Qur'an and Modern Science

[S.Z (Muslim)]

Bismillah-hir-Rehman-ir-Rahim (In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful
Qur’an and Modern Science. Read these and you will see that Qur’an and modern science is in conciliation.
“And I created every living thing out of water” Qur’an, 21:30
No human could have known that in the deserts of Arabia where there was scarcity of water.
“God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke” Qur’an, 41:11
“Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart?” Qur’an, 21:30
According to modern science, the separation process resulted in the formation of multiple worlds, a concept which appears dozens of times in the Qur’an. For example, look at the first chapter of the Qur’an, al-Faatihah:( “Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an, 1:1 ). These Qur’anic references are a11 in perfect agreement with modern ideas on the existence of primary nebula (galactic dust), followed by the separation of the elements which resulted in the formation of galaxies and then stars from which the planets were born. Reference is also made in the Qur’an to an intermediary creation between the heavens and the earth, as seen in chapter al-Furqaan:
“God is the one who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them...” Qur’an, 25:59
It would seem that this intermediary creation corresponds to the modern discovery of bridges of matter which are present outside organized astronomical systems.
“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33
“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.
“I built the heaven with power and it is I, who am expanding it.” Qur’an,51:47
“O assembly of Jinns and men, if you can penetrate the regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them except with authority.”
Qur’an,55:33
“Have you not seen that Allah sent rain down from the sky and caused it to penetrate the ground and come forth as springs, then He caused crops of different colors to grow...” Qur’an,39:21
“Have We not made the earth an expanse and the mountains stakes?”
Qur’an, 78:6-7
Stakes ( awtaad ), which are driven into the ground like those used to anchor a tent, are the deep foundations of geological folds. Here, as in the case of all the other topics presented, the objective observer cannot fail to notice the absence of any contradiction to modern knowledge.
“(God is the One who) sent down rain from the sky and with it brought forth a variety of plants in pairs.” Qur’an, 20:53
Today we know that fruit comes from plants that have sexual characteristics even when they come from unfertilized flowers, like bananas, isn’t that amazing?! In the chapter ar-Ra‘d we read the following:
“... and of all fruits (God) placed (on the earth) two pairs.” Qur’an, 13:3
“Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for yon. I give you drink from their insides, coming from a conjunction between the digested contents ( of the intestines ) and the blood, milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it.” Qur’an, 16:66
“Verily, I created humankind from a small quantity of mingled fluids.” Qur’an, 76:2
The Arabic word nutfah has been translated as "small quantity”. It comes from the verb meaning ‘to dribble, to trickle’ and is used to describe what remains in the bottom of a bucket which has been emptied. The verse correctly implies that fertilization is performed by only a very small volume of liquid.
On the other hand, mingled fluids ( amshaaj ) has been understood by early commentators to refer to the mixture of male and female discharges. Modern authors have corrected this view and note that the sperm is made up of various components.
When the Qur’an talks of a fertilizing fluid composed of different components, it also informs us that human progeny will be formed from something extracted from this liquid. This is the meaning of the following verse in chapter as-Sajdah:
“Then He made [ man’s ] offspring from the essence of a despised fluid.”
Qur’an, 32:8
The Arabic word translated by the term ‘essence’ is sulaalah which means ‘something extracted, the best part of a thing’. In whatever way it is translated, it refers to part of a whole. Under normal conditions, only one single cell, spermatozoon, out of over 50 million ejaculated by a man during sexual intercourse will actually penetrate the ovule.
“God fashioned humans from a clinging entity.” Qur’an, 96:2
“I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh.” Qur’an, 23:14
“I fashioned (humans) a clinging entity, then into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.” Qur’an, 22:5.
“... and (God) gave you ears, eyes and hearts.” Qur’an, 32:9
“Today I will save your dead body so that you may be a sign for those who come after you.” Qur’an, 10:92 (speaks about Pharaoh in Moses’ time)



So...any comments, or arguments, or are you guys convinced that this is word of God?

 

[Azakel]

Not to sound rude or offensive but thread like these are just getting old and talking up space. There are already threads like this it all was going to search first.

 

[S.Z (Muslim)]

Not to sound rude or offensive but thread like these are just getting old and talking up space. There are already threads like this it all was going to search first.

Okay, but what is your comment about this? I mean you can try to argue, or try to prove me wrong. I mean if you can't argue or prove me wrong, the only other logical choice is to become interested in Islam and search about it.

 

[Azakel]

Okay, but what is your comment about this? I mean you can try to argue, or try to prove me wrong.

Truly I don't care, believe it if you want.

 

[S.Z (Muslim)]

Truly I don't care, believe it if you want.

You don't care if a religion is perfect scientifically, and in other areas as well? Okay, fine by me.

 

[MFaraz_Hayat]

Not to sound rude or offensive but thread like these are just getting old and talking up space. There are already threads like this it all was going to search first.

Can only say this::::::
“Deaf, dumb, and blind, They will not return (to the path).” [Holy Qur’an 2:18] The Bible gives a similar message in the Gospel of Mathew: “Seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” [Matthew 13:13]
A similar message is also given in the Hindu Scriptures in the Rigveda book 10 hymn 71 verse 4: “There maybe someone who sees the words and yet indeed do not see them; may be another one who hears these words but indeed does not hear them” [Rigveda R.V. 10:71:4] (Rigveda Samhiti volume XII pg. 4309 by Swami Satyaprakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidhyalank).

 

[Azakel]

Can only say this::::::
“Deaf, dumb, and blind, They will not return (to the path).” [Holy Qur’an 2:18] The Bible gives a similar message in the Gospel of Mathew: “Seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” [Matthew 13:13]
A similar message is also given in the Hindu Scriptures in the Rigveda book 10 hymn 71 verse 4: “There maybe someone who sees the words and yet indeed do not see them; may be another one who hears these words but indeed does not hear them” [Rigveda R.V. 10:71:4] (Rigveda Samhiti volume XII pg. 4309 by Swami Satyaprakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidhyalank).

I like how someone can ise a Holy book to show that one is tired of seeing this. There is nothing special about the Qur'an in the way of it having anything to do with science at all. You want to know what I think, ok. It's easy for people to look at the world today and then look out a book that's 1,400 years old and find things in it that fit what they believe. It's really know different the Bible Prophecies or even the Prophecies of Nostradamus, people have read them, then only after they have happened do people see what they mean. I believe it's the same with the Qur'an, easy to see the science once people have all ready come up with all the stuff.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Bismillah-hir-Rehman-ir-Rahim (In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful
Qur’an and Modern Science. Read these and you will see that Qur’an and modern science is in conciliation.
“And I created every living thing out of water” Qur’an, 21:30
No human could have known that in the deserts of Arabia where there was scarcity of water.
“God then rose turning towards the heaven when it was smoke” Qur’an, 41:11
“Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart?” Qur’an, 21:30
According to modern science, the separation process resulted in the formation of multiple worlds, a concept which appears dozens of times in the Qur’an. For example, look at the first chapter of the Qur’an, al-Faatihah:( “Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.” Qur’an, 1:1 ). These Qur’anic references are a11 in perfect agreement with modern ideas on the existence of primary nebula (galactic dust), followed by the separation of the elements which resulted in the formation of galaxies and then stars from which the planets were born. Reference is also made in the Qur’an to an intermediary creation between the heavens and the earth, as seen in chapter al-Furqaan:
“God is the one who created the heavens, the earth and what is between them...” Qur’an, 25:59
It would seem that this intermediary creation corresponds to the modern discovery of bridges of matter which are present outside organized astronomical systems.
“(God is) the one who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is traveling in an orbit with its own motion.” Qur’an,21:33
“He coils the night upon the day and the day upon the night.” Qur’an, 39:5
The original meaning of the verb kis to coil a turban around the head. This is a totally valid comparison; yet at the time the Qur’an was revealed, the astronomical data necessary to make this comparison were unknown. It is not until man landed on the moon and observed the earth spinning on its axis, that the dark half of the globe appeared to wind itself around the light and the light half appeared to wind itself around the dark.

And the Dogon tribe of West Africa knew about Sirius B, as well as apparently elliptical orbits, that the planets orbit the sun, the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter and that the moon is devoid of life,despite not having access to a telescope (or the Qur'an) and they don't even have a written language.
Did god tell them this independantly as a failsafe, just in case Mohammed forgot (if so, he apparently went into greater detail and used less ambiguous language), or could they perhaps have come by the knowledge some other way? (and by some other way, I'm not suggesting theres any truth to the myth that they're descended from amphibious aliens, so lets just not go there.:no

“(God is the One who) sent down rain from the sky and with it brought forth a variety of plants in pairs.” Qur’an, 20:53
Today we know that fruit comes from plants that have sexual characteristics even when they come from unfertilized flowers, like bananas, isn’t that amazing?! In the chapter ar-Ra‘d we read the following:
“... and of all fruits (God) placed (on the earth) two pairs.” Qur’an, 13:3

So you don't think that the very thickest of hunter gatherers would have been capable of observing that in trees of the same variety, some of them never bear fruit? Or that when we decided as a species to settle ourselves down in one spot and plant an orchard,we failed to work out that if we didn't have both the fruiting and non fruiting tree around, the fruiting tree didn't produce fruit either? Do you consider humanity so dim that they're not capable of making an observation so simple without devine revelation?
This statement also fails to account for plants that have both male and female flowers on the same plant. Perhaps it should have read '...two pairs, except for the ones that didn't need a pair because they could do it themselves.'

“Verily, in cattle there is a lesson for yon. I give you drink from their insides, coming from a conjunction between the digested contents ( of the intestines ) and the blood, milk pure and pleasant for those who drink it.”

Qur’an, 16:66

Mmm, cows give milk. I'm not sure about the conjunction between the digested contents and the blood so much as a product of the mammary glands, but as I'm sure that even the dimmest observer (I have faith even in the ability of the most stupid to observe the obvious) could put two and two together and see that cows (as well as other mammals) who don't recieve adequate nutrition don't produce as much milk as those who do.This isn't scientific revelation from the pen of god, it's the basic knowledge of the most illiterate man who ever owned a cow.

“Verily, I created humankind from a small quantity of mingled fluids.”

Qur’an, 76:2
The Arabic word nutfah has been translated as "small quantity”. It comes from the verb meaning ‘to dribble, to trickle’ and is used to describe what remains in the bottom of a bucket which has been emptied. The verse correctly implies that fertilization is performed by only a very small volume of liquid.
On the other hand, mingled fluids ( amshaaj ) has been understood by early commentators to refer to the mixture of male and female discharges. Modern authors have corrected this view and note that the sperm is made up of various components.
When the Qur’an talks of a fertilizing fluid composed of different components, it also informs us that human progeny will be formed from something extracted from this liquid. This is the meaning of the following verse in chapter as-Sajdah:
“Then He made [ man’s ] offspring from the essence of a despised fluid.”
Qur’an, 32:8
The Arabic word translated by the term ‘essence’ is sulaalah which means ‘something extracted, the best part of a thing’. In whatever way it is translated, it refers to part of a whole. Under normal conditions, only one single cell, spermatozoon, out of over 50 million ejaculated by a man during sexual intercourse will actually penetrate the ovule.

Which brings me to Onan, small time player in Genesis, which I believe is a book a little older than the Qur'an. His sin was not impregnating his brothers wife. There seems to be some suggestion by the manner he avoided this, that requiring a male and female and a small quantity of semen to get together was the normal means of reproduction. Once again, that it's a small quantity of fluid required is easily observable by anyone with half a brain simply by the fact that men don't produce a 10 litre bucket of ejaculate at a go. The fact that semen is continually referred to as the 'seed' seems also to suggest that we weren't labouring under the misaprehension that men were ejaculating fully formed but tiny little people but rather something that had the potential to grow into such.
Obviously a woman was necessary to complete the process, but as her contribution isn't so readily observable and men are out there giving up a fluid to the cause, probably she's doing the same. And if that one sperm that makes it was necessarily the 'best part' every time, my son wouldn't have Spherocytosis, because some of those sperm that weren't 'the best part' most assuredly didn't carry the faulty gene.

“God fashioned humans from a clinging entity.”

Qur’an, 96:2
“I fashioned the clinging entity into a chewed lump of flesh and I fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and I clothed the bones with intact flesh.” Qur’an, 23:14
“I fashioned (humans) a clinging entity, then into a lump of flesh in proportion and out of proportion.” Qur’an, 22:5.
“... and (God) gave you ears, eyes and hearts.” Qur’an, 32:9
“Today I will save your dead body so that you may be a sign for those who come after you.” Qur’an, 10:92 (speaks about Pharaoh in Moses’ time)

This is getting tired. Miscarriage at various stages + observation = the answer to that sans the need for god to waffle to a prophet in the usual ambiguous and flowery language.
Of course, if you want to assume that humanity has had it's collective head up it's collective butt since day dot and then interpret previously mentioned flowery and ambiguous language in light of what you'd like to consider 'modern knowledge' then shriek,'We were all so stupid we couldn't have worked this out by ourselves (until we apparently did, otherwise how would you be trying to convince us with what is common knowledge)therefore this is proof positive that the book my religion is based on is the undoubted word of god.', then by all means, you do that and I wish you all the best.
Just don't expect that anyone without a vested interest will pick up their trumpet and hop on your bandwagon.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bismillah-hir-Rehman-ir-Rahim (In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful.

Allah should babble less and, perhaps, take a couple of science courses ...

 

[gnomon]

“And I created every living thing out of water” Qur’an, 21:30
No human could have known that in the deserts of Arabia where there was scarcity of water.

I'll go no further than the first claim. First off, your comment doesn't even support the passage. Second, human beings, who cannot exist without water, I'm fairly certain were well aware of its existence. Even in the deserts of Arabia. Last, there is no comparison to be made to modern science.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Look, this is the millionth thread on this!The Qua'ran is great! Wohoo to Muhammed (pbuh) Happy now? Dont waste the space. There are threads like yours, why not comment on them? Honestly, i think people are gettting bored with these threads.

What the Qua'ran says isnt unique you know. The Vedas has mentioned thsis stuff millions of times. Your science doesent make your Qua'ran the one and only.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Look, this is the millionth thread on this!The Qua'ran is great! Wohoo to Muhammed (pbuh) Happy now? Dont waste the space. There are threads like yours, why not comment on them? Honestly, i think people are gettting bored with these threads.

What the Qua'ran says isnt unique you know. The Vedas has mentioned thsis stuff millions of times. Your science doesent make your Qua'ran the one and only.

Not to mention the fact that none of is was actually science.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

And that! (wasn't it?)

 

[S.Z (Muslim)]

And the Dogon tribe of West Africa knew about Sirius B, as well as apparently elliptical orbits, that the planets orbit the sun, the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter and that the moon is devoid of life,despite not having access to a telescope (or the Qur'an) and they don't even have a written language.
Did god tell them this independantly as a failsafe, just in case Mohammed forgot (if so, he apparently went into greater detail and used less ambiguous language), or could they perhaps have come by the knowledge some other way? (and by some other way, I'm not suggesting theres any truth to the myth that they're descended from amphibious aliens, so lets just not go there.:no


So you don't think that the very thickest of hunter gatherers would have been capable of observing that in trees of the same variety, some of them never bear fruit? Or that when we decided as a species to settle ourselves down in one spot and plant an orchard,we failed to work out that if we didn't have both the fruiting and non fruiting tree around, the fruiting tree didn't produce fruit either? Do you consider humanity so dim that they're not capable of making an observation so simple without devine revelation?
This statement also fails to account for plants that have both male and female flowers on the same plant. Perhaps it should have read '...two pairs, except for the ones that didn't need a pair because they could do it themselves.'

Mmm, cows give milk. I'm not sure about the conjunction between the digested contents and the blood so much as a product of the mammary glands, but as I'm sure that even the dimmest observer (I have faith even in the ability of the most stupid to observe the obvious) could put two and two together and see that cows (as well as other mammals) who don't recieve adequate nutrition don't produce as much milk as those who do.This isn't scientific revelation from the pen of god, it's the basic knowledge of the most illiterate man who ever owned a cow.

Which brings me to Onan, small time player in Genesis, which I believe is a book a little older than the Qur'an. His sin was not impregnating his brothers wife. There seems to be some suggestion by the manner he avoided this, that requiring a male and female and a small quantity of semen to get together was the normal means of reproduction. Once again, that it's a small quantity of fluid required is easily observable by anyone with half a brain simply by the fact that men don't produce a 10 litre bucket of ejaculate at a go. The fact that semen is continually referred to as the 'seed' seems also to suggest that we weren't labouring under the misaprehension that men were ejaculating fully formed but tiny little people but rather something that had the potential to grow into such.
Obviously a woman was necessary to complete the process, but as her contribution isn't so readily observable and men are out there giving up a fluid to the cause, probably she's doing the same. And if that one sperm that makes it was necessarily the 'best part' every time, my son wouldn't have Spherocytosis, because some of those sperm that weren't 'the best part' most assuredly didn't carry the faulty gene.

This is getting tired. Miscarriage at various stages + observation = the answer to that sans the need for god to waffle to a prophet in the usual ambiguous and flowery language.
Of course, if you want to assume that humanity has had it's collective head up it's collective butt since day dot and then interpret previously mentioned flowery and ambiguous language in light of what you'd like to consider 'modern knowledge' then shriek,'We were all so stupid we couldn't have worked this out by ourselves (until we apparently did, otherwise how would you be trying to convince us with what is common knowledge)therefore this is proof positive that the book my religion is based on is the undoubted word of god.', then by all means, you do that and I wish you all the best.
Just don't expect that anyone without a vested interest will pick up their trumpet and hop on your bandwagon.

What Dogon tribe? Can you give me a link so I could search or elaborate?
I'm not talking about bearing fruit, I am talking about the sex characteristics.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Na, he tryna convert.

 

[S.Z (Muslim)]

Na, he tryna convert.

I would love it if you convert, I'm not forcing anyone to though.

 

[S.Z (Muslim)]

Not to mention the fact that none of is was actually science.

What isn't?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

What Dogon tribe? Can you give me a link so I could search or elaborate?
I'm not talking about bearing fruit, I am talking about the sex characteristics.

Ah, so the sexual characteristics of a plant have nothing to do with bearing fruit? Tell that to a botanist and watch them go :sarcastic.
Aside from that, all the verse you quoted said was that the plants were in pairs, it said nothing whatsoever about sexual characteristics (unless you left that out along with the verses referring to the theory of relativity and what a tarantula's foot looks like under an electron microscope). One that bears fruit + one that doesn't bear fruit = 2, which last I checked constituted a pair. Except for plants which have flowers with both sexual characteristics or both kinds of flowers, in which case you don't need a pair, only 1. Which would mean the verse was lacking by failing to go into the necessary detail.
Just run a search on Dogon, there's bucketloads of sites. I'd avoid the ones with an alien origin axe to grind though. As a creation myth it's interesting, but I doubt it should be taken any more seriously than those involving cows, rainbow serpents, or celestial men with a ball of clay.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

plants dont have sexualities. They have the male and female part in their flower... Stamen (male) and stigma (female)

 

[Popeyesays]

plants dont have sexualities. They have the male and female part in their flower... Stamen (male) and stigma (female)

Not necessarily. Some plants have male and female plants--hemp for instance.

Regards, Scott