Islamic Disuse and Twisting, Etc. of Sciences:
Physics


P:  Physics

 

P1.  (Sample from “Examine The Truth” - ETT).

Verse 55/19-20 he/she quotes like this: “He (Allah*) let loosed the two seas meeting together. Between them is a barrier which none of them can transgress”. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has this text: “He (Allah*) has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier they do not transgress”.

Islam normally explain that these waters are the sweet and the salt water, and the barrier between them is the land – there is a barrier between them, but they do meet. F.x.25/53 and 35/12 show that the sweet and the salt water really is what the Quran means when it talks about the two waters.

ETT has found a new explanation(?): He/she omits all together the sweet water and only talks about salt water. In salt water there quite correctly some places may be differences in the salinity, and as the more salty water is heavier, it sinks down – and it also is quite correct that waters of different salinity are a little reluctant to mixing. This proves that the Quran is correct ETT easily claims.

Islam and its Muslims  often have problems with the rules for making logically correct conclusions, and they also often seem to be unable to - or do not want to - see the difference between words like “a coincidence”, “possible”, “perhaps”, “probably”, “likely”, etc., etc., and the word “proof”. If they like a point, they use it or twist it and name it “a proof”. But a definition for a proof is:  “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”.

It is not here proved that this was what Muhammad meant. Only this makes this “proof” invalid: If Muhammad was talking about something else, the “pycnocline” –  border between the two salinities – is totally irrelevant (and it is very highly likely the traditional explanation has an extra basis in comments/answers from Muhammad on this – in addition to f.x. 25/53, 35/12, etc.).

Besides there is another such “border” to be found in the sea/ocean: The thermocline – cold water is heavier than less cold, and sinks – with the same result as for saltier water. Thus there are at least 5 different possibilities: cold salty water, less cold salty water, cold less salty water, less cold less salty water – and the overwhelmingly likely one; salt and sweet water separated by land. This gives several possible “borders”, not one. And several possible conclutions/explanations = no proof.

In addition it is highly unlikely Muhammad/Allah would use a picture Muhammad’s  primitive desert dweller followers – most of whom on top of all knew little about the sea – would have no possibility to understand.

Thus this “proof” for one thing builds on at least one invalid claim – it is not proved that this was what Muhammad was talking about  (and verses like 25/53 and 35/12 make it highly likely he was talking about something else) – and for another it is built on oversimplified physics (f.x. the thermocline is omitted), and for the third several conclusions are possible as there f.x. are more than one “border”.

ETT’s claimed “proof” is not even a probability – the very strongest word which can be used, is that there is a very slight, though highly unlikely, possibility for that this is what was meant.

But a slight possibility is not a proof.

ETT also states that the Quran says there are barriers in the sea. This is not correct  - the Quran only says there is a barrier between two waters. ETT also indicates that the Quran talks about an invisible barrier. Also this is not correct – the Quran never mentions that the barrier is invisible. This part of ETT’s argumentation thus here is invalid. And honestly dishonest – ETT knows the Quran too well not to be avare of these facts.

We may add that it is very normal for Muslims/Islam to cherry pick coincidences – scientific and others – and name them proofs for the Quran/Allah/Islam. And like ETT here they often pick just parts of the reality – just enough to claim that this proves the Quran. This even when the full fact – like here – clearly shows/proves that the claim is invalid or wrong. This also often when the real facts are too well known or too easy to check, so that it is impossible for the narrator/writer to be in good faith about what he/she claims.

P2.  (From  “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT.)

“- - - the least little atom - - -“. What EIT here intends to prove is unclear. He/she explains a (not too up to date) picture of the structure of an atom, but the structure of an atom is nowhere mentioned in the Quran – only the name – nothing else. And that name is from the old Greek philosophers and some 800 – 1ooo years older than Muhammad. No god was needed to tell him that name. A totally invalid “proof” which also indicates deep lack of knowledge (as does some of the other “proofs”).

P3.  (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).

“Glory be to Him Who created everything in pairs: from what the earth produces and from themselves and from things unknown to them”.

For one thing it is wrong that all that the Earth produces comes in pairs. Mostly it is correct for higher animals, but for one-celled ones which multiply by splitting it is wrong – there are no two sexes. Similar goes for large parts of all plants. There both male and female parts very often are on the same plant or tree and there in those cases are no male or female plants – no pairs (a very large percent of plants are hermaphrodites).

Then we are back to the fact that if you sift through all the billions of facts on Earth and compare them with the texts in the Quran, you have got to find at least some points which seemingly are interesting. There are many things which comes in pairs, but MI/SMQ has fallen down on the matter/antimatter duality, and claims that this is a proof for the divine origin of the Quran. For this to be true, Islam first must prove that it is this duality the Quran was talking about – the verse is so vague, that it can be talking about anything which come in pairs, and thus is worth nothing as a proof unless such proofs are provided. This in addition to the errors mentioned above.

Worse: If the theory of Super-symmetry is correct, even in the case of more proofs, this claim is wrong. This because the particles in case do not come in pairs, but in quadruplets: Matter, anti-matter + heavier versions of the two.

We remind you: “A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. In this case there f.x. are no proofs for that the matter/antimatter situation is among the intended points in the quote, and for another more than one conclusion may be possible.

Invalid “proof”.

P4.  (From Mission Islam/The Scientific Miracles of the Quran – short: MI/SMQ).

“A day with your Lord (Allah*) is equivalent to a thousand years in the way you (humans*) count” (22/27), “- - - on a Day whose length is a thousand years by the way you (humans*) measure” (32/5), “- - - in a day whose length is fifty thousand years”(70/4).

This MI/SMQ claims is a foretelling about relativistic time. Actually only 22/27 is relevant for this claim, because the other two refers to the situation on the Day of Doom, and that day is somewhat special according to all relevant books. But ok.

One thing is that there nowhere is proved Muhammad spoke about relativistic time – the highly likely reason for his words, is that he wanted to impress on his followers that Allah was above even time. And another thing is:

Relativistic time depends on mass and/or speed.

To make one day like 1ooo or 50ooo years by means of mass, this demands that Allah has his Day of Doom in a black hole/singularity. That is the only place in the universe where enough matter is enough concentrated to break down the flow of time that much.

To make it by means of speed, this means that the speed difference between the two implicated parts has to be well over 99.9% of the speed of light. Or said in a more understandable way: Paradise/the Day of Doom must speed away from you at a speed of some 187ooo miles/300ooo km a second to be able to explain these verses by means of what is named time dilation.

This “proof” simply is nonsense made by one who knows very little about these things, or one who knows his readers knows too little about it to see the jokes - as long as he uses the correct scientific words they may believe him.

Besides: Why would an omnipotent god need to use time dilation? – or live in a singularity/Black Hole? If he really is omnipotent, he simply could stop time until his job was finished.

P5.  (From  “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT ).

EIT quotes some verses telling about rain. Clouds gather and are transported by the wind, rain falls, plants grow and water stream. EIT indicates that this proves that the Quran knew the water cycle, and thus prove divine knowledge.

But the Quran never mentions more than half the water cycle – “the falling down”. The clouds, the rain, the grooving plants, the water – only the things visible to everybody. The other part the book never mentions – the (invisible) evaporation which makes the clouds possible. Muhammad needed no god to tell him about the “falling down” – every human being knows and knew that part – and the invisible part he does not mention, even though any omniscient god had known about it. Then who made the Quran?

Really the fact that the Quran only mentions the visible parts of the water cycle, indicates that the book was made by someone knowing these parts, but not the rest. Muhammad? (Even Iblis had known about evaporation).

This “proof” is not only invalid, but – used as a “proof” – pretty naïve.

One small curiosity: To make raindrops, Allah breaks the clouds to pieces according to the Quran. What really happens, is that droplets get together to make drops – an exactly opposite happening.

Once more: Who made the Quran?

P6.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“- - - the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of “smoke” (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition). This is one of the undisputed principles of standard modern cosmology”.

The only thing is that this is: Wrong – and scientific nonsense.

Smoke is not gas. Smoke is microscopic bits of matter – aerosols -  floating in air, and normally a result of matter’s reaction with oxygen through fire. This is such a well known fact – primary or maximum secondary school material – that there is no chance Muslim scholars do not know this – and all the same they use stuff like this for “proofs” when addressing badly schooled or naïve or wishful thinking followers not knowing much about the Big Bang and its aftermath. Do you ever wonder why Islam do not claim it also is “the Religion of Honesty”?

BIGUQ here refers to the time after the Big Bang. How dense or how hot the place was, depends on how long after the Bang. But what is absolutely sure, is that there existed no smoke – there was no matter which could make particles - areosols – and no oxygen matter in case could react with/burn and make smoke. There only was ionized hydrogen, some ionized helium, and perhaps traces of ionized lithium.

Science never even uses the word “smoke” here – but from very normal Islamic standard of twisting facts to make them fit the Quran, Muslims do so – in spite of what is the truth.

P7.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“The clouds are pushed by the winds” (24/43).  It takes no god to tell that clouds are pushed by the wind. And also it is not the wind which creates the clouds or makes them grow – that mainly depends on how much water the air contains, combined with (low) temperature.

P8.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“- - - then makes them (clouds*) into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it - - -“ (24/43). It takes no god to see that rain/hail clouds may be tall – only a pair of good eyes. The sorry fact is that from such material Muslims make up their “miracles” – in spite of that Muhammad in the Quran said he just was an ordinary man unable to make miracles or prophesies (and that Muslims claiming he made such ones thus claims he was lying in the Quran each time he said such things), in spite of that Aishah said similar things in Hadiths, and in spite of that Islam of today states that “there were no miracles connected to Muhammad, except the delivery of the Quran”.

For some reason or other BIGUQ does not mention that according to the Quran, Allah breaks the clouds to pieces to make raindrops – the opposite of what is really happening.

P9.  (From “A Brief Illustrated Guide To Understand The Quran” – BIGUQ):

“Why does the verse ‘its lightning’ in reference to hail? Does this mean hail is a major factor producing lightning?” (24/43)

But according to f.x. neither Yusuf Ali nor Shakir the Quran says “its lightning”. The book says “His (Allah’s*) lightning” according to them – it is Allah who makes the lightning.

This is another typical sample of how Muslims find their “proofs” for the Quran and Muhammad and Islam in science: A little twist of a scientific fact and it may fit something in the Quran. Or a little twist of a text in the book, and the text may fit a scientific fact. And any similarity – be it really a “coincidence”, a “speculation” – like here - a “perhaps”, a “probable”, a “likely”, or anything, Muslims are very quick to promote it to claimed “proofs”. But “a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”.

P10.  (From “The Scientific Evidence That God (Allah*) Exists - - -“, by H. A. El-Najar (HAN)):

“O You jinn and men, if you can penetrate zones of the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the Earth, then penetrate! You will never penetrate them except with (the) power (of science)” (55/33). HAN here claims that this is “an invitation for humans to fly”, which he indicates humans impossible can have been thinking about 1400+ years ago.

This is one of the many really revealing Muslim arguments – revealing about the level of quality, of reliability, and of honesty in Islamic argumentation.

·      The words “(the)” - - - “(of science)” is added to the claimed Quranic text by HAN (Muhammad hardly even knew that word) or by a cherry-picked translation. Drop the added words, and you get “- - - except with power”. Power is in the Quran always indicated to come from Allah. There is quite a difference between “except with the power of science” and “except with the power of Allah”. But HAN twists even his holy Quran to make up a “scientific” “proof/evidence”, for that the Quran foretold something wrongly claimed impossible , and thus fabricate a “proof” for that the Quran is something from a god (he forgets that such a foretelling as well could have come from dark forces - Iblis).

·      Worse: According to f.x. Yusuf Ali and Shakir the Quran does not even use the word “power”, but the word “authority” – indicated “from Allah” (M. Asad even uses “save by a sanction (from Allah). There are some miles – and kilometers – between “- - - except with (the) power (of science)” and “except with the authority/sanction (of Allah*). Further comments about dishonesty should not be necessary. This proof is so dishonest even for a miracle hunter that it is distasteful.

·      And as for flying being an impossible thought for the old Arabs: The dream of flying is far older than the Quran, also in Arabia. Just think about f.x. Aladdin and his flying carpet.

Can anyone please tell us how it is possible to manufacture such a combination of dishonesty and lack of knowledge and put it into an international media? – and can anyone tell us how it is possible for Muslims to believe in such a product ? – after all they should know what is said in the Quran at least, and perhaps have knowledge enough about other things to know at least about old fairy tales and flying carpets, etc., and know that the dream about flying is found other places – and older places – than in the Quran.

As we said: This is one of the many “proofs” which reveal a lot about quality and honesty in Muslim religious debate. “The main thing for Islam and for many Muslims is not to find the truth, but to ‘prove’ that the Quran is true – by honest or dishonest means”.

Totally invalid as a proof or the Quran. A strong sample of reliability and honesty in Islamic debate – and for the naivety of the readers able to believe in such fabrications.

P11.   (From “The Scientific Evidence That God (Allah*) Exists…”, by H. A. El-Najar (HAN)):

“To Him (Allah*) whom are in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the Earth, all are devoutly obedient to him” (30/26). Provably wrong – many do not even believe he exists.

“While (all) who are in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the Earth have willingly, or unwillingly, submitted to Him (Allah*) (as Muslims do (these words are not from the Quran*)) (provably wrong – see just above*), and to Him (Allah*) shall they be returned (the Bible says they shall be returned to Yahweh – a very different god*)” (3/83).

“There is none in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the Earth but comes (on the Day of Judgment) to the Beneficent (Allah) (the Bible tells they that day will come to Yahweh, not to – but that is another point*) - - -“ (19/93-95).

“Do you not see that Allah is praised by whoever in the heavens (plural and wrong*) and the Earth - - -“ (24/41).

HAN claims that this means that the “Quran tells us that there is intelligent life in outer space”. We are unable to understand how it is possible to make such a deduction within the laws of logic. For one thing the Quran here talks about heavenly beings in the claimed 7 heavens of Allah – not about the outer space (the Arab word for “space” in the modern meaning did not even exist at the time of Muhammad). Heavenly beings are not “intelligent life in outer space” according to any language we know.

Besides these are just a number of claims, not proofs – not to mention scientific proofs, like HAN advertizes. For one thing they as mentioned are just claims, whereas “a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. For another he cannot use the Quran to prove the Quran – that in case are so-called circle proofs, and circle proofs are per definition invalid.

And if he after all means this to be a scientific proof, that is a joke – there is not found any scientific life, actually no life at all in spite of intense search, in outer space, so that this at present not only is not proved, but is not provable.  Any serious scientist – not to mention one of logic – would call HAN’s entire point here nonsense logic.

P12.  (From “Evidence that Islam is true” - EIT).

“- - - and He (Allah*) sends down hail from mountains ((of*) clouds) in the sky”. EIT indicates that this means Muhammad knew what happens inside a thunder cloud. But anybody can see that when it hails in hot countries, it happens from dark and tall “cloud mountains”. It is said that it is 4ooo years since the last snow-fall in Sahara, but hail may happen also in hot countries – America, Asia, etc., and always from tall “cloud mountains”. Muhammad needed no divine information to tell this – only the ability to tell how hail happened. One more invalid claimed proof for divine knowledge foretelling modern science.

P13.  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“The relativity of time is a proven fact today. - - - . ‘Verily a day in the sight of your Lord (Allah*) is like a thousand years - - -‘ (22/47). ‘- - - in a Day the measure of which is a thousand years - - -‘ (32/5) ‘- - - unto Him (Allah*) in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years - - -‘ (70/4)”. This is proved by Einstein and his relativity of time, ICCI claims.

One thing is that it is highly unlikely Muhammad here was talking about the relativity of time – most likely he was trying to impress Allah’s powers on his listeners.

More down to earth is that ICCI makes quite an (unintended) joke: There are two physical “things” which can give such relativity: Speed and matter.

For making 1 day = 50ooo years by means of speed, you need a speed difference between 2 observers of at least 99.9% of the speed of light. To observe so much in connection to mass, you have to be very close to a super-massive Black Hole/singularity.

This means that either Allah and his heaven is speeding away from us with a speed of some 180ooomiles/300ooo km a second, or that heaven – and Allah – is placed in a super-massive Black Hole (well, the correct name is “a singularity”). But we “know” from the Quran that all the 7 heavens are placed above Earth, and are resting on invisible pillars – they cannot be speeding away from us. And we also know that there is no super-massive Black Hole/singularity in our atmosphere or anywhere else near Earth.

As said: An unintended joke – made from lack of knowledge, or from an al-Taqiyya (a lawful lie) used because most people do not know this, and then they may believe in the claim.

Some scientific proof!!

P14.  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“He (Allah*) sends down (from time to time) water from the sky in due measure”. ICCI claims this proves that Muhammad knew the water cycle of the world, and that “due measure” means he said as much rained down, as evaporated at each given time. But for one thing “from time to time” means showers of rain, not a continuing process. For another thing the Quran never mention the evaporation, only the rain. And not least: In normal language “due measure” means something like “what is needed”, not anything else.

This is one more of the Muslims’ many made up “proofs”. (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Here several of the underlying claims are not proved, and at least two conclusions/explanations are possible.)

P15.  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“It is Allah Who sends the winds, and they raise the Clouds - - -“. For one thing: That it is Allah who sends the wind is a not proved claim. To make us believe it Islam will have to prove it (it is ever so normal for Islam and for Muslims to throw around claims they are unable to prove). For another: If it is not proved that it is Allah who causes the rain, nothing about the rain is a proof for Allah the chain of underlying proved facts is broken. For a third: It is not the wind which raises the clouds, it is the temperature compared to the moisture in the air. Wind may speed up the process, but only speed it up. One more wrong fact in the Quran.

ICCI wisely leaves this point alone, but claims that the wind brings salt as condensation kernels for rain – which is correct (the sea gives some 1.3 billion tons non-water aerosols – mainly salt – to the air each year – aerosols which may become condensation kernels for rain drops - also dust makes the same job). But this part of the water cycle is not at all mentioned in the Quran, and is thus irrelevant and proves exactly nothing about divine knowledge. If ICCI means something else, they will have first to prove that the making of aerosols is what Muhammad meant here, and then that all of it is caused by Allah.

P16.  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“- - - until you see rain-drops issue from the midst thereof (of the clouds)”.

Shall we weep or laugh? ICCI here quietly omits the most revealing part of the verse itself quoted: “- - - and breaks it into fragments - - -“. Muhammad and the Quran believed the clouds were something which was/is broken into pieces to make raindrops. This is exactly the opposite of what really happens: Condensation and then melting together of droplets.

Worse: This is something so obvious and well known that ICCI knows it. But as said before: Honesty is not a central point for many a Muslim – or for Islam - when it comes to “proving” that the Quran is “the truth”.

Some “proof” for divine knowledge in the Quran.

P17.  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“Life Given to a Dead Land (by means of water*)”. No seemingly dead land is dead if all it takes to make it blossom, is water. In that case it is fully alive – full of live seeds and roots. Any god had known this (and ICCI too) – then who made the Quran?

P18:  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“Rain drops - - - contain certain substances ‘that will give life’ to a dead land”. This is pure humbug – not to use a stronger word - and we admit we opened our eyes in disbelief when we read it. Rain water is pure H20 (except that in modern times it may be polluted from f.x. smoke, exhaust, etc.). Of course there is the salt or dust kernel, but that makes up perhaps a millionth of a drop – and ocean salt (HCl) definitely does not make plants grow.

And “surface tension drops” is goblydygook here (in addition absolutely all drops and droplets has surface tension – that is what makes them drops or droplets) – just ask any professor of farming or climate. The same goes for the claim about “’fertilizer’-laden drops” (see next point-------------). Humbug.

Ask any professor of farming if pure rain contains elements except water meaning anything for “giving life to a dead land”. The fact is that where it rains much, the rain tends to wash away nourishment from the ground (and pollute the sea).

ICCI claims this proves “And We (Allah*) send down from the sky laden with blessing”. (The desert dweller Muhammad probably meant that water was a blessing.) Not everybody in the world agree – and the Quran is for all the world?

This point simply is a qualified dishonesty – the facts are too well known. And what does the need to use dishonesty prove?

P19:  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

ICCI tells that when the wind blows over the seas, it picks up water spray containing microscopic algae, and these algae is it which explains the words “fertilizing rain”.

This would be very good news to all farmers getting free fertilizer. And big news to all professors and teachers of agriculture – none of them have ever heard about this source of fertilizer – this even more so as things from the sea normally is too salty to use as fertilizer.

What ICCI tells here is proving the Quran and its “fertilizing wind”, is pure humbug.

P20.  (From Islamic cultural center of Iceland – ICCI. Also see Ab19.)

“- - - And whom He (Allah*) wills to send astray, He makes his bosom narrow and strained (Yusuf Ali: “- - - close and constricted - - -“, M. H. Shakir: “- - - straight and narrow - - -“ (6/125).

---------But when you go quickly up through the atmosphere, the real effect is the opposite: The gases in your body expands and thus expands your body – not constricts it or makes it narrow.

Much worse here is that this quote is a cherry-picked dishonesty, and the additional fact that this is so obvious that there is no way ICCI does not know this. The full text ICCI has cherry-picked from, according to A. Yusuf Ali is:

“Those to whom Allah (in His Plan) willeth to guide, He openeth their breast to Islam; those  whom He willet to leave straying, he make their breasts closed and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the sky - - -“. M. H. Shakir: “- - - as though he was ascending upwards - - -“. M. Asad (translated from Swedish*) “- - - like the one who is climbing a tall (mountain).” (The less reliable and “adjusted to science” English edition: “…as if he were climbing into the skies…”).

·      For one thing the Quran here does not talk about a physical effect, but that Allah closes and constricts the heart against religious information.

·      For another: Anyone climbing or ascending a tall mountain or anything really tall, soon will have problems with his chest, if he does it too fast. Nobody needs divine information about this – everybody knows it and ICCI knows it. Dishonest claim – not proof, but claim.

So much for this “proof” – constructed on dishonest cherry-picking of words.

P21.   (From Quran.org – Qo).

“Not an atom’s weight in the skies or the earth, nor anything smaller than that (than the atom), or larger - - -“ (34/3).

“The Quran breaking with that tradition (the Greek theory about atoms as the smallest parts possible) clearly states that there are things “smaller” than an atom”. Wrong.  Muhammad here is boasting about the powers of his claimed god: He was able to see things smaller than the smallest thing which existed. BUT HE IS NOT STATING THAT SO SMALL THINGS EXISTS – AND HE DEFINITEY DOES NOT “CLEARLY STATE” SO.

Qo here has found some interesting words in Muhammad’s boasting. But they skip the under-laying meaning: “- - - my claimed god is so powerful that he is able to see things smaller than even the smallest particles if such smaller ones exists”. As it is not – contradicting Qo’s claim – nowhere neither here nor anywhere else in the Quran is said that things smaller than an atom really exists, the fact that they really exists proves nothing about the knowledge in the Quran. Neither speculation nor boasts are proved facts, and “a proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one conclusion”. Qo will have to prove – not claim like he/she does, but prove – that the Quran really says that things smaller than an atom exists, before this can be called a proof. Also the fact that there at least are two possible conclusions to/explanations for the sentence shows that this is not a proof, but a claim.

P22.   (From Quran.org – Qo).

“He (Allah*) has made the two seas (other translators says “waters”*) to flow freely (so that) they meet together: Between them there is a barrier which they cannot encroach (other translators says “cannot pass” or “cannot transgress*) - - -“(55/19-20). From this Qo cherry-pick one of several possible explanations for the 2 verses – that this proves that Muhammad knew about streams  not mingling deep down in the oceans. But the fact alone that there are more possible explanations, makes the claim invalid as a proof, and especially so as he/she does not first prove that this is what Muhammad was speaking about. (“A proof is one or more proved facts which can give only one explanation”.)

Much worse is that the Quran uses the expression “the two waters” (or “seas”) several places, and f.x. in 25/53 and 35/12 explains what the expression means: Salt water and sweet water (and the barrier is the dry land, and the meeting simply the rivers flowing into the sea/ocean). So much for this mystery and “proof”. We quote from 35/12: “Nor are the two bodies of flowing water alike – the one palatable, sweet, and pleasant to drink, and the other salty and bitter”. Salt and sweet water – no divine knowledge necessary.

WORST: As this is an expression used several times in the Quran, there does not exist one chance that Muslims knowing the Quran does not know this fact: Salt water and sweet water. All the same “miracle scholars” spins tales like Qo’s (and many others – this is a made up “proof” you may meet time and again) about deep sea streams, etc. Muhammad could not know about.

This tells volumes about the honesty and reliability of some Muslim scholars – well, really about all of them, as none stands up and clarify what the Quran really is talking about.

And what do facts like this tell about the honesty and the reliability of Islam and about its tales?


>>> 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".