allah*) swears by the places of the stars - - -“ (56/75). As a proof for divine revelation, this is not even a joke, as it as said was common knowledge.
Another fact it that A. Yusuf Ali – which ICCI frequently quotes, but not here – says: “- - - by the setting of the Stars - - -“. M. H. Shakir says: “- - - by the falling of the stars - - -“. M.Asad says in his comment to the verse that the word used – “mawki” – “denotes the time or place or manner at which something comes down”. Which means that ICCI silently has “doctored” the text of the Quran to try to find a point – “to fall down” definitely is different from “stable places”.
Honesty in Islam.
Ab26. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
The Quran uses different words for the light from the sun and the light from the moon. This is a scientific miracle, as the difference between the two was not known 1400 years ago, ICCI claims.
The Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal or Homo Habilis, not to mention old Arab, unable to see that there was qualitative difference between the sun and the moon, hardly ever existed. To use arguments like this tell a lot more about ICCI and his knowledge and/or brain and/or honesty, than it tells about the Quran.
Logical nonsense to at least the third degree.
Ab27. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“One (the sun*) is depicted as a source of light and the other as a light-reflecting agent. It is impossible for such a detail to have been known at that time”. Here ICCI uses two dishonesties to make – in double meaning – a point. For one thing it is easy for anybody, also “at that time” to see and to feel that the sun and the moon were very different kinds of light – it was well known at that time and long before. For another: The Quran gives no indication why there is a difference.
And for a third: The word “reflecting” or similar is not at all used in the original Arab Quran. Something any miracle scholar – and other scholars – know very well. Honesty in Islam.
And we may add a number 4: ICCI themselves quotes 25/61: “- - - and a light-giving moon”. Light-giving means something which makes and gives away light. Not one hint about reflected light.
Muslims all too often cherry-pick some words and omit others, and then twist things a little – or much – to get the answer they want – true answer or wrong answer does not mean too much (remember al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie, Kitman – the lawful half-truth, Hilah – the lawful pretending/circumventing, etc., which all are not only permitted, but advised to use “if necessary” to promote or defend Islam. Islam is the only one of the big religions which have such rules for permitted/advised dishonesty), as long as it makes the Quran look true.
Some “proof”! And some reliable religion!
Ab28. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“These movements (of the celestial bodies*) are fully controlled and all bodies move in a computed orbit”. This is what lay people believe, but it is wrong. There are elements of chaos in the movements which make the result of computing unsure after some time, and invalid after enough time. In addition there are the elements of chance – f.x. collisions or of near-collisions with even dramatic changes of the course and speed. Therefore when ICCI quotes 55/5: “The sun and the moon follow courses (exactly) computed”, it definitely is no scientific proof for the Quran. Any god had known this – then who made the Quran?
Another and more serious point, is that the Quran here describes what the old Arabs saw of the movements on the firmament, and no divine revelation was necessary to see such movements and orbits – up in the east, then raising high, and then down in the west – and in some way back to the east. But ICCI – and many other Muslims - try to pretend Muhammad was talking about modern astronomy.
Ab29. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“Each (sun, moon, day, night*) (just) swims along in (its own) orbit”. What kind of “scientific” proof is this? This is things everybody could see each and every day – and night.
Day and night do not even have orbits (it is an illusion made by Earth’s spin) – even though Muhammad likely believed so. Any good had known this. Then who made the Quran?
Ab30. From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“The Quran signifies the harmonious (not quite correct – there also is some chaos up there) movement of these (the celestial*) bodies as follows: “By the sky full of paths and orbits” (21/33 – which by the way according to A. Yusuf Ali says: “- - - all (the celestial bodies) swim along, all in its rounded course”).
(Another point is that ICCI has got its astronomy and gravity force wrong. Every celestial body influences every other such within a reasonable distance. This means that many such bodies – f.x. Earth and our sun – do not follow harmonious circles like ICCI claims, but wobble slightly along”.
What kind of scientific “proof” is this? The Quran tells what everybody can see: They rise from low in the east, follow their rounded courses, paths, and orbits to high over us, and then down again to settle low in the west. This picture everybody can see every day and clear night, ICCI indicates takes divine knowledge to know, and thus lists it along with ICCI’s other claimed scientific “proofs” for that the Quran is of divine origin!
No comments. And none should be necessary.
Ab31. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“The sun - - - travels more than 17 million km a day in space. This journey of the sun is referred to by Allah as follows: ‘And the sun runs unto a resting-place for him”. The interesting fact(?) here is not that the sun moves - that everybody can see, and not even Muhammad needed a god to tell him this. The interesting piece of information here is the sun’s resting-place. No scientist has ever found it.
Muslims’ capacity for explaining – or “explaining” - one aspect of a point, but overlook that other aspects “kill” their “explanations” is impressive.
And what is absolutely sure: Such blunders as a claimed “resting-place of the sun” definitely do not prove involvement of any god – not even a baby dwarf one.
Ab32. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“We (Allah*) have made the sky a canopy well guarded - - -“. ICCI here compares the surface of the moon with the surface of Earth, and indicates that the difference is because Allah’s claimed canopy has saved Earth from the meteors. The real story is that Earth has been hit by more meteors than the moon, but that tectonic activity, climate activity, and the flora, etc. eradicate the traces from them. The here claimed canopy – the atmosphere – absolutely does not shield Earth from meteors, except from the very smallest ones. Definitely not “well guarded”.
This is a more than normal – even for miracle scholars – nonsense “proof”.
Ab33. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
Plasma clouds. Very roughly these are correctly described. The making of Earth’s magnetic force field is not quite correctly described, but ok.
But what scientific proof is this? It proves nothing unless at least two things first are proved:
· That this is what Muhammad meant when he told this. If not, plasma and solar wind are irrelevant for the texts about this in the Quran.
· That it was meant as a foretelling of a fact. Nothing is a foretelling unless it is meant to be a foretelling. If something is said and then later it just happens, it is a coincidence, not a foretelling of something. (But the word “coincidence” does not exist for Muslims wanting to prove the Quran.)
“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here at least two of the underlying claims are not proved. And you may notice: This goes for very many or most of the claimed “proofs” for the Quran. And/or there are more than one possible conclusion/explanation
Ab34. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“Only harmless rays (are*) let in”. For this to prove anything at all, Islam first once more has to prove the two points in Ab33 just above. In addition they have to prove:
· That those rays inherently are not adverse to life (difficult, as they are adverse to many life forms), and that it is not the different life forms which to a low or higher degree has developed tolerance to the different kinds of rays. (If this is the case – and it is according to science – this proof is totally invalid, also for this reason.)
“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here at least 3 claims are not proved, and at least 2 conclusions are possible. Invalid as a proof, not to mention as a scientific proof.
Ab35. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“Only harmless rays (are*) let in”. For this to prove anything at all, Islam first once more has to prove the two points in Ab33 just above. In addition they have to prove:
· That those rays inherently are not adverse to life (difficult, as they are adverse to many life forms), and that it is not the different life forms which to a low or higher degree has developed tolerance to the different kinds of rays.
“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here at least 3 claims are not proved, and at least 2 conclusions are possible. Invalid as a proof, not to mention as a scientific proof.
Ab36. “There is no doubt that in the 7th century, it was impossible to know (some scientific facts*)”. Very correct – but we are back to the two points in Ab33 above. Unless they are proved, the facts pointed to here are irrelevant and are proving nothing. Self proclaimed prophets have used claims and bluffs both before and after Muhammad – and also coincidence is a fact of life. The same goes for changing of the “understanding” of texts – very obvious with ICCI and with many other Muslims trying to prove the Quran – to make them fit modern science.
Ab37. (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)
“He (Allah*) created the heavens (plural and wrong*) without any pillars you can see; He set (the Arab word here means “dropped” – like in “dropped an anchor” – but no mountain ever was dropped down*) om the Earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you - - -“.
· For one thing mountains do not have a stabilizing effect concerning earthquakes, like Islam and Muslims like to claim – the processes resulting in earthquakes are very different from mountains, even though mountains often/normally are a secondary effects of the same processes.
· Even if mountains had had a stabilizing effect, it would have been miniscule, as its “enormous” mass makes up less than 1/10 of 1% of the mass of Earth’s crust. A man running back and forth across a ship in high sea, has about the same stabilizing effect on the ship as a mountain had had on the Earth - - - if it had had a stabilizing effect.
· Much more serious just here is that the sentence “- - - without any pillars you can see”, does not mean “without pillars”, but “with invisible pillars”. And when ICCI tells that belief in pillars keeping the 7 heavens up there, is superstition, they are right.
· We also repeat that the original Quran does not talk about earthquake like modern Muslims claim, but about the danger of that the flat Earth might start wobbling and perhaps turn over.
One more proof for divine knowledge in and origin of the Quran?
Ab38. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
“(Muhammad used*) the same poetic term (“lamp”) to refer to both the sun (71/16) and the stars (67/5), obviously indicating that the mind behind the Book knew that the sun was a star - - -“. Wrong – it only indicates that Muhammad knew lamps came in different sizes. Invalid proof – more than one conclusion/explanation exist.
Ab39. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
“- - - the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course”. HCM claims – like normal for Muslims without any documentation – that this proves that Muhammad knew about the sun/earth’s movement around the galaxy. But:
· It only proves that people could see the stars, the sun, and the moon rose from low in the east, then curving across the high sky, and finally curving down again to low in the west.
· The Quran never indicate anything about something like a galaxy, not to mention its different movements.
The Quran mentions what was common knowledge in Arabia, that the celestial bodies “swim” across the sky. HCM – by lack of knowledge or dishonesty – twists it and claims it is talking about something very different. An invalid proof, both because HCM does not prove that Muhammad meant the galaxy and because at least two conclusions/explanations are possible (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”.)
Ab40. (From The House of the Crescent Moon – HCM.)
“The Koran even knew somehow about the Big Bang”. There is no indication in the Quran about such knowledge. That Muhammad claimed his god expanded his heaven, only indicates that Muhammad told that his already all powerful god expanded his territory and became even more powerful. Or more likely that he took the parts from the lump of mass he split into Earth + the heavens, and expanded it into the finished and static mini universe described in the Quran, where only the “lamps” in the sky were moving. If Muslims claim something else, they will have to bring proofs, not only unlikely claims (unlikely because there nowhere in the Quran is mentioned anything similar to the Big Bang – f.x. “clove asunder” is something very different from “exploded”) – or the real universe. Here HCM – like so often in Islam – has used a slight likeness (the word “expanding”) and “magic of similarity” to create a claimed “proof”. When one uses magic of similarity – normally found in primitive religions and cultures only + in fairy tales – one can “prove” nearly anything if one finds some kind of similarity, which very often is possible, though the similarities very often are irrelevant like here (there are many things which are expanding without being proof for an expanding universe, or the other way around).
A totally invalid proof – it is not proved that Muhammad talked about the Big Bang, etc., and more than one conclusion/explanation for the words are possible.
Ab41. From “Wireclub/topix/religion.”
“The expansion of the universe is one of the most important pieces of evidence that the universe was created out of nothing (like the Quran may indicate*)”. But this “strong proof” is wrong. According to science the Universe was not made from nothing, but from a “singularity” – and a singularity far from is “nothing”. Even rather small ones may have a mass like many suns, and you find them at the “bottom” of Black Holes/singularity gravitational “wells”. You may say the singularity which was rent asunder in the Big Bang, was an extra super big Black Hole/singularity - - - and very far from nothing.
The claim is very wrong and the “proof” invalid.
Ab42. (From the Quran – the shape of Earth):
That the Earth is flat, was such a matter of course, that this nowhere in the book is directly stated. But each time Earth is compared to something, it is to something flat, and the Arab word used also indicates flatness.
· 2/22: “- - - (Allah*) has made the earth your coach (or bed*) (Arab:“firasha”) - - -“.
· 13/3: “And it is He (Allah*) who has spread out (“madda”) the earth - - -“.
· 15/19: “And the earth We (Allah*) have spread out (“madadnaha”) - - -“.
· 20/53: “- - - the earth like a carpet spread out (“mahdan”) - - -“.
· 43/10: “- - - (Allah*) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out (“mahadan”)…”
· 50/7: “And the earth – We (Allah*) have spread it out (“madadnaha”) - - -“.
· 51/48: “And We (Allah*) have spread out the (spacious) earth: how excellent do We spread out! (“farashnaha”)”.
· 71/19: “And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out) (“bisata”) - - -“.
· 78/6: “Have We (Allah*) not made the earth as a wide expanse (“mihada” – sometimes also translated “bed”) - - - ?
· 79/30: “And the earth, moreover, hath He (Allah*) extended (to a wide expanse) (“dahaha”).
· 88/20: “And the earth, how it is spread (or flattened*) out (“sutehat”) - - -“.
· 91/6: “By the Earth and its (wide) expanse (“tahaha”) - - -“.
Every place the earth is said to be - or compared to - something flat. Also the Arab words “madda”, “madadnaha”, “firashah”, “mahdan”, “farashnaha”, “bisata”, “mihada”, “dahaha”, “tahaha”, and “sutehat”, each and every one are Arab words for flat or for something flat, according to our sources.
And this was how Muhammad told it, and this was how his listeners understood it – and how Muslims understood it for 1300+ years, until Islam some time in the middle of the 20. century really grew aware of that this had to be wrong, and about the same time started to “find” “scientific proofs” in the Quran (the idea is not older than that, but as Islam has no valid proofs for anything of essence in the religion, and as little educated people and strong wishful thinking, came to believe in these claimed “proofs”, they became efficient arguments (honest or dishonest does not matter much for many Muslims or for Islam when it comes to defending or promoting the religion), and the number of findings ballooned, helped by professional miracle scholars and more or less professional miracle hunters.
Thus – in spite of that all places in the Quran the Earth is flat, you meat Muslims who with a straight face tell you that the Quran tells that the Earth is a sphere (or is egg-shaped – based on a wrong translation by Rashad Khalifa: One place the Quran compares Earth to an ostrich’s (flat) nest (“dahaha”), but Khalifa translates it to “an ostrich’s egg”.
But read for yourself – there is no doubt that the Quran thinks Earth is flat – just like Muhammad and all other Arabs believed at that time.
A curious fact here: As late as in 1982 Abdul Aziz Bin Baz – at that time the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a “fatwa” saying that science was wrong, and that Earth is flat – and that any Muslim saying something else contradicted the Quran and its teaching. This fatwa is meaningless, but it had been doubly meaningless if not the Quran told that Earth is flat.
In the Quran Earth is flat – though many Muslims try to claim that “as the Quran tells that earth is a sphere/egg shaped (see above*), this miracle of knowledge proves divine origin of the Quran” (even if it had been true that the Quran said spherical or something like that, it was not necessarily a miracle or a proof, as the Greeks had found out this a small millennium earlier, and much of the Arab’s knowledge and “knowledge” came from Greece. This simply was knowledge at least among some also in the old time.)
Many Muslims’ arguments, logic, and honesty are on this level.
Ab43. (From “Muslim Tents” – “Islam and Science” (MT)).
“The Hour (of Judgment (= the Day of Doom*)) is neigh and the moon is cleft asunder”. This tells that when the Day of Doom approaches, the moon will be cleft asunder (and the Quran says “asunder”, not “in two”). But Muslim tradition has settled on the claim that this was something which happened at the time of Muhammad – something which would have resonated in the book and against anyone asking for proofs if it had been true. And one of the first effects of the US landing on the moon, were claims and rumors saying that they had found proofs for that the moon once had been split in two and thus proving the Quran, but that the devils (Americans) suppressed that fact.
MT even today writes: “One of the discoveries of (the moon*) project was that there is a layer of material that splits the moon in 2 halves and that the only explanation to this discovery is that the moon some times in its history and rejoined”.
· Not on single Muslim included MT has ever documented this claim – it is a rumor, not a fact.
· A rumor is not a scientific fact – not to mention a scientific proof.
· If it had been a fact, this had been told in Muslim – and other – universities, not in obscure pages on internet.
· The reason why none has been able to document the claim, and why it is not taught in universities, is that it simply is not true. Today the moon is well mapped, and there is no indication for such a claimed layer. Just check for yourself.
· Even if the layer had existed, it was no proof for that the moon once had split in two. There is an additional requirement, namely to prove that at least once the gravity of the moon had been nullified, to make it possible for the two halves to drift apart so that people on Earth could see it, and then that gravity had been switched on again to make the halves meet again, and for one thing met again so softly that no structures were smashed and no “earth” or dust dislodged, and for another that the two were reunited in just the same position like before. (If not such traces long since had been discovered by modern astronomers, included Muslim ones.)
· I – the one who is writing just this – read a lot of astronomy. I have never come across any layer which splits the moon in two – and beware that if it had really existed, there had been big headings in all scientific magazines.
This simply is one of the many made up “proof” for the Quran. MT is one of the less serious and less reliable of the many unreliable pages about science and the Quran on the net. (Most of even Muslim pages have left this claimed “proof” behind, because it too obviously is wrong – if for no other reasons, then because not even Muslim astronomers ever mention it. But MT pretends to be sure.)
Ab44. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“I (Muhammad?*) swear by the sky and (MuA: the phenomenon of) Tariq, and what will explain to you what Tariq is? It is a star that pierces (MuA: or makes a hole)” (86/1-3). MuA claims this is a proof – a proof, not a possibility or something, but a proof - for that Muhammad knew about black holes/singularities (many Muslims debating this, seem not even to know that the correct name is not a Black Hole, but a singularity) in space.
Muhammad Ali: (By the Sky and the Night-Visitant (therein) – and what will explain to thee what the Night Visitant is? It is a star of piercing (brightness) - - -“. Shakir says the same. M. Azad says (translated from Swedish): “- - - a star whose light lights up (the deepest darkness)”.
To find a point to claim, MuH first has used a “special” translation. Quite normal for “miracle hunters” in Islam.
· There is a difference between to be piercing something, and to give piercing light. Already here is some dishonesty.
· Why does he use the expression “(the phenomenon of) Tariq”, when it is clear from different translations that it simply means something which comes at night and lights up – and in addition he claims it means “a puncture or a minute hole”?
· Worse: MuH seems to have no real knowledge about black holes/singularities. They in reality are no holes, but places in space where extremely big masses of and extremely concentrated matter makes an extremely strong field of gravity. The word “hole” only is used figuratively, and in illustrations to visualize the strength of the gravity field.
· MuH says it is stars which makes holes. But Black Holes are not stars, but singularities.
· The correct name is not, but a singularity and it is described s a “gravitational well” – and as it is the strength of gravity which is measured, and as the gravity there is enormous, it could as well have been named “gravitational pinnacle”.
· One characteristic for singularities, is that they do not emit light – the reason why they are called “black”, and one more reason why a black hole/singularity is not a star. (There may be light from outside a Black Hole/singularity – from its “event horizon”- - - but then we are not talking about something small and piercing any more.)
This simply is one more case of Islam’s “magic of similarity”. MuA has dropped the top translators, even though normally it is they who make the most correct translations. Then he/she has found an obscure translator using a word he/she likes: “Piercing”. Drop “brightness” in “piercing brightness” (= piercing, strong light), and use only the word piercing – and pretend it is something material which can pierce holes. Then we suddenly have the word “hole”.
There are millions of holes in the world. But what is named Black Hole/singularity and really is described figuratively as a well, not a hole, needs proofs to prove Muhammad at all knew about it. The similarity is that “piercing light” may make a hole if one pretend it means something material, and not light, whereas Black Hole is not really a hole, but it is known by that name. (It in reality just is a place in space with enormously concentrated and often extremely much matter, creating a super strong gravity.
This is enough for Islam’s “magic of similarity”. And it is not a “perhaps” or something – it is a proof for the divinity of the Quran!!
This “proof” is to such a degree logically and factual invalid, that it is not even nonsense. This even more so as the Quran never mentions anything even remotely like a Black Hole/singularity.
If you look into Muslims’ and miracle hunters’ “proofs”, you will find such logical nonsense and dishonesty again and again – and in all too many cases the reality is too well known for Muslim scholars not to know that the “proofs” are made up ones. But to “prove” the Quran has priority high above facts and honesty. After all: Uneducated people, naïve people, and wishful thinkers gladly believe it as long as the words the made up “proof” is wrapped in, sound correct.
One hint to the “miracle hunters”: Why not instead use the full expression “piercing light” to “prove” that Muhammad did not only know the Black Holes/singularities, but also the laser gun?
But how much is a religion worth, and how much is true about the religion and about its god, if they methodically uses – and have to use – dishonesty when telling about it?
Ab45. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“By the sky with all its weaving/knitting (“huu-buk)…” MuA claims this is proved by the string theory in modern science, and the fact that one theory within that theory says that may be on the Planck scale (a scale where it takes a million trillion trillion trillions to male one meter – 10 in minus 42. power), perhaps the Universe has a structure like woven – but a theory, and hardly that. A proof for the divine knowledge of the Quran – not “perhaps”, but “a proof”!
One thing is that the string theory is not proved – it only is one of several, albeit one of the stronger ones. This fact alone makes any claim about a proof built on the string theory invalid – “a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. This even more so as the perhaps woven structure of the Universe is not even a theory, but speculation within the string theory. To build a proof on speculations within a not proved theory, is logical nonsense.
But of course it may sound strong to people without knowledge and/or brain.
Another thing is that the good translators translate the sentence like this: “By the Sky with (its) numerous Paths - - -“. Paths or ways are the words used – nothing about weaving or anything similar, but “paths” or “ways”. MuH has done just like in the previous “proof” (Ab44): Found an obscure translation using an interesting word – or made one him-/herself - which combined with “magic of similarity” – the word “weaving” – is not an indication, but a proof for that Muhammad knew a perhaps correct and perhaps wrong speculation about the microstructure of the Universe.
At best MuH knows nothing about the rules for logical deductions. At worst he/she simply disregards them and is plainly dishonest.
This “proof” – like the others – are totally invalid as proofs. We remind you: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion” – here everything is based on claims and nothing on proved facts, and in addition several conclusions are possible, from “it is unlikely in the extreme that this was what Muhammad was talking about”, to “there is a slight possibility for that Muhammad knew something or by coincidence hit something”. (Anything stronger than this there is no basis for in the underlying claims - - - except for for miracle hunters (also called miracle scholars)).
Ab46. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“He (Allah) coils the night upon the day and He coils the day upon the night”. (39/5). MuH claims that this proves Muhammad knew the heliocentric cosmology. But the only thing this quote had proved – even if the verse had been correctly translated – is that Muhammad was able to see how day and night changed, and to in a way describe what he saw. He did not need to know anything about neither astronomy nor geology to see how sunrise and nightfall worked. Another nonsense and totally illogical “proof”.
Another point is that the good translators use words like “overlap”, “overtake”, etc. – what everyone sees each morning and evening – not “coil”. Once more MuA has used this standard trick for miracle hunters: “Adjust the text – or the facts – to be able to find something”. Because what counts is to find proofs – honest or dishonest – for the Quran, not to find what really is the truth.
But once more: How much is true in a religion partly based on the use of dishonesty (f.x. al-Taqiyya – the lawful lie, Kitman – the lawful half-truth, Hilah – the lawful pretending/circumventing) + it accepts the use of deceit, etc. and even breaking of words and oaths? And how much is true in such persons’ arguments?
Ab47. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“The sun’s movement is not something that is evident to our eyes or experience, but needs specialized equipment”. And he/she claims this proves that Muhammad knew about the rotation of the sun – which only is one of the sun’s movements (= several possible conclusions).
But excuse us madam/sir! Each and every Arab could see the sun’s movement as it “swam” across the sky. Muhammad was talking about the sun gliding along the sky, not about something none of his audience could see.
Further comments should not be necessary.
Ab48. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“And the sun constantly journeys towards a homing pace for it - - -“. There are a few similar points in the Quran. They refer to the place the sun rested during night till it was ready for next days’ “journey”. MuH is able to see that this refers to the sun’s trajectory towards the center of our galaxy “just like mentioned in the Quran (36/39). A very nice “proof”, as for one thing this is not what 36/39 says, and for another because if there is one place in the Universe our sun is not heading, it is towards the center of the Milky Way. Of the sun’s several movements (f.x. around itself, wobbling around the galaxy, following the galaxy around in “the Local Group” of galaxies, which again follows the local super-group of galaxies, which again is speeding towards the mysterious “Great Attractor”) - not one of them is leading towards our galactic center.
Also his claim that the sun’s orbit around in the galaxy is “226 million miles (accurate to within 6%)” is laughingly wrong. We are roughly 30 light-years from the center of the galaxy, which means that the trajectory roughly is 100 light-years included some wobbling over/under the galactic plane. And that is quite something else than 226 million miles to talk in small letters.
Ab49. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“- - - the night - - - cannot “outstrip” the day (36/40) - - -“. This according to MuH proves that Muhammad did not believe in the geocentric system (in spite of that the opposite is very clear in the Quran), but the only thing this proves, is that Muhammad was able to see how day followed night followed day in Mecca and Medina. One more of these hopelessly and obviously invalid “proofs”. That Muhammad was able to see how day and night changed, proves nothing about his knowing or not knowing of the heliocentric system (= Earth, etc. moves around the sun. Geocentric = sun and stars move around Earth).
Ab50. (From Quran.org/Muhammad Asadi (MuA)).
“By the Sun and its brightness and by the moon as it imitates it (i.e. reflects that brightness (wrong translation*)), and by the day which reveals it (the sun’s glory*) and the night which conceals it” (91-1-4).
The above statement of the Quran not only reveal the reflected nature of the moon’s light - - -“. In MuA’s page there is a bit too much dishonesty. F.x. the Arab words for reflecting or reflector or reflected light does not exist in the entire original Quran. In the Quran there is made clear difference between the sun and the moon and their light, but this takes no divine knowledge to see and to understand – every Arab, included Muhammad, was able to see and to feel that the sun and the moon are very different.
One more of the of the many places where active Muslims try to cheat people into believing in miracle and divine knowledge by cherry-picking, omitting, and twisting facts. Would a real god and a real religion need to rely on dishonesty?
C. The end of Earth.
Ac1. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT).
“When the stars lose their lustre”. It seems like EIT means this is from modern science, and thus a proof for that the Quran has divine knowledge. But this is a foretelling in the Quran about what will happen at the Day of Doom, and thus is just a claim, not a fact. It also has not happened yet, and thus it is not proved that this is what will happen that day. This so clearly is invalid as a proof, that not even a Muslims should include it in such one.
Another thing is that according to science Earth will come to its end in some 5 billion years, and long before the stars in the sky have “lost their lustre”. (It likely will be swallowed by our sun, but a much bigger and redder sun). And humanity will be finished long before that.
(Well, he may claim that Muhammad could not know the sun would come to an end, but see Ab17 above.)
Ac2. (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT).
“When the sun is rounded (swelling like a ball) - - -“ (81/1).
This really is a nice one. A. Yusuf Ali says: “When the sun (with its spacious light) is folded up - - -“, M. H. Shakir says: “When the sun is covered - - -“, Muhammad Asad says: “When the sun is shrouded in darkness - - -“. Science has found that in some 5 billion years the sun will start swelling – naturally like a ball. None of the most clever translators of the Quran has a translation of this verse “adjusted” for this, but EIT has found or made a “translation” indicating that Muhammad knew the sun was a sphere and that it once will grow bigger. Muslims sometimes really are clever, don’t you think so?
No more comments, except that Yusuf Ali’s translation indicates that Muhammad thought the sun was a disc – if not it cannot be folded up.
Ac3. “When the stars have collapsed”. It is unclear what proof EIT claims here, but perhaps the divine knowledge that stars collapse (and become novas or dwarfs or neutron stars or singularities). But for one thing this only happen to a small percentage of the stars – the really big ones (well, some of it may happen to smaller stars, too, included our sun, but then we are talking about really distant future – billions and more years). But what the Quran really talks about here, is what happens when the Day of Doom arrives.
Also he has got a “better” translation than f.x. A. Yusuf Ali: “When the star falls (to Earth*) - - -“. (M. H. Shakir: “ And when the stars darken - - -“, M. Asad: “- - - when the stars lose their light - - -“. There is no doubt that some Muslims have better – or at least more scientifically correct – Quran than some others.
Ac4. (From “Scientific Miracles Revealed in the Holy Quran” – SMR. The name here is wrong. There are no scientific miracles revealed in the Quran. What Abeed Rahman – the composer –means is to claim there are scientific knowledge in the Quran which Muhammad only could have got by miracles.
>>> 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".