|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JulianCharteris
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 450
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: Quranic Cosmology Polemics Counter-rebuttal |
 |
|
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
10 September 2006
Filed under Quran, Miraculous Features, Polemical Rebuttals
Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa
This paper is intended to respond to atheistic criticism as proposed by Richard Carrier, in a rather large piece that is in my personal opinion and understanding, replete with errors and misunderstandings with regards to basic cosmological concepts, the Islamic viewpoint, as well as history. I also address a few polemics that were put forward by Freethought Mecca. Their article contains the particular objections that I shall address Insha’Allah, along with a spurious argument for Isaiah and then a few links to some other polemical sites; needless to say at least for now these few objections are the only ones that are relevant to this particular paper. So let us begin Insha’Allah; Richard Carrier has argued as of late that not only does the Holy Quran fail to predict anything amazing with regards to cosmology; he goes one step further and claims that the Holy Quran is in stark contradiction with modern day cosmology. So on Carrier’s view, to accept the Holy Quran as the Word of Allah Subhana Wa Ta’alaa is to fly in the face of mass amounts of evidence to the contrary. |
Unfortunately for Islamists like Servidor Hernandez, Richard Carrier told the truth.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| To begin I have to say that I did not like the title of his paper “A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists”; I mean it in a sense I am a Muslim fundamentalist as I adhere strictly to the fundamentals of the Deen; however that is not what Carrier was trying to say. Carrier is seeking to undermine the Islamic viewpoint before even presenting it; fundamentalists as most perceive them at least from a popular media stand point, are those who refuse to accept any conclusions of the modern times and are those who alienate themselves from the modern world. In Carrier’s argument anyone who does not agree that the Holy Qur’an is replete with errors; is a dogmatic fundamentalist, complete with the usual bias associated with the term he gives off the impression that the Muslim view point is not even serious. Hence the title of his paper has its own place of power in Carrier’s argument; however I do not think it holds weight as I will demonstrate in this paper, Insha’Allah. |
Carrier’s title is apt. Apparently, the Islamist has demonstrate the weakness of his stance with the poverty of his attack on a mere article title.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
Carrier first of all fails to provide a serious basis for his overall criticism; due to the fact that the site that he links us to as the “Muslim” source is in fact a site owned by a non-Muslim.
To my knowledge the author of the link is a Quranite; meaning he rejects certain Holy Ayaats in the Holy Quran which endow the Prophet (P) with authority through his prophetic Sunnah.1 Imagine if my source for the atheistic argument was a mystic hippy who rejects the existence of God, yet on the same note accepts absurd beliefs that do not reflect the majority of atheists opinion on the subject. This is just one aspect that reveals Carrier’s severe ignorance to Islam and his poor research in the progress of his paper. |
The Islamist has committed the logical fallacy of the Argumentum ad hominem. What matters is the truth or otherwise of evidence, not the religious beliefs or otherwise of the reference.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Now I must say that I personally do not find what some call “scientific miracles” to be miracles at all; the Holy Quran is the Word of Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa, hence it is not all that miraculous that He the Exalted has outlined all aspects of the univers without error. |
This entire article contains not a single evidence that Carrier was mistaken, or that his evidence is wrong. It is mere polemics without any evidence whatsoever.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| I do feel that Muslims who are unfamiliar with Quranic Arabic and or Tafsir literature; have indeed totally misconstrued certain Holy Ayaats and thus made the Holy Quran a subject of mockery amongst the better educated, I however contend that the Holy Quran contains no errors point blank period and that the Holy Quran can be put to the empirical test and confirmed Alhamdulillah. However Carrier is not all that familiar with modern cosmology which makes his article an intellectual bore for myself; the Infidels team should have requested that Quentin Smith or Adolf Graunbaum address the claims as opposed to Carrier who has been known to be completely alien to certain cosmological realities; and is known to attack them when he himself fails to grasp such facts.2 So naturally Carrier initially avoids any serious cosmological discussion. |
More argumenta ad hominem from the Islamist.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
A Cosmological Argument? Or A Poorly-Structured History Lesson?
To begin Carrier once again seeks to under mime the Muslim position with an opening barrage of verbal hollow tips (very hollow indeed) he starts off with “…..Things like this have proven hard to explain to fanatics who are more practiced at pious denials than in actual historical research.” |
Carrier’s words are demonstrably true. Islamists, like other religious fanatics, are not swayed by evidence or arguments, however persuasive they may be to the rational.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
The same man who attacked one of the most empirically valid realities ever to arise from the field of cosmology now accuses all Muslims and non-muslims alike who do not agree with his brief browsing of classical polemical sources on Islam, of practicing pious denials; rich indeed. However let us push pass the poor verbal barbs if for nothing else; for the sake of brevity, now the first fault that Carrier commits is he assumes that Islam arose from Judeo-Christian sources he writes “Jews and Christians were extensively Hellenized, and Islam sprung from these very same religious traditions…” First of all Islam did not “spring” from Judaism nor Christinity and the bulk of the claims put forward in order to try and demonstrate how this is even physically possible, let alone historically plausible, have been refuted in great detail.3 One of Carrier’s own sources, Richard Bell, states:
“…in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka’aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighborhood of Makkah or even of Madina.”4 |
The Islamist has committed the logical fallacy of the red herring. Nobody has argued that for Islam to spring from the earlier Abrahamic religions it has to have arisen from a seat of Christianity. A reading of the Quran would tell us that the influence of the earlier Abrahamic religions is unmistakeable. There are also Islamic sources that tell us of these influences.
Ibn Ishaq page 180: "According to my information the apostle used often to sit at al-Marwa at the booth of a young Christian called Jabr, a slave of B. al-Hadrami and they used to say "The one who teaches Muhammad most of what he brings is Jabr the Christian, slave of the B. al-Hadrami." Then God revealed in reference to their words "We well know that they say, "Only a mortal teaches him"." The tongue of him at whom they hint is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic tongue.
http://www.injil.de/Main/Silas/saifdebate2.htm
Bukhari 4:56:814:
Narrated Anas: There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." …
Waqidi [d. 207 AH D/823 CE] who says that a Christian slave named Ibn Qumta was the amanuensis of the prophet, along with a certain ‘Abdallah b. Sa‘ad b. Abi Sarh, who reported that "It was only a Christian slave who was teaching him [Mohammed]; I used to write to him and change whatever I wanted." 6
http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html
[Those who talked to Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, were Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id.] They were Christians according to the faith of the king with differences between them; they say: He is Allah, and say: He is Son of Allah, and say: He is the third of three [i.e., part of Trinity] and these are the claims of Christianity. [They use as evidence for their claim that He is Allah the argument that] he used to raise the dead, cure the sick, create from clay bird-like structure then breathe into it to make it a [living] bird. All this was by the leave of Allah, the Praiseworthy the Exalted {to appoint him as a sign for men} (Maryam:21).
They also argue for saying that he is Son of Allah by saying he had no known father and spoke in infancy which is something never done by any human being. They use as evidence for their claim that He is the third of three [i.e., part of Trinity] the argument that Allah says: We did, We commanded, We created and We judged [i.e., by using the plural for Himself], and whereas if He was one, He would say: I did, I judged, I commanded and I created; but it is He, Jesus and Maryam. The Qur'an was revealed addressing all these arguments.[27] Ref: Abu Muhammad `Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham al-Ma`afiri, Al-Sirah Al-Nabawiyyah, 1998, Volume II, Dar al-Hadith: Cairo (Egypt), pp. 181-182; also A. Guillaume, The Life Of Muhammad: A Translation Of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, 1998 (13th impression), Oxford University Press: Karachi (Pakistan), pp. 271-272.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html
Thus it is evident that Muhammad heard Judeo-Christian tales from various sources, beginning with Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail and from Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, to Jabr, the un-named Christian of Bukhari 4:56:814, and Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id.
Hence, there was no need for any seat of Christianity in the Hijaz, just individual Christians from whom Muhammad plagiarized for his religion.
Even the Quran alludes to Muhammad’s plagiarism of earlier sources to create Islam.
{Qaribullah & Darwish}
[6.25] Some of them listen to you. But We have cast veils over their hearts lest they understand it and in their ears heaviness; and if they see every sign they do not believe in it. When they come to you they argue, the unbelievers say: 'This is nothing but the tales of the ancient ones.'
[8.31] Whenever Our verses are recited to them, they say: 'We have heard them, if we wished, we could speak its like. They are but tales of the ancients. '
[23.82-83] 'When we are dead and become dust and bones shall we be resurrected? We and our fathers have been promised this before. It is but of the ancients' fictitious tales.'
[25.4-6] The unbelievers say: 'This is but a falsehood he has forged – another nation has helped him. ' So they have come with wrong and falsehood. They say: 'He has written tales of the ancients, they are recited to him at dawn and at the evening.' Say: 'It was sent down by Him who knows the secrets of heavens and earth. He is Forgiving, the Most Merciful.
[27.67-68] The unbelievers say: 'When we and our fathers are turned to dust, shall we be brought forth? We were promised this before, and so were our fathers. It is but the fictitious story of the ancients.'
[46.17] But he who says to his father and his mother, 'Fie on you! Do you promise me that I shall be brought forth, when entire generations have passed away before me?' Yet they supplicate to Allah for help 'Woe to you! Believe, surely the promise of Allah is true.' Then he says: 'This is nothing but fairytales of the ancients. '
[68.15] When Our verses are recited to him, he says: 'They are but fairytales of the ancients!'
[83.13] When Our verses are recited to him, he says: 'Fictitious tales of the ancients!'
That these sources should be religious in nature should be obvious to all. That they should not be pagan should also be obvious from any reading of the Quran.
These tales of the ancients include Christian stories is proven by the Ibn Ishaq quote above (pg 180).
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
Carrier seems to offer a response to himself by acknowledging that the Muslims began translating Greek texts among others, within a century after the prophetic mission of Muhammad (P). Hence Carrier’s argument could be, if I am understanding him, structured as such “Muslims had access to Greco-Roman sources in abundance; after Islam’s initial spread.” Of course that argument provides no firepower in favor of his overall claims in the least bit; the Arabs according to all serious historical sources were barbaric, illiterate, idolaters who preferred tribal warfare to education, and went as far as to bury their own female infants; that is, before Islam.
The Arabs remembered their entire bloodlines off by heart so as to avoid writing them down and they were indeed wise to do so as Carrier points out elsewhere:
“…even a single page of blank papyrus cost the equivalent of thirty dollars-ink, and the labor to hand copy every word, cost many times more. We find that books could run to the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Consequently, only the rich had books, and only elite scholars had access to libraries, of which there were few.”5
No Arabs had such resources; in fact, as missionary Dr. William Campbell demonstrated the best naturalistic anti-Islamic argument for correct statements in the Holy Quran regarding modern embryology involves a doctor of the Prophet (P) who was taught in Persia!6 Carrier offers no evidence that displays that Arabs had any Greek texts present in Makkah, in fact he himself admits that at best Arabs may have been taught in Greek education centers even then this does not demonstrate that th Holy Quran is the product of older Greek texts; nor can Carrier sight which texts have presumably been plagiarized. In sum Carrier’s argument so far is nothing but fanciful heresy “it could have been like this..”, “maybe…”, “perhaps..”; he provides nothing solid he merely tries to ground the idea that Arabs would have been masters of Greek scientific literature and Carrier disappointingly fails miserably. |
The Islamist has committed yet another straw man. It is not the average Arab barbarian that concerns us but only the literate elite, particularly Muhammad. Richard Carrier does not say that the Arabs possessed Greek texts in Mecca, only that “The works of the Greeks were known in the Arab and North African world for a thousand years before Islam, and Islam began translating Greek texts into Arabic within a century of its military conquests.”
I think the Islamist has missed Carrier’s point. He was merely making that point that Greek knowledge was not unknown in the region, not that Muhammad copied Greek knowledge into the Quran. This is what Carrier actually wrote:
“Hence, Arabs knew many Greek ideas, and had known them for many centuries before Islam arose. This is why the burden is on the Muslim to show you anything in the Koran that was not already standard knowledge or educated belief in the Mediterranean world when the Koran was written. Until they do so, and do so competently, we are fully justified in ignoring their assertions to the contrary.”
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| He also is under the false assumption the Holy Quran was written after the death of the Holy Prophet Muhammad alayhis salatu wasalam7. Fact is we have a copy of the Holy Quran from the time of the righteous companion Uthman (R) which was compiled from the personal copy of the wife of the Prophet (P), Hafsa (R) which was from when the Prophet (P) was alive. Furthermore, the Holy Quran’s order and sequence was Divinely Revealed to the Prophet (P) who supervised the writing of the Holy Quran; even if Carrier does not believe in the Supernatural he cannot deny the simple fact that the Prophet (P) supervised the writing as well as the sequencing of the Holy Quran during his lifetime, and if he wishes to do so; he thus shoulders the massive burden of evidence. |
This is blatant falsehood. The Quran was not sequenced during Muhammad’s lifetime. The collection and editing of the Quran was entirely the work of Caliph Uthman and Zayd ibn Thabit.
There is evidence that the earliest copies, i.e. those of Abu Bakr and Hafsa, are substantially dissimilar to the Uthmanic recension that is used today. Thus, reference to these earlier Qurans proves nothing.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
Carrier then imposes the fantastic premise that the Prophet (P) was well educated and literate. First of all I am not aware of a single historical source that supports his claim and he himself does not provide one; Carrier is I think, confusing Arab history with romantic Greek history. A Noble Arab of the Prophet’s (P) time meant that he would be fashioned into a good wrestler, hunter and eventually a warrior. The very year the Prophet (P) was born tribal warfare nearly destroyed the Ka’abah; furthermore the Holy Prophet (P) was an orphan who were not viewed highly in ancient Arab society. The Prophet (P) would later become a humble tradesman (hardly the high life that Carrier envisions for nobles) and in all reality almost all Arabs were illiterate and being a noble actually increased their chances of remaining illiterate as nobles were to be skilled warriors and violent protectors of their tribes honor; not to be educated young men in large houses with maidservants and massive libraries. Even classica polemicists such as J.M Rodwell and Alan Jones admit that the Prophet (P) was indeed illiterate; Carrier seems to have a habit of going against the grain without putting in the hard yards. He simply states something that is contrary to the facts and hopes we will buy it; for example the claim that Christians and Jews populated Makkah we of course know that there was no real Christian influence in Makkah and that the Jews populated al Medina. To quote Dr. Nabîh Aqel:
“The big difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christianity unlike Judaism didn’t have any bases in Hijaz, Christianity was an external source of enlightenment echoed in Hijaz either by missionary activities from Ethiopia, Syria and Iraq or from Alheerah’s Christian centers…”8 |
Muhammad’s literacy is contentious. There is evidence that he indeed could read as the definition of Ummi could mean both illiterate or ‘unschooled’. However, the fact of Muhammad’s literacy is irrelevant since the Quran and other Islamic religious sources tell us that he learnt Abrahamic stories not from reading but from listening to Christians. See quotes above.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Carrier even goes so far as to state that the Prophet’s (P) family ruled Makkah. The fact is that there were various tribes in Makkah; none of which were Sovereign rulers of the city not only are Carrier’s claims preposterous; he hiself does not argue in favor of them. Apparently we are supposed to just accept his claims in the severe absence of evidence which in accordance with the old saying “actions speak louder than words”, I think, demonstrates that Carrier has no real empirical backing behind his claims. |
Was not Muhammad’s uncle, Abi Talib, an important chief of the Meccans? To be precise, Carrier claimed that Muhammad’s family controlled the city, not ruled it.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
Carrier also assumes that Islamic sources are all but buried in legends; once again this shows just how little research was involved with his paper. The earliest Islamic sources have been dated back to the time of the Companions and show no traces of legendary interpolations and the fact of the matter is that the Holy Quran and the Hadith literature were both recorded to promptly to have accumulated legendary interpolations. The earliest manuscripts of the Holy Quran show that the scribes did not even space out Holy Ayaats (a true testimony to their literary mastery, the early Muslims simply memorized when a Holy Ayaah began and ended) and furthermore the early Muslims would have sooner died as opposed to sitting down in the face of scribal tampering. Even anti-Islamists agree that the Islamic sources are sound; to quote “Dr.” Ali Sina, one of today’s staunchest critics of Islam and most infamous online Islamophobe:
“The truth about Muhammad can only be found in the early books of history written inthe first three centuries of Islam.”9
Carrier’s view of Arab history is thus idiosyncratic and bears no resemblence to reality. |
Does the Islamist even know the ‘legends’ of Solomons such as the Queen of Sheba and the ant army? Or the myth of the seven sleepers in the cave? Or the Persian myths of houris? Or Jinns?
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
Would You Like Some Cosmology With That History?
Carrier finally looks posed to offer a detailed critique of the Holy Quran’s relation to cosmology; however he predictably fails to address the Holy Quran’s outline of the universal creation. Carrier focused on the Quranite site from which he draws his conclusions on the Islamic view of cosmology, thus he writes
“The idea that the universe began as some sort of gaseous vortex was ubiquitous throughout Persian and Greek ideology. That the Koran says the same thing is thus not at all surprising.”
The problem is that the Holy Quran makes no such assertion. Carrier is going pound for pound with a phantom at this point in time. Now before going any further which will just in all reality draw us further away from the topic of cosmology due to Carrier’s inability to stay on topic; I feel it is a worthwhile endeavor to outline the Holy Quran’s explanation of the universes existence.
The Holy Quran does not say that the universe came from gaseous material, Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa says: “He (Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…”10 The aforementioned Holy Ayaah clearly states that Allah Subhan Wa Ta’ala is the Originator of the universe, thus the universe was not in an infinite gaseous state until later intervention rather the universe has an origin; a point of creation that is coming into existence from non-existence and Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa is indeed the Creator. Allah Subhan Wa Ta’ala then says “Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of Creation), before We clove them asunder?”11
The important point in this Holy Ayaah is that the Arabic context refers to the universe and the earth as one. Ratq mens “mixed or blended” so ratq describes the initial first materials that formed the entire universe; including the earth and states clearly that they were mixed or blended. In the very initial stages of the universe; the heavens expanded and cooled. Particles of matter and anti-matter rose briefly for minute periods of time; however the temperature would not sustain them for long. Then the electromagnetic and weak interaction were cleaved; later the neutrinos would separate from the photons aswell. Now almost all of the anti-matter and matter was annihilated in this cleaving, except the minute amount that remained. Thus the first elements came about; and all this came to pass in around three minutes after the creation of time itself. These elements just as Allah Subhan Wa Ta’ala stated would ultimately form the contents of our universe; including the earth.12
So the Holy Ayaah stated that the universe and the earth where once one unit of creation; true to the Quranic context mixed or blended this demonsrates that the Holy Quran does not mean that the earth was as it is now; rather the Holy Quran I think explains that the earth had a long creation process(evolution if you will), beginning at the initial point of the Creation of the universe; second the Holy Quran acknowledges that the universe was cleft asunder; and that this cleaving of the universe would permit the existence of the initial elements that would form our universe as we see it now and more explicitly: our earth.
Thus the Freethought Mecca camp lodges a complaint; which in turn does a wonderful job of unveiling their ignorance of Arabic and placing it on display. While always pasting the Arabic text of a Holy Ayaah complete with a transliteration whenever quoting from the Holy Qur’an in their articles, fact is it is apparent that they do not speak Arabic nor encompass the complexity of the Holy Qur’an’s language within their research. If I understand the argument they presuppose that the Holy Quran was composed by an illiterate man for an ancient people thus the Qur’an seems to be outlining that the event described in Surah al-Anbiyaa: 30 must have been presumably observable by the ancients. Fact is just like oaths, this is one of the idiosyncrasies of Qur’anic Arabic. The Arabic expression that can be translated as “Do not the Unbelievers see…” is just a linguistic feature to draw the readers attention to a specific matter in order illustrate point; in this case the readers attention is directed to to the fact that Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa clove the heavens and the earth asunder.
Freethought Mecca then claim that due to some creation myths that have been rendered to an infinitesimal extent; in a similar fashion, the Holy Ayaah is thus nothing spectacular. The first problem is that the Holy Ayaah does not say “separated the heaven and earth”; fatq is an explicit reference to a “cleaving” or powerful striking of one unit of blended or mixed entities. So googling an erroneous translation does not help their case. Second if we overlook their initial blunder from the outset of their polemic and read the creation myths; none of the them explain that the heavens and the earth were “mixed or blended”; on the contrary they assume that either there was a solid cosmic egg, or that the the heavens and the earth where two solid objects that somehow got intertwined. All of the myths contain legendary aspects from magical wind coiling like a massive serpent; to physical beings breathing in space.
The Holy Quran contains none of the aforementioned flaws/errors rather, Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa explains that the heavens and the earth were once mixed or blended, we thus reach their next polemic. How can the earth exist at this point in time? As I explained before, I think that the Holy Quran does not state that the earth was as it is in the present time frame, rather it had a long creation process which began at the initial instance of the universes Creation. The Arabic context quite simply rules out the solid earth/connected to the universe hypothesis; so the Holy Quran describes I think an evolution of the earth from the very initial stages of the universes existence; that is the only way the Holy Ayaah can in my opinion be interpreted due to the context of the word employed “ratq”. In fact Abdallah Yusuf Ali; who did not have the same knowledge nor resources that I have available to me at the present time, still wrote in his commentary on the Holy Ayaah in question: The evolution of the ordered worlds as we see them is hinted at.” Anyone familiar with the present day data knows; that the initial properties in the early universe are what makes up the contents of our universe today, hence we can look at the beginning of the universe as the earliest point of the earth’s existence as it over time evolved by the Will of Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa; the earth itself was Created from initial cosmic gas. The same way if I show my favorite picture of my mother and I you could object and say I am no where to be seen and that she is holding a baby; the objection is mute that was me in the initial stages of my life and I grew over time by the Grace of Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa. |
Actually, it is not Carrier who made that particular pseudo-science claim. He is merely critiquing the claims of Islamists like Harun Yahya and Zakir Naik. If the Islamist has problems with this particular pseudo-science claim, since he writes that the Quran makes no such assertions, he should take it up with his fellow Islamists, not with the critic. As such he has attempted to hit the wrong target.
Carrier provided a reference to that particular pseudo-science claim. It is a pity the Islamist failed to read the article properly and learnt that it was a fellow Islamist, Muhammad A. Asadi, who made that pseudo-science claim. http://www.rationalreality.com/
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| And last of all searching out similar explanations does not imply plagiarism, indeed is this not the way of the atheist? |
This is a baseless charge and an ad hominem.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Speaking out of both sides of their mouths I mean for the existence of God its all about empirical evidence; when it comes to criticizing religion its all about feasible fanciful heresy. Take any random statement from lets say; the Hawking-Hartle paper on the wave function of the universe, ensure that the statement is in quotation marks put the statement in a google search engine and watch how many hits you get. It does not imply plagiarism nor does it under mime their conclusion; to be perfectly sure this is the last resort of the atheistic argument so when rational empirical explanations fail, cut and chopped theorizing prevails. |
A casual reader could instantly realize that Hawking and Hartle provided far more advanced insights into the nature of the universe than the simplistic, erroneous, Quran even can.
It is also clear that the Islamist does not understand the term ‘plagiarism’ since Western scientists such as Hawking and Hartle do not claim prior knowledge without proper acknowledgment. This is in contrast to Muhammad who stole the Judeo-Christian creation myth as well as misappropriating their respective deities.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Fact of the matter is the Holy Quran is exempt from the errors of the creation myths and worse still for the atheist; I think the Quran is correct on the matter. And my interpretation is in accordance with the context of the Holy Ayaah, to the point that he earlier comment ors who did not have the present day data formed similar conclusions. |
How can the Quran be exempt from the errors of the creation myths when the Judeo-Christian creation myth is central to Islamic beliefs?
How can the Quran be correct on the creation of the universe when it says this?
[41:12] Then He completed seven heavens in two Days and He made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to be an adornment as well as to guard (from the devils by using them as missiles against the devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-Mighty, the All-Knower.
How can any rational person believe that the stars, in the lowest heaven (wherever that may be), were created to ward off devils?
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
Now; we then reach the gaseous point of the universe and the other instances of Creation Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala says: “He placed firmly embedded mountains on it, towering over it, and blessed it and measured out its nourishment in it, laid out for those who seek it, all in four days. Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, “Come willingly or unwillingly.” They both said, “We come willingly.”13. And then the beautifying of the stars as Allah Subhan Wa Ta’ala says: “And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.”14. So we can outline the Islamic perspective of the Creation of the universe and its contents as such:
1. Creation of the universe from nothing. (Surah al An’aam, Holy Ayaah 101)
2. The heavens and the earth were mixed or blended in the initial conditions of the universe. This is after the universes initial instant of creation (Surah al-Anbiyaa, Holy Ayaah 30)
3. “Fatq” the cleaving asunder of the electromagnetic and weak interaction; which then annihilated all of the anti-matter as well as most of the matter, except a small remnant thus the first elements came about. (Ibid.)
4. The universe remains nothing but vapor i.e gaseous elements as the earth is created. (Surah Fussilat, Holy Ayaats 9-12)
5. Stars are beautified and the rest of the cosmos continue to change by the Will of Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala. (Surah al Imran, Holy Ayaah 109)
Nadir Ahmed drew attention to point five on radio with Carrier15. Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa uses the term “created’ over 200 times in the Holy Quran. However the word used in Surah Fussilat Holy Ayaah 12 is zayyanna which means to beautify or adorn; so the stars where already in existence at this point in time. The question then arises how can the universe be but smoke and still have stars? First of all allow me to clarify the smoke matter which was the subsidiary target of Carrier’s polemic that followed his erroneous interpretation of the Holy Qurans explanation on the universes Creation. Instantly he applies the strictest literalism possible hence ignoring the reality of the Arabic context; the word used here for smoke is “dukhan” which can mean “smoke”, “mist” or “vapor”. |
The points the Islamist missed are that:
1. on no account of the Big Bang was the earth any time near being created,
2. on no account was the universe vapor or gas when the earth was created, and
3. there was no smoke or mist or vapor, but plasma, at the beginning of the universe.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Smoke in classical semantics can mean flying particles as well as a mist or vapor according to the Macquarie dictionary. Mist canmean a cloud of particles resembling a fog or a cloud like entity, and vapor is just a substance in the gaseous state. All of which can describe the universes initial conditions after baryogenesis, inflation(e xponential increase in R), the fundamental particles, and the cleaving asunder of the electromagnetic and weak interaction. |
One wonders why the Islamist would use an English dictionary to argue the meaning of an Arabic word. Further, the Islamist cannot prove that the word ‘dukhan’ was ever used to describe what is claimed. Any Arabic dictionary would show that the meanings of dukhan cannot be used to fit the highly specific term ‘quark-gluon plasma’.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| He then asks why Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala did not name the components of the initial gaseous make up. This is where I must stress that the Holy Quran is not a science book; the Holy Quran is not meant for university grade cosmology on the contrary, the Holy Quran is for all of mankind not a select few educated individuals. Allah Subhan Wa Ta’alaa Says ‘And We have indeed made the Qur’an easy to understand and remember: but will any take heed?’ (Surah al-Qamar, Holy Ayaah 32) How many people would seriously understand what the Holy Quran meant if It described the initial cosmic make up in the most explicit terms possible? How many would derive any benefit and or understanding from such a book? The answer is only those with university grade education; keeping in mind that the Holy Quran is for all of mankind that means from the average student, to the guy who begs for change at the train station. Thus those who seek fantastic scientific miracles in the Holy Quran are seriously misaken; the Holy Quran does of course describe the Creation of the universe and yes it is indeed consistent with the observational evidence (unlike any other text claiming to be from Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala) however It does not ever claim to be a science book; science is complementary to the Holy Quran and in encouraged therein. |
The Islamist seems to have forgotten that it is his fellow Islamists who made the ridiculous claim that the Quran contains scientific knowledge. Somehow, to the Islamist’s thinking, it is permissible for Islamists to make all sorts of outlandish claims, but it is not permissible for critics to point out the falsehoods of such Quranic pseudo-science claims.
So the Islamist trots out the standard Islamist apologetic, ‘the Quran is not a science text book’, when stumped, yet does not see the irony of also claiming that the Quran does describe the creation of the universe and is consistent with observational evidence. In other words, the Islamist wants to have his cake and eat it too.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Thus I partially agree with Carrier’s last point in his initial opening of bullet point objections, he writes “The very passage in question is neatly quoted out of context…”; however the other four objections raised, have I think been cleared up as has the remainder of his last point. So far it is clear that Carrier is ignorant to the Arabic context of certain Holy Ayaats and has no real grasp on the Quranic account of the universes Creation. |
The only Arabic word the Islamist had discussed was ‘dukhan’ which he claimed was smoke, mist or vapor. Then he looked up an English dictionary of what ‘smoke’ means and attempted to hoodwink readers into thinking smoke can also mean the ‘quark-gluon plasma’ associated with the Big Bang.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| To sum up, whether blatantly or indirectly Carrier’s entire paper is thus far based upon clear cut ignorance to the Islamic viewpoint. Of course he is not finished as of yet; Carrier wishes to desperately drive one point home, adorned with various little shots at Islam in between. He wishes to demonstrate the Holy Quran’s presumably most vivid contradiction to cosmology. But naturally the point proves to be Carrier’s most astounding blunder in the entire essay. He starts off by trying to make it seem as though Muslims have to “reinterpret” the word “day”; once again displaying his supreme ignorance to the language of the Revelation, yaum just means “period” and not a literal 24-hour cycle as Carrier tries to ground within the reader’s mind. Thus the Holy Quran is exempt from the Biblical error; he continues on and thus makes our case for us and reveals the largest error this poor misinformed man has espoused thus far in this particular paper. |
This is merely a claim that is without foundation. The literal meaning of the word yawm is ‘day’, not ‘period’. It is only a modern Islamist apologetic that distorts the meaning of the word yawm to mean period since it is obviously an error in the Quran. I’m indebted to a fellow forum member, peaceforever, for providing the evidence.
Al-Mu'jam Al-Waseet [The Dictionary]
Volume Two
Page 1111
(al-yawm): the time from sunrise to sunset. and - the present time. and from that came in the dear revelation [the Quran] : {This day *al-yawm* have I perfected your religion}. and - (in astronomy): the time it takes the Earth to revolve around its axis, which is twenty four hours.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
He writes “But then we see that verse 41:11 establishes an undeniable context in which the universe exists as smoke at the same time that the earth already exists…” very meticulous reading indeed Carrier two thumbs hombre, however he then states “since here the “gaseous state” co-exists with a fully-formed Earth. That is scientifically impossible..” excuse me? Come again Mr. Carrier? Do you seriously believe your statement? For lack of better words allow me to quote Professor John F. Hawley and Katherine A. Holcomb:
“All stars are huge balls of gas, mostly hydrogen held together by gravity.”16
Keeping in mind that gravity is merely a force and is in fact the weakest of the four fundamental forces and it is carried by a purely hypothetical massless boson “the graviton”, which has not yet been detected. Now the gas that makes up a star is held together by two competing forces, keeping in mind that dukhan can be translated as vapor as discussed before; which is in turn merely a substance in a gaseous state. Stars can thus be counted in the universal stage that is described in Surah Fussilat, Holy Ayaah 12, as stars are merely gas held together by their hydrostatic equilibrium, keeping in mind that the majority of the galaxy is still filled with clouds of gas. Carrier then tries to form a polemic based upon the erroneous idea that the stas were yet to be Created; I already covered this and Nadir Ahmed made it clear on the radio that Carrier was propounding a straw-man claim. |
The Islamist has once again constructed a straw man. The charge is that “the universe (i.e. heavens) exists as smoke at the same time that the earth already exists”. The verse does not mention stars. So we have to inquire as to the veracity of the verse. Was the earth present when the universe existed as smoke (taking the loose interpretation of the ‘quark-gluon plasma’)? No. Was the universe smoke when the earth was created? No.
Hence the Quran is patently wrong. The fact that the universe was filled with clouds of gas, or is still filled with gas, is irrelevant. The Quran clearly describes a time in the past when it was smoke.
[41:11] Then He istaw (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."
This is in the past tense and refers to a specific time. Was the universe substantially different before and after the creation of the earth? No. Hence, it is obvious the Islamists entire line of argument is false. It is thus clear that 41:11 refers to the beginning of time, not when the earth was created.
It can also be argued that Allah created the earth before the heavens, as claimed by no less an authority than Ibn Kathir in his tafsir:
Allah says that He created the earth first, because it is the foundation, and the foundation should be built first, then the roof. Allah says elsewhere:
﴿هُوَ الَّذِى خَلَقَ لَكُم مَّا فِى الاٌّرْضِ جَمِيعاً ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى إِلَى السَّمَآءِ فَسَوَّاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَـوَاتٍ﴾
(He it is Who created for you all that is on the earth. Then He rose over (Istawa ila) the heaven and made them seven heavens) (2:29).
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Carrier then — much like Freethought Mecca — resorts to claims of “cultural borrowing” indeed these tactics are tautological, it is clear that the Holy Quran did not borrow from the Biblical events or else the Quran would contain the same gross errors. |
So the creation of the world in a few days is not an echo of the Biblical creation account? So the creation of humans through Adam and Eve is not an echo of the Biblical creation account?
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Carrier himself states in his paper “Greek philosophers guessed a lot of scientific details correctly–they anticipated atoms, other solar systems, evolution, the laws of thermodynamics, the rain cycle, you name it. That doesn’t make them supernaturally prescient…” I agree so when Darwin proposed the theory of evolution I suppose he was plagiarizing/borrowing from the Greeks? |
Here the Islamist has committed the logical fallacies of argumentum ad absurdum and red herring. Nowhere did Carrier claim that the Greeks developed the theory of evolution.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Carrier needs to re-asses his criticism, the ancients did indeed guess various details so if the Holy Quran mentions a correct phenomena that was perhaps encompassed in older myths; that is not grounds to accuse the Author of the Holy Qur’an of “cultural borrowing”. |
I think the Islamist should develop better arguments.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| Carrier’s strongest point was the seven heavens argument whih I think he refutes himself, Carrier wrote “…”the seven heavens” are traditionally delineated by the seven “planets,” i.e. the sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn…” And yet the Holy Quran never says a word about seven planets and clearly distinguishes the sun and the moon from the category of planets; hence Carrier’s claim is an ad hoc assertion; he needs to show how the Author of the Holy Quran plagiarized. Then he needs to explain as to why the Author decided against including the erroneous “seven planets” myth and then if Carrier cannot demonstrate any of the above he would need to prove that there are no Seven Heavens. |
There are several hypotheses of what the ‘seven heavens’ mean. The ‘seven planets’ hypothesis is but one.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
| In the Arabic context, it seems to denote seven separate universes; if the self-reproducing chaotic inflation model is correct then this is very plausible. Inflation ensures that the universes initial conditions would be smooth, flat and homogeneous regardless of how it came about (it does not, however, solve as to why inflation took place nor why it was so well-calculated). The problem proposed early on, was the fact that from the classical proposals it didnt seem that the universes inflation field would be constant everywhere within the universe. So Andrei Linde proposed that certain portions of the universe are caused to inflate by quantum fluctuations to a high degree while others to a much lower degree. In this scenario child universes form from certain regions of the overall mother universe; and the child universes are connected to the mother universe by wormholes however the wormhole that connects them also permanently separates the children. In some of these child universes inflation may not eventake place, and of course they may be governed by a completely unknown set of physical laws. |
This is patently false since Ibn Kathir claimed that Allah created the heaven after he created the earth, and he raised the seven heavens.
After Allah mentioned the proofs of His creating them, and what they can witness in themselves as proof of that, He mentioned another proof that they can witness, that is, the creation of the heavens and earth. Allah said,
﴿هُوَ الَّذِى خَلَقَ لَكُم مَّا فِى الاٌّرْضِ جَمِيعاً ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى إِلَى السَّمَآءِ فَسَوَّاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَـوَاتٍ﴾
(He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He Istawa ila the heaven and made them seven heavens) meaning, He turned towards the heaven,
﴿فَسَوَّاهُنَّ﴾
(And made them) meaning, that He made the heaven, seven heavens. Allah said,
﴿فَسَوَّاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَـوَاتٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَىْءٍ عَلِيمٌ﴾
(And made them seven heavens and He is the Knower of everything) meaning, His knowledge encompasses all His creation, just as He said in another Ayah,
So it seems that Allah created the earth first, then the heaven second, and third, he turned the heaven into seven heavens. Hence, it is impossible for the seven heavens to represent seven universes. So much for the Islamist’s ‘Arabic context’.
| Servidor Hernandez Ibn Musa wrote: |
The Holy Qur’an could be correct in Hugh Everett’s many worlds interpretation too, even if the ekpyrotic model or Smith’s black hole theory is correct! The fact remains that there could be seven separate heavens as the Holy Quran states. Thus ironically the Qur’anic claim is real science, it can be falsified or confirmed via observational evidence; considering the accuracy of the Holy Qur’an I think we have every reason to place our faith in it as opposed to atheism. As Carrier stated:
“It is they who are being irrational and unreasonable if they deny the obvious.”
Indeed, Mr. Carrier, and you, sir have been most irrational, Good Day scholar. |
It is clear it is not Richard Carrier who has been irrational.
Regards,
Julian M Charteris
References:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/cosmology-and-the-holy-quran-a-response-to-richard-carrier/#more-364 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|