Islam & Science

Greetings 7x7. Thanks for the response.

I said:

“ It has been stated that the original religion was Islam and thus the Qu'ran was not influenced by prior religions such as Judaism and Christianity ”

7x7 said, with my comments in brackets:

No you can't look at it like that way. [Yes, yes I can. :) ]
Let me simplifies it you

God rules = the original Religion* [any proof that Islam was the original religion outside of quoting the Qu'ran and other Islamic sources? I think about the best you can do, if you accept the Bible as recording any true history, is to claim that Adam, Abraham believed in God and were not Jewish. However, that doesn't make them Muslims by default]

God rules = Judaism (same original rules) then Judaism rules = changed (no more original) [So, are you saying that Judaism was originally Islam, with its exact shari'a laws, etc, agreeing with Islam with what is halal and haram? If so, where is the proof?]

God Rules = Christianity (started Original) Christianity rules = changed (no more original) [once again, are you saying that Christianity started out with exact shari'a laws, etc, agreeing with Islam with what is halal and haram? If so, where is the proof? What early Christian document says Jesus prayed toward Mecca, or that he went to Mecca for the Hajj?]

God rules = Islam (started original) Islam rules = not changed (same original). [So, if this is truly the case, we should find the earliest humans following Islamic customs, speaking Arabic (at least some, in order to understand the Qu'ran). Where is the evidence of this? Can you do anything, except at most, give evidence that there were general monotheists at the beginning of human history? Remember, being a monotheist does not necessarily make one a Muslim. Please site non-Islamic sources. Also, I don't think it's historically accurate to say that nothing has ever been changed about Islam. First off, even in the Qu'ran according to some Muslim scholars, there is the doctrine of abrogation, that one part of the Qu'ran was replaced by another. Secondly, there were textual variants of the Qu'ran that existed, and ones which even exist to this today. It is a myth to say that every Qu'ran is exactly the same as every other Qu'ran]

I wrote:

Regardless, wasn't it known in the time of Muhammad that Pharaohs were embalmed and preserved? If that knowledge was commonplace, how is it much of a prophecy to say that it would be preserved for the future?
”

7x7 said, with my comments in brackets:

I hope you have read the entire chapter in the book. Dr. Bucaille wrote how the body was kept. Due to environmental aspects not due to "embalmed body". [Who said I accepted what Dr Bucaille said as absolute truth? I don't. Besides, even if I assume that the body was that of Pharaoh Merneptah, AND that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, AND that the salt wasn't due to the embalming process (although salt IS used in the embalming process), you still haven't shown me why I should conclude this was a great prophecy. Muhammad could have known that Pharaohs were embalmed and preserved. It would have been reasonable to assume that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was embalmed and preserved somewhere in Egypt. It is also possible that Muhammad was referring to the Pharaoh still being embalmed in his day, not to a future uncovering in 1898. Also, please tell me what the Muslim intepretation of the verses was prior to 1898? I believe Bucaille wrote some things, not necessarily because he actually believed them, but rather to please the Islamic world since he was, from what I understand, funded by Saudi Arabia]


I said:

It has been stated on this forum that Muhammad did not write the Qu'ran. Why is this believed?

7x7 said, with my comments in brackets:

that the point of this thread. I'm trying to prove to you that Muhammad did not write it. It is up to you to believe or disbelieve. [This is true that it's up to me decide, but I see no more reason to accept the Islamic account that Muhammad was illiterate and therefore couldn't write the Qu'ran, as to believe that Joseph Smith didn't have access to a big library and was just a simple man, that he couldn't have written the Book of Mormon. By the way, I'm not saying that Muhammad necessarily wrote all of the Qu'ran, or that Joseph Smith necessarily wrote all of the Book of Mormon. I just don't see why I should believe that either source was revealed by an angel]
 
Last edited:
Let's put things in perspective now.

The Quran has some very vague sentences that some people dare to call scientific (although they are merely anecdotal).

However, way before the Quran was even conceived there was for instance this unknown man called

aristotle

He wrote something like 150 philosophical treatises of which many on scientific subjects. He wrote about science, he made mistakes, but he also made many discoveries.

Comparing these ambiguous sentences in the Quran with his work and calling it scientific is just plain ridiculous.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html
 
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

This part of Surah 32:9 indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordial of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.

I wanted to go back to this one once again, to make sure we both agree it can be interpreted to mean absolutely whatever you want it to mean. And that there is no scientific information contained in the passage – other than what you want it to contain (ad hoc).

I’ve written 4 differing responses.
 
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

(1)

Firstly, you interpret “hearing” to mean the embryonic organs that will eventually form the hearing organ, ie: ear.

You interpret “sight” to mean the embryonic organs that will eventually form the sight organ, ie: eye.

However, feeling and understanding you lump together for some reason and instead of following the tend of interpreting “feeling and understanding” to mean the embryonic organs that will eventually form the nervous system and brain you take them to mean what it says “feeling and understanding”.

But, what if you were to be consistent with your interpretation and treat “feeling and understanding” as you had hearing and sight?

Well now a different outcome arises. If we go to the book The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud we find that hearing and sight both develope AFTER the structures that will eventually form the peripheral nervous system (feeling) and central nervous system / brain (understanding).

CHAPTER 18 The Nervous System
Day 18 – Day 21 starting with the neural fold and traversing to the neural groove the neural plate and neural crest are formed. The neural crest will eventually become the nervous system (feeling) and the neural tube will eventually become the brain (understanding).

CHAPTER 19 The Eye and Ear
This chapter explicitly states that the Eye and the Ear develop after the third week (ie: >Day 21)

See below for more info.

So you can see as plain as day. If you are going to interpret “hearing” and “sight” as the embryonic structures that lead to the ear and eye you must also interpret “feeling” and “understanding” likewise.

When you are consistent the entire statement is false.
 
Last edited:
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

(2)

As the ear is not the foremost sensory organ to make proper connections to the brain it is quite obvious that “feeling” is prior to “hearing”. That’s the bitch about stating “hearing” first. If you say hearing is first, then it must be that the nerves connecting the ear (VIII Cranial Nerve) to the brain are the first of ALL nerves to connect a working organ to the brain. (This MUST also be true of the eye and the optic nerves that attach them to the brain). Which isn't the case.
 
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

(3)

I’ll take this at what it says. Hearing means hearing. It doesn’t appear to be referring to pre-fetal structures of the embryo as has been interpreted. It says “hearing”. So what does it mean to hear? Is it stimulation from the nerves connecting the ear to the brain? What about a person who has an interruption with these nerve impulses and (although the nerves may signal) is unable to “hear” anything. That is - the nerves function but the brain doesn’t respond (aka “hear”).

Right from the start we can logically conclude that the infant doesn’t “hear” anything until a brain has developed that can interpret the nerve impulses as sound. As such, “understanding” would occur before hearing out of necessity (and sight for that matter as well).

From this purely logical point of view we must conclude the passage is incoherent and logically incorrect.

Nevertheless,
The earliest time point measured for infant to “hear” is at 16 weeks. (Shahidullah and Hepper, 1992). This is double the time at which “feeling” has been clearly established – that is 8 weeks! There is absolutely no doubt that sensory and motor nerves begin to work at eight weeks (Some observations on early human foetal movements, J E Fitzgerald and W F Windle, Journal of Comparative Neurology 1942 76, pages 159 to 167). As such feeling occurs prior to hearing - when taking the passage at face vallue (ie: hearing means te hear and feeling to feel).
 
"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding."

(4)

For this last rebuttal of the argument we will again go to Moore’s own work: The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.

I actually walked over to the library and grabbed Moore’s book and flipped over to the section on hearing and sight. And low and behold what DIDN’T I find? Moore must have forgotten what he had previously said about the Qur’an. Because that isn’t AT ALL what he published.

Weird huh?

Chapter 19: The Eye and the Ear

p423

“The eye formation is first evident during the stage 10 of development (about 22 days) when a pair of grooves called the optic sulci appear in the neural folds at the cranial end of the embryo.

p433

“The ear consists of 3 anatomical parts: external middle and internal.” “The Inner Ear: This is the first of the three anatomical divisions of the ear to appear early in the fourth week, a thickened plate of surface ectoderm, the optic placode, appears on each side of the developing hind brain”

You of course notice that at the earliest the ear may begin development, according to Dr. Moore, is at the same time as the eye – as early in the fourth week cannot get any earlier than day 22!

Also telling is that Dr. Moore puts the eye and ear together in one chapter. Signifying their simultaneous development. Moore makes not a single mention that the ear is developed prior to the eye. Weird huh?

Moore methodically organizes his book developmentally. That is, chapter subjects tend to arise as do their embryonic organ counterparts.

Hence Chapter 19 (The Nervous System) precedes Chapter 20 (The Eye and the Ear) as the development of the nervous system precedes the development of the eye and ear.

Interestingly, the chapter title lists the organs in the order of Eye before Ear. And, as the page numbers indicate, the eye is indeed presented before the ear. From what Moore has published one would conclude that the eye begins to develop before the ear.

PS: You’ll notice that this was chapter 19 – which come after Chapter 20. That’s because ear and eye development follow neuronal development (ie: feeling and understanding). This is also evident in the first paragraph …optic sulci appear in the neural folds …

And with final ado the argument regarding the Qur’an and embryologic is at last smashed to pieces :)
 
THE FLY

Prophet Hadith says:
((
If a fly falls into one of your containers [of food or drink], immerse it completely before removing it, for under one of its wings there is venom and under another there is its antidote.
))
Click to expand...

flies carry microbes but also anti-bacteria (Bacteriophages)to kill the germs it has already left.

for more information:
LINK
 
Michael said:
THE HUMAN
Humans carry microbes but also anti-bacteria (Bacteriophages)to kill the germs it has already left.


[/URL]
Click to expand...

THE FLY

Flies carry microbes but also anti-bacteria (Bacteriophages)to kill the germs it has already left.



The research presented herein represents the initial efforts to determine the extremes of bacteriophage ecology beginning with the isolation of bacteriophages from the common house fly and the American cockroach, Periplaneta americana.

from link:

isolation of bacteriophages from the common house fly
 
First, your text is pure physist , so some parts of it I can not understand because I'm not a physist.
Also my English is not my first language and I couldn't find in dictionary many of the physist scientific words,you wrote.

But, what if you were to be consistent with your interpretation and treat “feeling and understanding” as you had hearing and sight?
Click to expand...

First, I have read the phrase again and I found that the word used is "Al-afeda" which is one word only, (they translated to 2 words, i don't know why) and it used to refer to understanding, thinking, feelings…

I don't have the ability to responds at you, sorry …………… I couldn't understand many words of the text and i don't have sources , or libary to respond to you scientificaly.

:)
 
well..I will put it in easy words for you. The eye actually develops from a bulbous outgrowth of the brain. Hence the sight can never develop before the brain.

However this is purely academic since at what point does understanding and feelings really develop? Is it really at the same time as the brain develops? Or does feeling and understanding start developing much later in life?

Even sight and hearing are not finished developing when the structures are there. A newborn baby can't really see very well at all.
 
7x7

That's Ok,

Basically I’m saying that if “hearing” and “sight” are going to be interpreted as the appearance of the structure that will eventually become a functional ear and eye then the same should be applied to “feeling/understanding” – which is of course the brain.

As soon as the playing field is leveled and each item in development treated equally then the statement becomes false (because the brain begins to develop first).

So the authors of the Islamic article you read just interpret the passage in such a way as to have the desired meaning they are after.

It make one wonder why they went to such lengths and acted so deceptively?
 
Michael said:
7x7

That's Ok,

Basically I’m saying that if “hearing” and “sight” are going to be interpreted as the appearance of the structure that will eventually become a functional ear and eye then the same should be applied to “feeling/understanding” – which is of course the brain.

As soon as the playing field is leveled and each item in development treated equally then the statement becomes false (because the brain begins to develop first).

So the authors of the Islamic article you read just interpret the passage in such a way as to have the desired meaning they are after.

It make one wonder why they went to such lengths and acted so deceptively?
Click to expand...

The Brian, isn't a general word?

there are parts of the brain that (as far i know) are responsible for thinking and understanding?

is it cerebrum? I don't know.

So can you tell me if the part that is responsible for understanding? and if it develops before of hearing and seeing?

Make is simple, no pure physist

I don't know......
 
Astronomy in the Qur'an

FromThe Bible, The Qur'an and Science.

The book describes many examples, I will just quote one or two due to fourm rules.

Hinestly, I was wondering my self time ago (not long) about this phrase everytime I read it. I wanted to know about the destination mentioned in Quran, After reading the book I found the answer……..

In addition to this, the idea of a settled place is associated with the concept of a destination place in sura 36, verse 38:

"The Sun runs its course to a settled place. This is the decree of the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge."

The second verse quoted above (sur'a 36, verse 38) referred to the Sun running its course towards a place of its own.

Modern astronomy has been able to locate it exactly and has even given it a name, the Solar. Apex: the solar. system is indeed evolving in space towards a point situated in the Constellation of Hercules (alpha lyrae) whose exact location is firmly established; it is moving at a speed already ascertained at something in the region of 12 miles per. second.

All these astronomical data deserve to be mentioned in relation to the two verses from the Qur'an, since it is possible to state that they appear to agree perfectly with modern scientific data.
.
Click to expand...

anyone wants to read the whole book, a link provided in the past pages
:)
 
7x7 said:
Astronomy in the Qur'an

In addition to this, the idea of a settled place is associated with the concept of a destination place in sura 36, verse 38:

"The Sun runs its course to a settled place. This is the decree of the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge."

The second verse quoted above (sur'a 36, verse 38) referred to the Sun running its course towards a place of its own.

Modern astronomy has been able to locate it exactly and has even given it a name, the Solar. Apex: the solar. system is indeed evolving in space towards a point situated in the Constellation of Hercules (alpha lyrae) whose exact location is firmly established; it is moving at a speed already ascertained at something in the region of 12 miles per. second.

All these astronomical data deserve to be mentioned in relation to the two verses from the Qur'an, since it is possible to state that they appear to agree perfectly with modern scientific data.
. :)
Click to expand...

Here again are the 3 most accepted translations of that verse

036.038
YUSUFALI: And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.
PICKTHAL: And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Wise.
SHAKIR: And the sun runs on to a term appointed for it; that is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knowing.
Click to expand...



1: I see he is retranslating the quran again, you better watch it or the fact that the quran is unchanged will demonstrably fall by the wayside (as it already has for most non-muslims)

2: So in his new translation he is saying that saying "settled place" means the same thing as saying "Modern astronomy has been able to locate it exactly and has even given it a name, the Solar. Apex: the solar. system is indeed evolving in space towards a point situated in the Constellation of Hercules (alpha lyrae) whose exact location is firmly established; it is moving at a speed already ascertained at something in the region of 12 miles per. second" and you don't find this the slightest bit amusing?! :eek:
 
7x7 said:
Astronomy in the Qur'an

FromThe Bible, The Qur'an and Science.

The book describes many examples, I will just quote one or two due to fourm rules.

Hinestly, I was wondering my self time ago (not long) about this phrase everytime I read it. I wanted to know about the destination mentioned in Quran, After reading the book I found the answer……..

In addition to this, the idea of a settled place is associated with the concept of a destination place in sura 36, verse 38:

"The Sun runs its course to a settled place. This is the decree of the All Mighty, the Full of Knowledge."

The second verse quoted above (sur'a 36, verse 38) referred to the Sun running its course towards a place of its own.

Modern astronomy has been able to locate it exactly and has even given it a name, the Solar. Apex: the solar. system is indeed evolving in space towards a point situated in the Constellation of Hercules (alpha lyrae) whose exact location is firmly established; it is moving at a speed already ascertained at something in the region of 12 miles per. second.

All these astronomical data deserve to be mentioned in relation to the two verses from the Qur'an, since it is possible to state that they appear to agree perfectly with modern scientific data.
Click to expand...

anyone wants to read the whole book, a link provided in the past pages
:)
Click to expand...
Sorry 7x7 but this is bad science.

The earth is not travelling in a straight line, we are circling the milkyway. At present we are travelling towards alpha lyrae but this is changing as we orbit our galaxy.
Also we are not going to stop as the verse demands. Thus either the verse is wrong or it doesn't refer to the solar apex.

http://www.earthsky.com/shows/shows.php?t=20040421
 
Igor Trip said:
Sorry 7x7 but this is bad science.

The earth. is not travelling in a straight line, we are circling the milkyway. At present we are travelling towards alpha lyrae but this is changing as we orbit our galaxyAlso we are not going to stop as the verse demands. Thus either the verse is wrong or it doesn't refer to the solar apex.

http://www.earthsky.com/shows/shows.php?t=20040421
Click to expand...

i'm not talking about the earth,? :)
 
Last edited:
Path. from where you bring these translation.

Can you tell me what is the meaning of "Mostakar" in english or arabic?

I'm not responsible for any bad transaltion....

Just tell me what Mostakar means...........?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top