There is an increasing number of Westerners who believe that there are scientific miracles in the Qur'an, and converting on that basis. This blog documents my attempts to persuade one Muslim convert friend to examine these miracle claims (and other worrying aspects of Islam) rationally. Muslims are invited to respond in the comments section where I am always delighted to debate.
iERA's (Islamic Education and Research Association) latest dawah campaign invites us to "test the message" of Islam:
What did he (peace be upon him) come to teach and what reasons do we have to believe that he was telling the truth?
Indeed - what reasons do we have to believe that Muhammad was telling the truth?
Before we consider this important question, may I say that it's a relief (in the present climate) that iERA are giving us permission to test the message (even though they are publicising this new dawah initiative under the rather bellicose banner of Defend the Prophet! and Hamaza Tzortzis looks very angry indeed in his video ...) I'm also delighted that iERA have posed this particular question since it is one I have struggled with ever since my friend announced he had "reverted" to Islam.
Regular readers of Rational Islam? will know thatthe so-called scientific and historical miracles in the Qur'an played a decisive role in my friend's conversion. Hence when I asked him this very question he replied that "all the arrows" pointed towards the Qur'an having been written by God... and when asked what "arrows" in particular, he directed me to Maurice Bucaille's book: The Bible, The Qur'an and Science and to the western scientists who had made pronouncements to the effect that they could not see how the knowledge in the Qur'an in their discipline could have come from anywhere other than divine revelation.
We have seen in countless posts on this blog and elsewhere how the claims of the miracle seekers are without foundation and, in the case of the Commission on Scientific Signs, of very dubious origin. So will iERA continue to base their new dawah campaign on these modernist and divisive claims or will they turn to more traditional theological reasons?
For if I felt the need to find answers to life's great questions in a religion, then the desperate need to prove the ridiculous scientific and historic "miracles" in the holy texts of Islam by Muslims such as Yusuf Estes, Deedat, Hamza Tzortzis et al would, I'm afraid, put me right off.
So let's return to iERA's question: What reasons do we have to believe Muhammad was telling the truth that the angel Gabriel spoke to him over a period of 22 years and that the Qur'an is God's final message to mankind - perfectly preserved, word for word?
If any Muslim would like to forestall the idiots at iERA and answer my question without reference to numerology, pharaohs, mountains, honey, the water cycle, the Big Bang or f*cking embryology I would be delighted to hear from you.
Captain Disguise and associates have made a video of a detailed refutation of Hamza Tzortzis' claims regarding the "miracle" of embryology in the Qur'an.
They have also created a website concerned with the same topic. I have just visited. It is a very impressive piece of work. Please do take a look. Herewith a taster:
The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the claims made by Hamza Tzortzis in his purported “lexical analysis” of the terms in the Qur’an. The Qur’anic verses in question are 12-14 from chapter 23 which states the following,
(Yusuf Ali translation): “Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay) (sulalatin min tin); (12) Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm (nutfah) in a place of rest firmly fixed (qararin makeen); (13) Then We made the sperm (nutfah) into a clot of congealed blood (alaqah); then of that clot (alaqah) We made a (foetus) lump (mudghahh) ; then We made out of that lump (mudghahh) bones (idhaamen) and clothed the bones with flesh (Fakasawna Idhaama Lahman); then We developed out of it another creature: so blessed be Allah, the Best to create! (14)”
Note: The relevant Arabic terms have been transliterated and can be found in red inside the parenthesis. The English terms in parenthesis are usually the interpretations of the translator and are not explicitly stated in the original language.
Regarding these verses, Hamza states the following on page 5 of version v2.1b,[iv]
One might wonder if in reality, the Qur’anic verse is “uninvolved” and “simplistic” in the original Arabic as well. It is rather intriguing how the same verse which was described as “uninvolved” and “simplistic” by Hamza himself, mutates into the following monstrosity after Hamza’s supposedly legitimate method of lexical analysis;
“Man We did create from “the essential elements required for human life and functioning, found in clay” (sulalatin min tin)[v]; (12) Then We placed him as “the formation of the zygote, via the mingling of two fluids from the mother and the father, which contains two small cell structures (the oocyte and the spermatozoon)" (nutfah)[vi] in “the blastocyst sinking in the endometrium, being completely encased i.e. the process of implantation” (qararin makeen)[vii]; (13) Then We made the “zygote” (nutfah) into “the embryo...connected to the cytotrophoblast via a connecting stalk, as if it were hanging or suspended...upon the culmination of two processes - neurulation and the folding of the embryo” where “the embryo appears worm or leech-like” and “obtains its nutrients via contact with the maternal blood vessels” and “the external features of the embryo resembles a blood-clot...due to the formation of the primary cardiovascular system and the lack of blood circulation until the end of the third week.” (alaqah)[viii]; then of that “hanging leech-like blood suckling clot-like embryo” (alaqah) We made “The development of somites giving the embryo the appearance of a chewed substance” during “the organogenetic period (the development of organs, not yet fully formed)“ (mudghahh)[ix] ; then We made out of that “chewed fleshy substance with developed somites undergoing organogenesis” (mudghahh) “the formation of the axial, limb and appendicular skeleton”(idhaamen)[x] and clothed “the formation of the axial, limb and appendicular skeleton” with “the migration and aggregation of the muscles cells around the developing limb and axial skeleton, to form muscles, tendons and connective tissue” (Fakasawna Idhaama Lahman)[xi]; then We developed out of it another creature: so blessed be Allah, the Best to create! (14)”
A single word such as “alaqah” (i.e blood clot) has a meaning that is now four sentences long. Words such as “qararin makeen”or “place of rest” (i.e womb) now refer to various technical stages of developmental biology involving discrete terms like blastocyst and implantation. Even the least curious person in the world should have raised a red flag when presented with such a flamboyant display of the apologetic tactic of putting ‘lipstick on a pig.’
Regular readers of Rational Islam? will know that this is a major bugbear of mine so I am delighted to pass on any information which may help to dispel the myth that the Qur'an contains details concerning embryology which it would have been impossible for a 7th century desert dweller to have known.
All power to your elbow, fellas...
And may I leave you with the same question I always pose about this time: If the Qur'an really is the uncreated word of God, why does it require such suspiciously UNscientific loons as Hamza and Sheik Azzindani and Yusuf Estes to draw our attention to it?
I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?
The answer starts as follows:
Praise be to Allaah. The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues: 1 – The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed.
The answer continues to make references to various hadith such as:
With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas which we will quote below. This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, “I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up.” The blind man stood up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.” Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her.”(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)
You can see that Muhammad thought the killing of a Jewish woman and a female slave of one of his followers (with whom the follower had two sons) did not require a rebuke because they had "insulted" him. As the cleric writing this says: This hadeeth clearly states that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet [...].
I therefore have three questions arising from this:
Do you think the idea (implied by this answer) that it is permissible to kill those who insult the Prophet is a commonly held belief among Muslims?
Is the arrogance and pride implied by allowing someone to kill a woman because she insulted you worthy of the "best human ever to have walked the Earth"?
I suppose I might also ask is it not inevitable, given the above and the belief in the sunnah, that Muslims will commit atrocities such as the murder of the American Ambassador?
Now look at this from the same answer:
It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.
Why if, as we are constantly being told, the religion of Islam is not violent, instead of labouring the fact that Muhammad had the right to kill those who spoke harshly to him, doesn't the cleric say that killing anyone for a perceived insult is abhorrent and uncivilised?
Do you believe that your Prophet "had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs"?
Is it any wonder that those in the West who are beginning to research Islam in depth feel that the claim that it is a "religion of peace" rings increasingly hollow?
"The Holocaust was a fantasy. Millions of Jewish men women and children didn't die in the gas chambers."
There is an interesting parallel being drawn in the Muslim community between the offence caused by depictions of Muhammad and that of Holocaust denial. Muslim poster, London Muslim, in an otherwise sensible post wrote yesterday:
Ridiculing our beloved Prophet Muhammad (saw) is as heinous to Muslims as ridiculing or denying the Holicaust (sic) is offensive to Jews. It's time both are stopped.
This is not an unusual viewpoint. The Guardian today reports the ire of young Muslims in the Middle East and quotes a speech made by the Pakistani prime minister no less, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, addressing a gathering of politicians and top clerics in Islamabad.
While he called for peaceful protests, he also used language likely to inflame the many protests that have claimed the video is part of a plot involving Jewish, Israeli and US interests. "It is ironical that denial of holocaust is considered a crime but no consideration is paid to the feelings of Muslims," he said. "I hope the international community and Islamic world will be successful in preventing such things."
Call me a white Western imperialist bigot if you wish, but I'm sorry - there is NO COMPARISON, Mr Ashraf. To say to a Jew that the murder of his family and millions of others by the most vile doctrine of ethnic cleansing ever to exist didn't happen is like drawing pictures of your Prophet, really is offensive.
The prohibition of depictions of Muhammad is not even in the Qur'an. Shia Muslims are quite relaxed about drawings and painting of the Prophet. It is only Sunnis who have been brought up to consider such things "heinous". The ruling, such as it is, actually comes from the hadith - the collection of sayings and actions of Muhammad that is a secondary source of rules for Muslims. The ahadith in question in fact prohibits all depictions of living things:
Narrated Aisha:The Prophet entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces. The Prophet said, "Such people as paint these pictures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection."—Sahih al-Bukhari,
as well as more particularly religious personages:
When the Prophet saw pictures in the Ka'ba, he did not enter it till he ordered them to be erased. When he saw (the pictures of Abraham and Ishmael carrying the arrows ofdivination, he said, '"May Allah curse them (i.e. the Quraysh)! By Allah, neither Abraham nor Ishmael practiced divination by arrows.'—Sahih al-Bukhari,
When the Prophet became ill, some of his wives talked about a church which they had seen in Ethiopia and it was called Mariya. Um Salma and Um Habiba had been to Ethiopia, and both of them narrated its (the Church's) beauty and the pictures it contained. The Prophet raised his head and said, "Those are the people who, whenever a pious man dies amongst them, make a place of worship at his grave and then they make those pictures in it. Those are the worst creatures in the Sight of Allah."—Sahih al-Bukhari
The reason behind the continued prohibition is that pictures of Muhammad were thought to encourage idolatry.
We thus have the wholly ridiculous situation where millions of excitable Muslims don't know why they are so angry - for how can a nasty, cheap little film that depicts the Prophet as a sex pest in any way be seen to encourage worship of his likeness?
How can the silly little cartoon at the top possibly encourage someone to worship it instead of reading the Qur'an.
So grow up, LM and grow up Mr Prime Minister and grow up all you young easily led Muslims and for once QUESTION what on earth you are being asked to believe. Or more pertinently perhaps - stop pretending this is a religious question and admit that it is an excuse to bash the West.
Le Figaro newspaper today carries an interesting article on the long history of caricatures of Muhammad. The first known example, the article says, can be traced back to 1141-3 in an illustrated Latin translation of the Qur'an. The illuminated manuscript shows the Prophet with a fish's tail and feathers on his body. The Bible was on display at the page shown at an exhibition entitled "Books of the Word: Torah, Bible and Koran" in Paris and was seen by thousands of visitors as well as being put on-line (it still is). Nobody complained let alone demonstrated or threatened violence. Would that still be the case today if some over-sensitive Muslim decided to make this a cause-celebre?
Are we to be denied in future the opportunity of viewing such ancient manuscripts because of the sensitivities of a religious group?
La provocation de Charlie Hebdo renvoie à des pratiques très anciennes.
Religious bigots exist in most faiths. Monotheism in particular encourages bigotry by its very nature: Our God is the only God! Your version is a travesty of the true faith. Persecute!
I dislike religion for many reasons but this inevitable tendency towards intolerance and violence is surely one of the most hateful characteristics of the Abrahamic faiths.
As the wonderful Tom Lehrer in his song, National Brotherhood Week, put it:
Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics And the Catholics hate the Protestants And the Hindus hate the Muslims And everybody hates the Jews
They certainly seem to over at London Muslim. LM's latest post has produced a particularly worrying outbreak of lies and falsehoods which can only serve to encourage the continuation of the nasty streak of anti-semitism that lies at the heart of Islam.
Following a post on the worrying increase of racial violence against Africans in Jerusalem, LM asks very reasonably why the world's media are not publicising this as they do the violence perpetrated by Muslims. However, someone has then posted in the comments section a list of "Quotes from the Torah - unbelievable!". The quotes (such asWhen the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D) are all referenced and appear genuine.
In fact, the "quotes" are from an anti-semitic leaflet published by a Christian fundamentalist called Van Hyning in the early 20th century.
Van Hyning’s leaflet was widely reprinted, excerpted, added to and quoted from or referenced throughout the 1950s and 1960s by such publications as The Cross and the Flag, Common Sense, andThunderbolt. In the early 1970s the Rev. Gerald L.K. Smith continued to distribute a free tract quoting most of these lies. Rarely quoted today, these fabrications continue to be the foundation of many claims that Judaism is anti-Christian.
That the leaflet is being used today by some Muslims to incite hatred of Jews is worrying... but not, I'm afraid, surprising.
Here's Yvonne Ridley, famous former captive of the Taliban and convert to Islam, explaining to a sophisticated and worldly-wise Muslim interviewer, how she came to Islam. The whole interview is interesting but I particularly want to draw your attention to a section from 8.03 onwards (reproduced below) where Yvonne explains how she promised her Taliban captors she would read the Qur'an if they released her:
Y.R.: "I was given a Qur'an with an index in the back. So I thought I'll make this easy, I'll cherry pick all the ..er subjects relating to women - so I'm looking for the chapter on how to beat your wife, how to subjugate.."
Interviewer (shocked and bemused): "How to beat your wife?"
Y.R.: Yes!
Interviewer (disbelieving): "In the Qur'an?!"
Y.R.: "Well- yes...this is ..you know..my twisted idea of what this religion...is evil and violent and oppresses women! And I couldn't believe what I was reading because the Qur'an makes it, as you know, crystal clear that women are equal in sprirituality, worth and education...."
It's worth pausing here to note how deeply shocked (apparently) the interviewer is at the thought of the Qur'an containing anything so misogynist and hateful as an instruction to beat your wife, and how Yvonne Ridley so blithely attributes this to her brain-washing in the West. Now let us look at verse 4:34 from the Qur'an. I give the three translations (Asad, Yusuf Ali and Pickthall) as found at IslamCity:Qur'an Search in case any reader should accuse me of using Western/Zionist propaganda:
4:34 (Asad)MEN SHALL take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!
4:34 (Y. Ali)Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
4:34 (Picktall)Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath men the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.
(Note that, as always, words in brackets have been added by the translator to aid comprehension of the "clear" Qur'an. Thus Yusuf Ali's "lightly" after the word beat is his, not Allah's words.) We are thus left with two possibilities. 1. Both the sophisticated and apparently well-educated interviewer and Ridley have genuinely never read this verse, or have forgotten its existence. 2. They are so far down the road of cognitive dissonance that they can convince themselves that this verse doesn't mean what it patently does. Oh - there's of course a third possibility: that 4:34 has been mistranslated by two Muslim Arab speakers and a Arabic specialist and these mis-translations have been allowed to stand without correction on an Islamic site. Muslims reading this might be interested to read how a respected Muslim Q&A site deals with this issue.
There is nothing in the Qur’aan that suggests that a man is allowed to beat his wife.
Nothing? Are you absolutely sure? Well, the site does actually grudgingly admit that a hadith by Muslim mentions something about hitting your wife:
4 – And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Fear Allaah with regard to women, for you have taken them as a trust from Allaah and intimacy with them has become permissible to you by the words of Allaah. Your right over them is that they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike; if they do that then hit them but not in a harsh manner. And their right over you is that you should provide for them and clothe them on a reasonable basis.” Narrated by Muslim, 1218. What is meant by “they should not allow anyone to sit on your furniture whom you dislike” is that they should not allow anyone whom you dislike to enter your houses, whether the person disliked is a man or a woman, or any of the woman’s mahrams [close relatives to whom marriage is forbidden]. The prohibition includes all of them. From the words of al-Nawawi. The hadeeth may be understood as meaning that a man has the right to hit his wife, in a manner that is not harsh and does not cause injury if if there is a reason for that, such as her going against his wishes or disobeying him.
Er- but I thought you started this explanation by saying there was nothing in the Qur'an which suggested a man was allowed to beat his wife...Let's read on. Perhaps all will become clear.
This is like the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “As to those women on whose part you see ill‑conduct, admonish them (first), (next) refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allaah is Ever Most High, Most Great”[al-Nisa’ 4:34]
Ah - now we get to the nitty-gritty. But wait, what's this? More brackets? Beat them (lightly, if it is useful)?! "Excuse me darling, I'm just going to beat you lightly as I think it may be useful"
If a woman rebels against her husband and disobeys his commands, then he should follow this method of admonishing her, forsaking her in bed and hitting her. Hitting is subject to the condition that it should not be harsh or cause injury. Al-Hasan al-Basri said: this means that it should not cause pain.
So now it all becomes clear. There is nothing in the Qur'an saying a man may beat his wife ...except the verse that says a man may beat his wife..but he can only do this lightly so that it doesn't cause injury. Now, if you are a woman reading this, please tell me honestly that you feel comfortable believing that your God spent his time telling mankind it's OK to beat you lightly if you misbehave.
The purpose behind this is not to hurt or humiliate the woman, rather it is intended to make her realize that she has transgressed against her husband’s rights, and that her husband has the right to set her straight and discipline her.
So says Islam Q&A. Remember Yvonne Ridley's remark to the interviewer? "The Qur'an makes it crystal clear that women are equal." How strange then that God regards an equal partnership as one wherein one partner has the right to discipline the other if she goes against the other's rights but this right is not extended back. This is obviously some magic definition of equality that only Yvonne Ridley and Islamic clerics know about. Go ahead and worship this misogynistic creation if you want. But I'll tell you plainly now that such a deity is not worthy of polishing my wife's shoes. And Yvonne (if you ever read this) how dare you, how DARE you suggest to vulnerable women that there is nothing in the Qur'an that relates to beating women. The lies and distortions that have to be committed to portray the Qur'an as a feminist text should make any intelligent woman's blood boil. -------------------------------- Note: Many Muslims reading this will claim that "to beat" here has the meaning to hit lightly with a bunch of fragrant grass or a tooth-pick because of various diverse hadith. I would simply ask them to consider the likelihood of the following:
"Wife! You are being rebellious - I admonish you!"
"Screw you, Ahmed. Do the washing up for once in your life!"
Right! It's separate beds tonight- we'll see how you like that!"
Next morning. "Wife - have you come to your senses yet?"
"No! Do the bloody washing up, will you?"
(Exasperated) "Right - you've really asked for it now. It's time for the tooth-pick!"
"Oh no- not the tooth-pick! Darling you were right all along! I'm so sorry! I shall do as I'm told in future!"
