In response to Ali Sina’s article “The
World’s Greatest Showman”
“World's Greatest Jester”
By
Suhail Khalid
Some points for the readers:
1. Please watch the full debate between Dr.
William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on the topic “THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE
IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE”.
2. You can download the following debate
from Ali Sina’s site: http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm#content
3. Afterwards, read Ali Sina’s article
“World’s Greatest Showman” for which links are provided down below in my paper.
Are Miracles Real?
Ali Sina:
Right from the onset…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)
…grammatical errors of his book.
Answer:
Readers!
First of all it is very inane to solicit a proof of an event or a miracle that
had occurred in the past. We could only find such claims in history or in
books. We cannot carry out those miracles in modern age in order to defend our
claims. The only imperative thing for Ali Sina to discern is people practicing major
religions have faith in miracles. Also he does not have any proof to show that
miracles were not transpired in the past but just only to provide what his
minuscule mind deems and what science has to say. I am posing him a counter
question if he can endow me with a proof where he can illustrate us that
miracles were not happening in the past. I would advise him just not to utter
straight that miracles are nothing but fairy tales without any “EVIDENCE”.
Secondly,
miracle may not be an assessment if a person is authentic or not since they
were performed by loads of people in many religions like Hinduism, Christianity
and Islam. Similarly, how can one verify a person, genuine, if he is performing
miracles?
We
Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) performed many miracles.
However, we do not boast about them since the only verification we can provide
you, are from the Holy Scriptures upon which people like Ali Sina do not have reliance.
The only living miracle we boast about is the Holy Quran. And I will not ask him
to outdo the Quranic challenge of producing a some what similar chapter like
Quran, because I do really think that he is not competent enough. However,
challenge is still open for the whole humanity.
Christianity
and Islam are the two major religions in the world and they both have their
beliefs in miracles, and from some where in the dark, populace like him roll up
alongside and start disseminating in opposition to miracles. Isn't it fooling enough
that he is negating something on "NO EVIDENCE" in hand. Let him produce
the proof if he is authentic. Prove me miracles do not exist?
I will later rebut his article on “Muhammad disclaimed
being able to perform any miracles.”
Insha
Allah, I will ascertain Quran to be the word of Allah by His blessings and
grace in this paper.
Yet
again that is Ali Sina’s postulation that non-Muslims do not aver Quran to be
the finest Arabic literature and he supposed that if they believed in this why
they don’t convert. For example; if I declare that King James Version of the Bible
has the very best English Literature, does it mean I believe in Christianity or
I am a Christian? Answer is “NO”. And it is true that I take pleasure in reading
King James Version and in my outlook it is much superior in terms of literature
than any other versions of the Bible. Similarly the non-Muslim Arabic speaking
people can find Quran to be the best Arabic Literature. What so astounding about
it? We are not imposing them to adapt Islam first and then testify the Quranic
Literature. That’s mere stupidity from Ali Sina.
And
on what scale he is concluding Quran to be not the best of Arabic Literature. Does
he have any other High-Rank Arabic Literature available from where he can judge
Quran’s Arabic? If he produces such a book he will be able to trounce the
challenge of Quran where it inquires for a some what similar chapter like it’s.
If
he has it, then present it? Because of some imprudent non-Arab non-Muslims
allegedly found some grammatical mistakes in Quran, he is pronouncing that
Quran does not have best of Arabic Literature. That’s mere idiocy again from
Ali Sina.
I
am posting here a few quotations from non-Muslims admiring Quran to be of the
best Arabic Literature.
-
Goethe
– quoted in T. P. Huges “Dictionary of Islam”, page 526:
“It
soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence... Its style, in
accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand - ever and always, truly
sublime - So, this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent
influence."
-
G.
Maragliouth in his Introduction to J. M. Rodwells - `The Koran`,
“The
Koran (Qur'an) admittedly occupies an important position among the great
religious books of the world. Though it is the youngest of the epoch making
works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the
wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has created
an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first
transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula
into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast
politico-religious organizations of Muslims world wide which are one of the
great forces with which
-
Dr.
Steingass quoted in T. P. Hughes - `Dictionary of Islam`, pages 256-257:
“A
work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotions
even in the distant reader - distant as to time, and still more so as mental
development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance which he may begin
its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admiration,
such a work must be a wonderful production...
indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of
the destinies of mankind."
“Here, therefore, its merits as a
literary production should perhaps not be measured by some preconceived maxims
of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in
Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen.
If
it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld
hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well
organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled
the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a
civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp
of history"
-
Dr.
Maurice Bucaille – author of `The Bible, the Quran and Science` 1978, page 125:
“It
is impossible that Muhammad, peace be upon him, authored the Qur'an. How could
a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of
literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?
How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other
human-being could possibly have developed at that time, an all this without
once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"
-
Arthur
J. Arberry - `The Koran Interpreted`,
“In
making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors,
and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the
sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the
intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself -
constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary
masterpieces of mankind..
This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony', as the believing
Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to tears
and ecstasy' has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is
therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat
indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original.."
Readers!
I will pose the same argument as mentioned above. Ali Sina and his disciples managed
to have allegedly found only 18 grammatical mistakes out of thousands of
verses. Wow, what an achievement. Parenthetically, this is not the theme under
discussion. I will certainly reply some other time regarding all the grubby
things he has stated above (insha Allah). In future, my counsel to him is to
affix to the topic and do not go astray.
Regarding
scientific errors, readers can find my replies further down the document.
Einstein’s Religiosity:
Ali Sina:
(Dr.
Naik) let us analyze whether the Quran is compatible…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)
…which is a blind religion that opposes science.
Answer:
Readers!
Yes, Ali Sina is right over here. Albert Einstein was not speaking a propos to Islam
when he avowed this citation. Neither did Dr. Zakir Naik connote Islam when he
presented Einstein’s quotation. It is Ali Sina who is hypocrite and dupe by
relating Einstein’s quotation to Islam. He does not seem to be able to judge
the hidden truth.
Dr.
Zakir Naik was just merely presenting a quotation of Albert Einstein and it can
be referred to any religion. Solely, it doesn’t have to be Islam. He was just
revealing people the relation between religion and science in the words of
Albert Einstein.
Regarding
other craps Ali Sina inscribed in his arguments where he mocks Islam in
relation to Science, I will deal with it in this discussion insha Allah.
Big Bang in the Quran?
Ali Sina:
(Dr.
Naik) As far as Qura’n and modern science is…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)
…and both are scientifically wrong.
Answer:
Readers!
How can be the story of Adam and Eve false if Big Bang theory is true? I again
sense hoodwink in Ali Sina’s arguments. Again story of Adam & Eve is out of
this discussion, however, I am still retorting subjects like Evolution and Big
Bang in this dialogue as they were also stated by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech.
It
seems his concept is pointing towards the theory of evolution. If I disprove
theory of evolution then by design (as set by Ali Sina) Big Bang and story of Adam
and Eve befall to be true. This is what I assumed from what he had written in
his post.
If
he is really using theory of evolution to prove the story of Big Bang and Adam
& Eve, then please bear in mind that he can nevertheless prove it by putting
himself as an example; because he deems like an ape and he comports himself like
an ape. And confidently he could start from his good self a new evolution of
people with brains like apes.
In
order to prove his testimonies he has to answer following questions:
1. Prove “Theory of Evolution” as a universal
fact?
2. Prove that how complex living cells transform
to high-order species by random mutation as postulated by Darwin and his
followers?
3. As DNA is unique for each type of a living
species, prove that how can it be manipulated to produce the DNA of another
species?
4. Prove how the living cells of a species
spontaneously combine to form the more complex organized structures such as a
single DNA molecule?
Chemically,
amino acids and other basic compounds cannot be artificially organized into the
smallest unit of DNA. DNA, unique for each type of a living species, cannot be
manipulated to produce the DNA of another species. Any such manipulation could
only interfere with its functioning but not with its identity. Hence,
genetically, evolution is basically impossible.
Thermodynamically,
all matter, if left alone, tends to get more disorganized. Hence, chemical
molecules could not, on their own, combine to form the more complex organized
structures such as a single DNA molecule. Similarly, the living cells of a
species cannot spontaneously evolve into a more complex organized species.
Natural
selection, one of the pillars of the evolution myth, cannot produce a
higher-order species from a simpler one. If a species fails to adapt to its
surrounding environment, this would either lead to extinction or to
modification of its behavior and function, but could never change its identity
to another.
This
tarnished theory is greatly applauded by atheists and materialist cultures
which is a dogma far from being a possibility and is much less a scientific
fact. Disguised in attire of science and propagated by populace like Ali Sina
and his disciples who tend to conceal its frailties until it permeated into the
intellects of population.
It’s
lucid that Ali Sina’s approach to prove something is so obscure and perplexing
to the readers in finding out the truth. He seldom endows evidences when lay
allegations against Quran. If some how he quotes a verse thinking that it will
defend his intellect, then he only produces his self-crafted smeared
terminologies as proofs that just do not make any impression usually. Or may be
he lacks knowledge of Holy Scriptures, their eloquence and exquisiteness of
lexis and how they should be inferred.
If
he destined evolution in his inquiry with the intention of deterring the theory
of Big Bang and Adam & Eve, I be inclined to tell him that I have proven
evolution to be a sham and thus alongside also proven the story of Big Bang and
Adam & Eve to be veritable.
Readers!
Concerning Quranic verse 21:30 and Genesis verse 1:6-9, Ali Sina alleged that
this Quranic verse has rehashing of the Genesis. It’s like he is alleging the
notion that Quran in many places states “not to kill innocent” and Bible also
refers the similar idea, and subsequently he concluded straight away that Quran
has really plagiarized the verse from the Bible. It’s specious. Like for
example;
“And slay not the life which Allah hath
forbidden…” (Quran 17:33)
“…Do not kill…” (Mark 10:19)
There
is a high possibility that Bible has a few verses which can be analogous in
Quran also. That does not make Quran fallible. If bible is aiming to a correct scientific
fact or terminology, so does Quran too.
Similarly,
there are numerous verses in Quran that portray alike occurrences in different
ways as judged against Bible. Like for example the birth of Jesus, Quran explains
the birth of Jesus this way:
"O my Lord! How shall I have a son
when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what
He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
(Quran 3:47)
And
Bible gives you a diverse perception of the birth of Jesus Christ:
“And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35 – KJV)
Readers!
I expect you perceive the disparity now. Quran speaks about How Allah has
created Jesus, “He wills
it and thing comes into being”. And in
Bible’s words, Holy Ghost (a.k.a God) sired Marry. (Astaghfurullah)
How
sightless Ali Sina is in faith that he cannot not even perceives the creation
of Jesus as mentioned in the Bible, is so in exact opposite those of Quran and
populace still allege Quran to be forged from the Bible. How can Quran rule out
such a grand testimony of the Bible upon which the whole “Christian-dom” lays?
Quran is not the by-product of Bible, Ali Sina; I am pronouncing again Quran is
not made-up from the Bible.
Readers!
As said by Ali Sina that Quranic verse 21:30 has a rehashing of Genesis 1:6-9. Evidently,
no where in Genesis Chapter 1 (Whole Chapter) has
an allusion that heavens and the earth were “joined together” and they
were “separated” later. Let’s read verse 1:
“In the beginning God created heaven and
the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
Whereas
the Quranic verse 21:30 clearly states that heavens and the earth were joined
together and Allah separated them; this harmonizes with science. How can this
be a rehashing of Genesis 1? The truth is distinct and if Ali Sina still cannot
perceives it then he must have a serious problem with his intelligence.
Ali
Sina said, “The Quran is full of legends borrowed from the Bible and
fables of Pagan Arabs”. He put forth no evidence but just only myths of
ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. I want him to show me evidence
of such myths in Quran. I do not know why he wrote such myths in his arguments
and how did he link them with Quran. This is just only his daydreaming and
distraction.
Of
course both the “stories” are precise. Ali Sina appears like a lunatic in the
statement he made about two stories. There are several modes according to my insight
to probe these two verses.
Condensing:
Let’s read verse Quranic 41:11:
“He directed Himself to the heaven when it
was smoke (or gas), so He said unto it and unto the earth: Come ye together (or
both), willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come in willing
obedience."
It is not therefore difficult to distinguish that if it was Gas then
coming together means condensing. This harmonizes with Astronomical Theory. It
is wonder that the critic does not take the words literally and object to the
heaven and earth replying in Arabic. Willingness in the above implies that they
obeyed their own nature rather than having external coercive force acting on
them.
Obedience:
Readers! You can also predict that prior to Big Bang when heaven was
a smoke; earth still subsisted in the divine knowledge of Allah. Hence, in this
verse Allah is only inquiring their submission mutually to His command, and
they both replied certainly. This is an alternative way of understanding.
(Allah indeed knows the best).
Ali Sina is such hoodwink. I want him to show me where this verse reveals
that heaven and the earth were apart and Allah commanded them to come toward
each other to be “together” or to be “joined” (as mentioned by him in his post).
“Together” also means “In somebody’s company”.
Come
in to being:
Translation by M. Asad literally states the creation of the
Universe:
“And
He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke; and
He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, Come [into being], both of you,
willingly or unwillingly! – to which both responded, We do come in obedience.”
Explaining this passage, Zamakhshari observes: "The meaning of God’s command to
the skies and the earth to ‘come’, and their submission [to His command] is
this: He willed their coming into being, and so they came to be as He willed
them to be and this is the kind of metaphor (majaz) which is called ‘allegory’
(tamthil). Thus, the purport [of this passage] is but an illustration (taswir)
of the effect of His almighty power on all that is willed [by Him], and nothing
else." (It is obvious that Zamakhshari’s reasoning is based on the
oft-repeated Quranic statement, "When God wills a thing to be, He but says
unto it, ‘Be’ - and it is.") Concluding his interpretation of the above
passage, Zamakhshari adds: "If I am asked about the meaning of [the words]
‘willingly or unwillingly’, I say that it is a figurative expression (mathal)
indicating that His almighty will must inevitably take effect."
Now we analyze Quranic verse 21:30:
"Do not the unbelievers see that the
heavens and the earth were joined together, then we clove them asunder . .
."
Therefore the heaven and the earth were
fused mutually (as mentioned by Ali Sina) and afterward Allah detached them.
This is what unerringly Big Bang theory states in a nutshell.
Readers! This time I will present different
acuity of these two verses. As you are aware that Big Bang is an established
scientific fact as posed by Ali Sina in his article as well, and Quranic verse
21:30 clearly cites the course in a nutshell. Right now the question arises
that what was prior to the Big Bang? What was before when heaven was a smoke? These
questions were asked from several renowned scientists and they provided the
following answers:
-
Nobel Prize winning Physicist Leon Lederman said; “Well, the first thing is there's no
'before.' Because time itself, as far as we understand time, was generated—and
space—at the Big Bang.” (Taken from http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=7)
-
Dr.
Michael Turner, a cosmologist at
-
Karen
Masters, PhD from Cornell and now a Postdoctoral Fellow at the
-
Craig
Hogan at the
Here, I have quoted authorities who are stumbling in finding what
was there actually before Big Bang. They have no clues and no routes from where
to initiate in order to decipher this mystery until this time. If we situate Quranic
verse 41:11 ahead of Quranic verse 21:30 in the course of creation process,
then there is no way Ali Sina can prove that Quranic verse 41:11 is contrary to
established scientific fact, since, there is not a record regarding what was
there earlier than Big Bang and when heaven was smolder. May be there were
planets before big bang, then they were joined together and afterward Allah
separated them. Who knows? However, Allah indeed knows the best.
Therefore, lay the sketch of creation of universe this way "heaven
was a smoke (Quranic verse 41:11), and earth was existed in Allah's divine
knowledge, and He inquired both of them for their compliances (in taking form),
which they acknowledged, and afterward He separated them (Quranic verse 21:30 -
Big Bang)."
Let’s beat Ali Sina more with his own stick. If he discards M.
Asad’s translation of Quranic verse 41:11 and acquires the words literally, then
he has to tell me where does in the verse stated that Allah has actually
declared the creation of Universe (when it referred to) concerning heaven and
earth to come together? He is creating his own suppositions that Allah has referred
to the creation of the Universe in this verse. Again he is deceiving himself
and other people. According to my understanding Allah is only speaking about
state of the Universe as a gas in the first part of the verse. (Allah knows the
best). And the second part pursued by Quranic verse 21:30 both are explain by
Dr. Maurice Bucaille in his book; “The basic process in the formation of the
universe . . . lay in the condensing of material in the primary nebula followed
by its division into fragments that originally constituted galactic masses. The
latter in their turn split up into stars that provided the sub-product of the
process, i.e. the planets" (p.149). Thus, Ali Sina has to direct me now, should
I trust French Scientist Dr. Maurice Bucaille of great repute or a nut-head
like him?
I am giving him an opportunity to controvert
me. Show me any established scientific fact that can put in plain words what
was there prior to Big Bang? If he couldn’t come across anything then he has to
accept Quranic verse 41:11 as it is, because if he cannot ascertain anything logically
then he does not have any authority to negate it.
Does the Quran say the Sun and the Moon
Revolve Around Their Own Axis?
Ali Sina:
(Dr.
Naik) When I was in school…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)
…read any of his
filthy books”.
Answer:
The Quranic verse in question:
“And
He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They
float, each in an orbit.” (Quran 21:33)
Readers! The Arabic word referring to a movement with a
self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (يسبحون "yasbahun"
in the text of the verse). All the senses of the verb imply a movement that
is associated with a motion that comes from the "BODY IN QUESTION".
If the movement takes place in water, it is ‘to swim’; it is ‘move by the
action of one’s own legs if it takes place on land'. For a movement that occurs
in space, it is intricate to see how else this meaning implied in the word
could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems
to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons:
-
The
moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it
revolves around the Earth, i.e. 29.5 days (approx).
-
The
Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis.
Let’s scrutinize the translations Ali Sina quoted from different
authors: Every translation mentions that they are either floating, swimming,
traveling, gliding, or moving in their OWN orbit, rounded course, celestial
spheres, sky, axis or orb. An object can move in two different ways, one; when it
is advancing forward on a defined axis and actually revolving in a circular
fashion, second; when it rotates on a single point or axis with its own motion.
The latter is what the word ‘yasbahun’ and translation stand.
Here is another proof; the Arabic word utilized in this verse is فلك, which connotes "just rounded" and not "circular
course", attesting that Quran is not conversing about circular motion
around a body, however, speaking about rounded motion of a body on its own
axis.
Ali Sina said, “The word here implies that the Sun and the
Moon rotate in circle; i.e. around the Earth and not around their own axis”.
This time I will draw a different approach and ascertain my point yet again.
For the sake of argument, I will assent that this precise Quranic verse (purportedly)
represents that the Sun and the moon rotate in circular course; however, where
does it states that they rotate around the earth (as brought up by Ali Sina)? He
is planting his own words in Quran. Next time, Ali Sina should concretely
establish his supposition by producing evidence devoid of any obscure and
erroneous implies of his lewd intellect.
Surely he cannot accomplish that, and surely this verse doesn't
state that Sun and the moon rotate around earth in circular motion. Likewise, no
where this verse states the Arabic word for Earth i.e. ارض,
yet again confirming that he is hypocrite.
Sill we Muslims and forever can bear out to facilitate this verse is
scientific. However, he cannot prove it to be against established Science ever,
as they (non-Muslims) do not posses any supportive facts and wiles in
opposition to Quranic verse 21:33.
Therefore, Alhumdullillah, the Quranic verse 21:33 fittingly point
out the movement of the Sun and the moon on their own axis on the word of the
established scientific fact.
Now, it was not Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), on the
contrary, it is Ali Sina who distorts the terms and manipulates them so that they
can fit in his minuscule wits. If he cannot comprehend the Quran then it does not
portend that Quran is in error, it is due to his deficiency of erudition and
understanding of the scriptures. He has on no account given Quran recognition and
gratitude as it should be given, however it was given by populace, and they are
still giving.
Ali Sina demanded, why the Quranic language is not so clear and why
all the miracles attributed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) are not clear? This
is another topic and it is not allied to what we are conferring over here. I will
riposte under some other topic.
Readers! Do not imply that I cannot counter; however, it seems he
has an infirmity of going off trail of what is being discussed in the subject.
If you consider the other face of it, it is a very fine tactic of bewildering and
deceiving readers. It is like burdening and bombarding the readers on and on with
irrelevant facts and terminologies, making eventually the original subject
matter goes astray and readers start thinking about new stuff and totally
forget about what was being discussed at initial. My counsel to Ali Sina is to stay
on the topic and not to fool around. I will deal with his allegations some
other time insha Allah.
Does the Quran say the Universe is Expanding?
Ali Sina:
(Dr. Naik) It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)
…To us it looks
very small.
Answer:
Translation of Quranic verse
51:47 by M. Asad:
“AND
IT IS We who have built the universe with our [Our creative] power; and,
verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.” (Quran 51:47)
This translation is adequate to shut Ali Sina’s befoul mouth once
and for all. However, if he requires some more information a propos to this
verse then he should stop at this site for an in depth response of his inane
inquiry. His discretion is required here as he is been offended and embarrassed
as the ignorant of the Arabic language in the following article.
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/does-musiun-means-expanding/
Excerpts from above link which is written by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem
Juferi:
“It
has come to our attention that Avijit Roy, webmaster of the Mukto Mona website,
wrote an article titled “Does the Quran Have any Scientific Miracles?” One
portion of the article on the subject to Sura’ Az-Zaariyaat is worth commenting
on, as it is an exhibition of some of the common problems with non-Muslims
critiques of Muslim arguments over the Internet. These would include an
unjustified confidence with the relevant subject matter, a poor understanding
of the arguments involved and a possible tendency to bluff with the hopes that
no one else notices.
What is at issue here is the fact that the word
musi’un
in Sura’ az-Zaariyaat 51:47 can be translated as
“expanding”, thus some Muslims have argued that this is a Quranic reference to
the expanding of the universe. Whatever the soundness of that position, Mr.
Roy’s attempt to refute it included some statements that were so ridiculous
that one could not simply let them pass.
Deceit or Sincere
Ignorance?
One of the first statements that raised a red flag was
one that attempted to lean on the arguments of Denis Giron. Mr. Roy writes:
Denish [sic] Giron also explained in one
of his wonderfully written pieces that the verb from which the Arabic word
(m?8217;un) is derived cannot mean ?expand?
Then Mr. Roy cites Giron’s article entitled Expansion of the Universe in the Bible and the Qur’an:
Comparing Isaiah to Soorat az-Zaariyaat.
The first problem is that Giron’s article blatantly
contradicts Mr. Roy’s claim. In fact, Giron’s article explicitly states that
“the verb from which this word is derived can mean expand.”
One has to wonder: did Mr. Roy even bother to read
Giron’s article? The simple fact is that Mr. Roy’s argument says that the word
cannot be translated as “expanding”, yet he calls to witness an article that
gives a rather clear argument for why it can
be translated as “expanding”!
After that, Mr. Roy calls to witness an
article by Ali Sina. In this case, Mr. Roy actually manages to cite
a person who agrees with him, but Sina’s argument is simply ridiculous, to put
it mildly.
The word used here is moosiAAoona which
drives from word vaseun. It means vast. It has nothing to do
with expanding. When you say al rezwano vaseun (the garden is vast). It does not mean
that the garden is expanding.
While this may seem like a case of belaboring a minor
point, it might be worth noting that most people who employ a double-A (”AA”)
in their transliterations of Qur’anic words or phrases over the net are
probably novices who merely lifted the relevant transliteration off one of the
websites which provide this odd symbol as designation of the presence of the
Arabic letter ayn. Regardless, Sina’s attempt to prove that m?8217;un
cannot be translated as “expanding” betrays a rather pathetic ignorance on his
part regarding the Arabic language, and thus Mr. Roy’s decision to call him to
witness is a true example of “the blind leading the blind”. Most ironic of all,
the article by Denis Giron itself refutes Ali Sina’s ridiculous claim."
Water Cycle in the Quran?
Ali Sina:
(Dr. Naik) In the field of ‘Water
cycle’…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)
…Only in these few
verses we found at least six.
Answer:
Ali Sina alleged "I don’t know which commentator said
such a thing but if anyone has, he is mistaken". I will provide him
a translation of Quranic verse by Pickthall. He had cross-checked every
translation of Quran in posting his last statement where he addressed about ‘expanding universe’, but it looks as
if he had deliberately filch Pickthall’s translation of Quranic verse 86:11 in his
argument, since it bequeaths the word ‘rain’ itself. The reason is in this way he
would be proven dishonest and the readers will take it for granted what ever he
is saying. Here’s the translation:
“By
the heaven which giveth the returning rain.” (Quranic verse 86:11)
Ali Sina referred to the translation by Yusuf Ali where he wrote
“which returns (in its round)” and the populace like Ali Sina would in fact impose
that why Yusuf Ali did not translate “to return back rain”, identical to Picktall.
Readers! In response to that, you will find here the commentary of
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. He says in his tafsir (Tafheem ul Quran):
“The
words dhat ar-raj`e have been used for the sky. Literally رجع raj`e means to return, but
metaphorically this word is used for the rain in Arabic, for rain does not fall
just once, but returns over and over again in the season and of season as well.
Another reason for calling the rain raj `e is that vapour from the
oceans of the earth and then falls back as rain on the sometimes out water
rises as the same earth.” (Taken from:
http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=AT+-+TARIQ&sno=86&tno=1744)
This word can
also be interpreted as “cyclical”; in Quran’s translations also has meaning of
“sending back” or “returning”. As it is acknowledged at present that the Earth
is encircled by atmosphere that consists of several layers. Each layer acts an
important valuable purpose for life. Research has revealed that these layers
have the function of turning the materials or rays; they are exposed to, back
into space or back down to Earth. Now let us scan with a few examples of this
“recycling” function of the layers encircling the Earth. The troposphere, 13 to
15 kilometers above the Earth, enables water vapor rising from the surface of
the Earth to be condensed and turn back as rain.
The ozone
layer, at an altitude of 25 kilometers, reflects harmful radiation and
ultraviolet light coming from space and turns both back into space.
The
ionosphere, reflects radio waves broadcast from the Earth back
down to different parts of the world, just like a passive communications
satellite, and thus makes wireless communication, radio, and television
broadcasting possible over long distances.
The
magnetosphere layer turns the harmful radioactive particles emitted by
the Sun and other stars back into space before they reach the Earth.
The fact that
this property of the atmosphere's layers, that was only established in the
recent past was pronounced centuries ago in the Qur'an, once again demonstrates
that the Qur'an is the word of God.
Now I will give the
translation of Quranic verse 86:11 by Shakir;
“I
swear by the raingiving heavens,” (Quran 86:11)
Again, Shakir has mentioned the “the returning” entity as rain and
not the sun, moon, star or anything else. If Ali Sina cannot even grasp the
translation of Quran then how can he comprehend the Quran itself? He implied in
this particular verse that firmament is the object which is returning in its
rounded like stars, moon, sun etc, however this is not the case, since it’s actually
the firmament which is returning “RAIN and other beneficial materials”. I hope
this explanation fits in his teeny-weeny brain. And it is he who is entwining
the meaning in order to satisfy his craving. So, my counsel to him is to deem
million times before he howls anything against Quran.
Ali Sina said, “The word used is ‘sama’. It means
sky/heaven and it can also be interpreted as firmament but it can’t be translated
as rain.” Readers! “PROFESSOR OF ARABIC” Ali Sina misinterpreted the
whole verse. As I said above that the Arabic word used for “rain” is “raj’e”
and NOT “sama”. He rightly said that “sama” is used for
firmament.
Now regarding all the verses (which are not in the question right
now in this discussion) that he has cited in his post and he said that the
entire chapter (Surah) is gibberish; insinuating again his sickness of going
out of track and confounding readers. Actually it’s his gutter mind filled with
filth that is making him suffer and he is not able to comprehend the truth.
Each and every verse is explicable; however, it is not the instance and venue
to refute his allegations because they are out of the subject. I will deal with
them later insha Allah.
Ali Sina:
(Dr. Naik) Dr.
William Campbell who knows Arabic…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)
…Don't make this
too easy for me.
Answer:
Readers! I have already provided evidence above
by the grace of Allah that Quranic verse 86:11 also points out evaporation. This
verse is translated by four translators differently (difference is in choice of
words). For example;
Yusuf Ali translates:
“By the Firmament which returns (in its round),”
Pickthal translates:
“By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,”
Shakir translates:
“I swear by the raingiving heavens,”
M. Asad translates:
“Consider the heavens, ever-revolving,”
As you can see, the translations of Yusuf Ali
and M. Asad are some what similar and can surround other beneficial matter and
energy in their connotations. Likewise, translations of Pickthall and Shakir
are some what similar and they are specifically enunciating about "returning
rain".
Therefore, Alhumdullillah this precise Quranic
verse is swathing all the aspects what had said by Dr. Zakir Naik.
There are some other verses also in Holy
Quran that explain the occurrence of evaporation in a nutshell. They are as
follows:
“And We send down from the sky water in measure, and We give
it lodging in the earth, and lo! We are able to withdraw it” (Quran
23:18)
Readers! You educate me now, to where Allah
is withdrawing water in the above verse? It surely depicts the idea of
evaporation. If it is something else then Ali Sina has to produce evidence.
“It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they raise the
Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into
fragments, until thou seest rain-drops issue from the midst thereof: then when
He has made them reach such of his servants as He wills behold, they do
rejoice!-“ (Quran 30:48”
In this verse it is quite clear that Allah propels
airstreams that enclose water vapors (evaporation) and THEY mold clouds. If Ali
Sina needs further information he can visit the following link that will
augment his inadequate intelligence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor
“It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad
tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden
clouds, We drive them to a land that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and
produce every kind of harvest therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead:
perchance ye may remember.” (Quran 7:57)
In this verse, what heralds of glad tidings
are carried by the winds? And then they are advancing aloft to haul the heavy
clouds and Allah coerces them to a land that is barren and formulates the rain
to pour on it. Readers! Can you see the interlinking of all these avowals of
the verse to the fact that the glad tiding can also be the water vapors
(evaporation) which are lugged by the winds, then construct the clouds, which
pours it down in the manner of rain yet again, which is vital for farming.
“And
We send the winds fertilizing, and cause water to descend from the sky,
and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store
thereof.” (Quran 15:22)
Readers! Please elaborate what this word
“fertilizing” means over here? And why repetitively there is mention of wind
and rain or water in these verses? For the people who have common sense, for
sure, clutch that there is something in the winds which is instigating water to
pour down from the sky, yet again proving evaporation. For the people like Ali
Sina, lacking common sense at all, please do not press your brains as their boundaries
are already defined by Allah in this verse.
"And so, the parable of those who re bent on denying
the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it
nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and
blind: for they do not use their reason." (Quran 2:171)
Ali Sina:
(Dr. Naik)
Regarding what he said about the Bible…
(http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)
…The Quran is a book of asininity and not of miracles.
Answer:
Ali Sina jot down “Let us quote these
verses and see if there is anything miraculous about them” Readers! Dr.
Zakir Naik already riposted his question in his speech when he conferred the
reference of philosophy of Phasofmillitas in 7th century B.C where
“he thought that the spray of the ocean was picked up by the wind, and send to
the interior as rain.” The same concept was counterfeited by the Bible. And it
was categorically a miracle when Quran revealed the correct water cycle 1400
years ago. Doesn’t he perceive that? This is also one of the substantiations
that Quran was not plagiarized from the Bible.
Well I am jovial to hear that Ali Sina liked
the “performance” of Dr. Zakir Naik. And I am aware that he was taunting on him
out of envy that Doctor outperformed Dr. William Campbell in every aspect of the
topic. Be sure that it was an aid from Allah that assisted Dr. Zakir Naik in
delivering the truth.
Again he bared his illness by going out of
track, regarding Muhammad (Peace be upon him) forgetting that the Quran is
supposed to be the word of Allah and Allah should not refer to himself in third
person. I will not comment here in this discussion and will leave it for a reply
later on since it is out of area under discussion.
Readers! Now I will discuss all the verses
that were mentioned by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech regarding water cycle and
then stated by Ali Sina with his grimy description in his publication, in
details. I will reply to the depictions of those verses only where he has put
forth his mucky comments.
“Art thou not aware that it is God who
causes the clouds to move onward, then joins them together, then piles them up
in masses, until thou can see rain come forth from their midst? And He it is
who sends down from the skies, by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds]
charged with hail, striking therewith whomever He wills and averting it from
whomever He wills, [the while] the flash of His lightning well-nigh deprives
[men of their] sight! (Quran 24:43)
Ali Sina asked what is so miraculous about
it. I will put in the picture what so astounding about this verse. Most of us
are familiar with the water cycle from our classes in middle school, where we had
been educated on how a drop of sea water evaporates, then becomes a drop of
rain water, and then finally returns to the sea via rivers or underground
channels. The first person in modern times to identify this process was Bernard
Palissy who portrayed it fittingly in 1580. Prior to him, the majority of the primordial
Greeks and Roman scholars had diverse imperfect or erroneous speculations on
the water cycle (Plato, for example, held that precipitation eventually
descended in to the abyss called Tartarus and from there it fed in to the
oceans.
In Quran there are few precise references to
specific stages. Perhaps the most fascinating of these references is the verse
mentioned above.
Scientists have studied cloud types and have
realized that rain clouds are fashioned and shaped according to definite
systems and certain steps connected with certain types of wind and clouds.
One kind of rain cloud is the cumulonimbus
cloud. Meteorologists have studied how cumulonimbus clouds are formed and how
they produce rain, hail, and lightning.
They have found that cumulonimbus clouds go
through the following steps to produce rain:
“…it is God who causes the clouds to move onward,” (Quran
24:43)
Cumulonimbus clouds begin to form when wind
moves some small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds) to an area where these
clouds converge. (See figure 1 & 2 below)
Figure 1: Satellite photo showing the clouds moving towards the
convergence areas B, C, and D. the arrows indicate the directions of the wind.
(The Use of Satellite Pictures in Weather Analysis and Forecasting,
Figure 2: Small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds) moving towards
a convergence zone near the horizon, where we can see a large cumulonimbus
cloud. (Clouds and Storms, Ludlam. Plate 7.4.)
“…then joins them together,” (Quran 24:43)
"Then the small clouds join
together forming a larger cloud". (The Atmosphere, Anthes and others. Page
268-269, and Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson. Page 141.) (See
figure 2 & 3)
Figure 3: (A) Isolated small pieces of clouds (cumulus
clouds). (B) When the small clouds join together, updrafts within
the larger cloud increase, so the cloud is stacked up. Water drops are
indicated by ·. (The Atmosphere, Anthes and others, p.
269.)
“…then piles them up in masses, until thou can see rain come
forth from their midst?” (Quran 24:43)
When the small clouds join together,
updrafts within the larger cloud increase. The updrafts near the center
of the cloud are sturdier than those near the edges. These updrafts cause the
cloud body to grow vertically, so the cloud is stacked up (see figures 3 (B), 4,
and 5). This vertical growth causes the cloud body to stretch into cooler
regions of the atmosphere, where drops of water and hail formulate and begin to
grow larger and larger. When these drops of water and hail become too
heavy for the updrafts to support them, they begin to fall from the cloud as
rain, hail, etc.
Figure 4: A cumulonimbus cloud. After the cloud is stacked up,
rain comes out of it. (Weather and Climate, Bodin. Page 123.)
Figure 5: A cumulonimbus cloud. (A Colour Guide to Clouds,
Scorer and Wexler. Page 23.)
"Meteorologists have only recently
come to know these details of cloud formation, structure, and function by using
advanced equipment like planes, satellites, computers, balloons, and other
equipment, to study wind and its direction, to measure humidity and its
variations, and to determine the levels and variations of atmospheric pressure."
(Taken from: Ee’jaz al-Quran al-Kareem fee Wasf Anwa’ al-Riyah,
al-Sohob, al-Matar, Makky and others, p. 55.)
The preceding verse, after mentioning clouds
and rain, speaks about hail and lightning:
“…And He it is who sends down from the skies, by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds] charged with hail, striking therewith whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, [the while] the flash of His lightning well-nigh deprives [men of their] sight!” (Quran 24:43)