Smoke
Done here.
You are arguing that the Qur'an has no typographical errors? I don't understand. What was the state of typography in 7th-century Arabia?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Amazing Quran
- Thread starter ameen
- Start date
Poet-Troll
Member
Qur'ans and Bibles, sacred books,
Are tools we use in our own nooks.
It is abuse of any tool
To claim perfection like a fool.
It's also rather strange to say
A shovel's no good for the way
The handle's covered with blue dots
Of paint or other grimy spots.
The Qur'an's valid for its beauty
And for its ample call to duty.
As an excuse for holding others
Something less than our human brothers
Or sisters, as the case may be,
It is abused again freely.
From what I've seen of the attempt,
All sciences are not exempt
Of demonstration by such men
Who like to mine Qur'anic den
Or Bible or Vedas again.
I doubt the usefulness of that,
Predict that such will fall down flat.
Are tools we use in our own nooks.
It is abuse of any tool
To claim perfection like a fool.
It's also rather strange to say
A shovel's no good for the way
The handle's covered with blue dots
Of paint or other grimy spots.
The Qur'an's valid for its beauty
And for its ample call to duty.
As an excuse for holding others
Something less than our human brothers
Or sisters, as the case may be,
It is abused again freely.
From what I've seen of the attempt,
All sciences are not exempt
Of demonstration by such men
Who like to mine Qur'anic den
Or Bible or Vedas again.
I doubt the usefulness of that,
Predict that such will fall down flat.
This is the title of a small Booklet written by Gary Miller.
THE AMAZING QURAN
About the author:
Dr. Gary Miller is a Canadean professor in Math. He is a former Christian missionary and minister and very knowledgable of the bible. He converted to Islam in a very interesting Story. He decided to read the Quran to find mistakes and errors that he might take advantage of while inviting Muslims to convert to Christianity. He expected the Qur'an to be an old book written 14 centuries ago, a book that talks about the desert and so on. He was amazed from what he found.
Since he was a Prof in Math, he sees everything through with a logical mind. He started to read, and he was amazed how perfect the Quran is. He ended up converting to Islam, and having small booklets and a lot of lectures about Islam.
Booklet review:
This is a very small book, easy to read. It is about 17 pages and I finished in less than a night. It is a summary of long study of Gary Miller and conclusions he reached, with critical reasoning and strong logic that made him convert to Islam. I am a born Muslim, and I grew up with my strong faith. However, reading this book (and few other converts, that I will cover later) only strengthened my faith and showed me amazing angles of my religion that I have not seen before.
The book start with the following few words that explains its title:
Calling the Qur'an amazing is not something done only by Muslims, who have an appreciation for the book and who are pleased with it; it has been labeled amazing by non-Muslims as well. In fact, even people who hate Islam very much have still called it amazing.While you read the book, you feel that you go to Gary Miller mind, or like he is thinking loudly. And he expresses his amazement situation after the other on the Quran and why it cannot be from human. If it is from human, Mohammad must be lying. So, Gary puts himself in the shoes of Mohammad, and read the Quran in a logical critical way or as he called it in the book: a "Scientific Approach to Quran".
Gary amazed by what he calls the "Falsification Test" by the Quran. How the book challenge others to prove it is wrong. And 1400 years passed, and no one could prove that. It states
(Surah An-Nisa, 4:82): "Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy". It invites Muslims to find a mistake. One does not write a book then challenge others to find its mistakes.Gary continue with amazement how Quran asked people to ask those who have knowledge (on what it was mentioned in Quran) if they doubt it:
<<If, indeed, one finds a mistake, then he has the right to disqualify it. This is exactly what the Qur'an encourages.>>.
<<for it creates a difficulty for one who says, "I do not believe it." At the onset of refusal one immediately has an obligation to find an explanation himself if he feels others' answers are inadequate.>>
This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything. Yet in every age there have been Muslims who have followed the advice of the Qur'an and made surprising discoveries.Then, he start giving stories and examples of scientific signs in Quran, that was only discovered in modern history.
I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage (Surahs al-Hajj 22:5; al-Mu'minun 23:14; and Ghafir 40:67) - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book (University Text Book). He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks.The only way this could be from human that is:
Dr. Moore taunted, "Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad (s) and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that?Gary provides a lot of such reasoning's, and examples he encountered with scientists or ministers of discussions on Quran. It is like going in a journey with him, and he could not find a way to prove that this Quran was nothing less than perfect. This journey is free of emotions or biased. Pure strong logical mind.
With that, he provides a lot of examples where many things are mentioned in the Quran are aligned with what we know today in 20th century. People who doubt Quran, say: it is a matter of chance (50% chance that this text was aligned). He explains that this assumption is impossible if you look into all of these situations in the Quran:
(i.e., one time out of eight or ½ x ½ x ½ ). Again, the odds of choosing the correct choice in all three situations have decreased his chances of being completely correct to only one time in eight. It must be understood that as the number of situations increase, the chances of being right decrease, for the two phenomena are inversely proportional.After that, Gary continue with giving different examples of these situations where Quran was very precise in what we know today. One was about the bee, one about the sun and one about the different time zones.
Now applying this example to the situations in the Qur'an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they were all just correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur'an are numerous and thus the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically nil. If there are a million ways for the Qur'an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then it is unlikely that someone was guessing.
Finally Gary reached a mathametical conclusion:
But what no one can deny is the following: the odds that Muhammad (s), an illiterate, guessed correctly about thousands and thousands of subjects, never once making a mistake, are so high that any theory of his authorship of the Qur'an must be completely dismissed - even by the most hostile enemies of Islam!
Finding the booklet:
The booklet is easier to find on the net rather on bookstores. It is not a typical commercial book. There is only used copy in amazon. I am posting a link where you can download the booklet in pdf and other links about Gary or writings of by:
Download
The True Call
The basis of Muslims Beliefs
Islam and Christianity: presentation by Gary Miller
Response: Excellent post. This just once again proves that even the greatest of thinkers, when they approach the qur'an with an open mind, that there is no question that the qur'an is the true unaltered word of Allah (swt). From it's many scientific miracles, it's beautiful arabic which is free of any discrepancy, to the challenge to humankind to produce something like the qur'an and the failure to do so each time, the evidence that the qur'an is the true unaltered word of Allah (swt) is clear.
Last edited:
Snowber
Active Member
Excuse me, grammatical/punctuation, I used the wrong word to wrap it all up I guess.
skydivephil
Active Member
Lets take the first quote of this post:
"In fact, even people who hate Islam very much have still called it amazing."
First who are these people? we are not told. Second why would their opinion matter? The truth of a book is not a function of any persons support or opponent personal opinion, its a function of the evidence for it.
Next quote:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy".
The problem here is who decides what is a discrepancy. When you have a written text its too easy for people to have a plasticity as to what the text means. For example, the Qu'ran says the world was created in days. We now know this is wrong. What's the response of Muslims? They redefine the word day, so it doesn't mean a literal 24 hr day. In this way there its easy for anyone to deny that any discrepancy exists because they simply redefine what the text means.
Next up the Quran desription of Embryology is plain wrong.
Th Quran claims that man is formed in the following way: The Night Intruder 86 3 -7
"from water, discharged, Issuing from between the mans's backbone and the womens breast bone"
oh dead, oh dear, oh dear. The Quran has it wrong, humans do not form in this way. No doubt the text will be redefined so it can mean something else, good luck.
Furthermore the Quran contradicts itself. It says humans are created from the Earth:
11,61
from nothing:
19:67
from clay:
17:61
from water
21:30
Incidentally its also claimed Dr Moore no longer claims the Quran is accurate anyway:
Scientific errors and the myth of embryology in the Koran
The Quran thus makes statement which are inconsistent with modern science. So the conclusion of Dr Miller are just plain wrong.
"In fact, even people who hate Islam very much have still called it amazing."
First who are these people? we are not told. Second why would their opinion matter? The truth of a book is not a function of any persons support or opponent personal opinion, its a function of the evidence for it.
Next quote:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy".
The problem here is who decides what is a discrepancy. When you have a written text its too easy for people to have a plasticity as to what the text means. For example, the Qu'ran says the world was created in days. We now know this is wrong. What's the response of Muslims? They redefine the word day, so it doesn't mean a literal 24 hr day. In this way there its easy for anyone to deny that any discrepancy exists because they simply redefine what the text means.
Next up the Quran desription of Embryology is plain wrong.
Th Quran claims that man is formed in the following way: The Night Intruder 86 3 -7
"from water, discharged, Issuing from between the mans's backbone and the womens breast bone"
oh dead, oh dear, oh dear. The Quran has it wrong, humans do not form in this way. No doubt the text will be redefined so it can mean something else, good luck.
Furthermore the Quran contradicts itself. It says humans are created from the Earth:
11,61
from nothing:
19:67
from clay:
17:61
from water
21:30
Incidentally its also claimed Dr Moore no longer claims the Quran is accurate anyway:
Scientific errors and the myth of embryology in the Koran
The Quran thus makes statement which are inconsistent with modern science. So the conclusion of Dr Miller are just plain wrong.
Response: Yet, we've just watched a non-muslim simply say, the qur'an is wrong the qur'an has contradictions, but that was it. A bunch of claims and statements, not an ounce of proof. Such a
post only demonstrates the validity of Gary Miller and any muslim's claim that there is no proof of discrepancy in the qur'an, as you have clearly demonstrated by providing no proof of your claims that there are discrepancies, making Gary Miller right, and your statement wrong.
Last edited:
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
It does not require proof it is a matter of logic.
From the Quran, was man made from Nothing OR Clay OR Water?
If one is true then the other two are false, by definition from the verses they are mutually exclusive.
Hence a contradiction in the Quran.
I would have thought this was pretty obvious.
Cheers
Response: True. However, what is obvious is that the qur'an does not mention that man was created from nothing. Secondly, what is obvious is that clay is mixed with water, so to say that man is from clay or from water is no contradiction, because to be created from clay, you have to come from water as well.
Thus we can conclude, that there is
no contradiction, but rather a sad attempt to make it seem so.
skydivephil
Active Member
Do we really need to explain to you why the statement in sura 86 3 -7 that man is made:
"from water, discharged, Issuing from between the mans's backbone and the womens breast bone"
is wrong?
Perhaps we do, maybe no one explained to you basic biology.
Semen is produced in the testes and the females eggs are in the ovaries. The males testes are not in the backbone and womens ovaries are not in the breast bone.
Here is a diagram that might help you:
Google Image Result for http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=62652&rendTypeId=4
skydivephil
Active Member
Really? Why does it say in 19:67
67. But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?
and this translation is from an Islamic creationists web site:
The Holy Quran - Yusuf Ali Translation
You may say its obvious that the clay was mixed with water , but there are tow problems here:
first is that there is nowehere in the Quran where it says this
Second the evidence is that humans evolved and hence were not created out of clay, dust, water, nothing or whatever else the Quran claims.
Science and the Quran are not consistent thehy contradict one another.
Response: And perhaps your inability to comprehend simple english, or your attempt to interpolate words which are not there is evidence to you of a discrepancy, but to those of us who are rational and reasonable will tell you differently. For there is no such verse in the qur'an which states that man is created:
"from water, discharged, Issuing from between the mans's backbone and the womens breast bone".
This would mean that you are:
a. a liar
b. posses an inability to comprehend simple english
c. both
So tell us, which one is it?.
Response: A better translation would be, "when he was nothing". Secondly, the qur'an does not have to say that clay is made of water for it to be true. Common sense tells you that, and the very definition of clay tells you that. Third, if there is a science that contradicts Allah, then that science is obviously wrong. For the originator of creation would know the creation better than one who studies it. And lastly, the qur'an never stated that humans don't evolve, so your point is irrelevant.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I'll tell you what's amazing to me.
It is amazing that we average about three or four threads a week (such as this one), singing the praises and infallability of either the Bible or Koran and quoting a human being about how magnificent these books are.
It is amazing that the authors of these threads invariably seem incapable of actually reading through the thread titles to see that theirs is not discussing something that has been hashed over a multitude of times already.
It is amazing that the proseltyizing goes on, ad nauseum, thinly disguised as a debate.
It is amazing that we average about three or four threads a week (such as this one), singing the praises and infallability of either the Bible or Koran and quoting a human being about how magnificent these books are.
It is amazing that the authors of these threads invariably seem incapable of actually reading through the thread titles to see that theirs is not discussing something that has been hashed over a multitude of times already.
It is amazing that the proseltyizing goes on, ad nauseum, thinly disguised as a debate.
skydivephil
Active Member
I think you have revealed your true position. You say that if there is science that contradicts the Quran then the science must be wrong. You might as well say if there is evidence in favour of my position i will shout about it but if there is evidence against it Ill ignore it. This is an absurd double standard in the extreme.
Clay is not exactly made out of water, it can absorb water, thats not the same. here is a chemical definition of clay:
Definition of clay - Chemistry Dictionary
in case you dont know what a silicate is either, try here:
Silicate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
the Quran says that humans were created by god , that is not the same as we evolved from other primates.
Last edited:
skydivephil
Active Member
I am simply reading my Quran. This is from the Tarif Khalida transaltion:
"He was created from water, discharged, Issuing from between the man's backbone and the women's breast bones'
and this is not the only translation that mentions the women's breast bone or the mans back bone, try here:
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online
others mention between the backbone and the rib e.g here:
Complete English Translation of The Noble Quran
and this too is wrong!
Response: To the contrary, the double standard is yours. For if one were to say that the qur'an is true because "it says so", you would deny such evidence as proof. Yet, you turn around and attempt to bring information from scientists, saying that it's true because, "it says so". Saying so is not proof that it is so.The double standard is yours.
Secondly, you provide a definition of clay and suggest that because the definition does not mention that it consist of water, that clay is not made of water. First off, the simple fact that you are actually arguing whether clay is made of water is not sensible to begin with. So such a conversation on the subject is mind boggling, because even a child knows that clay is made from water.
Nonetheless, your own definition shows that clay is made from water. The silicates and elements which are needed to make clay have the same elements of water. In order for this to happen, the clay would have to be made with water, to have those elements. So once again, there is no discrepancy, and your own link is the evidence. Perhaps you should read your link next time before posting it.
Last edited:
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
:biglaugh:
"even a child knows"
:drool:
indeed, both you & children know this........ you & children:yes:
Last edited:
Response: And once again, saying it is wrong, is not proof it is wrong. One has to wonder why you are persistant in making the claim, but won't provide any evidence to back it up. Demonstrating once again, that you have no proof of any discrepancy in the qur'an.
MSizer
MSizer
No Fatihah, that's not true, and any sane mature person knows it. He's saying it's true because that's where the evidence leads. It is only the Koran in this case making a claim that is circular. If you refuse to admit that, then this is a hopeless cause (and I fear for the wellbeing of humanity if it's possible for a person to be in such denial despite the obvious).
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Indeed, Fatihah is making it sound as if this is a small group of scientists with questionable credentials. The simple fact is that there are no scientists who have not assassinated their own credibility in the global community, that support the Qur'an on this topic.