Leaving Islam



<< Table of content

Part 2 

Moon Light 

In the part 2 of his talk, Dr. Naik said: 

(Dr. Naik) And he said that if it means a reflection of light and he quoted Sura Nur  24:35 that Allahu nooru alssamawati waal-ardi (Allah is the light of the heaven and the earth). Read the complete verse. And analyze what it says. It doesn’t say Allah is the light, ‘Nur’; it says Allah is the light of heaven and the earth. It is similar to light, a niche and within the niche there is the lamp. The lamp is what is there. So Allah (swt) has got light of his own and even reflects his light. Like you see halogen lamp – like which are here. The lamp inside is like a siraj but the reflector is like moon. It’s reflecting light. The lamp, the tube, is having the light of its own, but the reflector of the halogen lamp is reflecting light. So both two in one! So Allah (swt) Alhamdulillah, beside having light of its own, as the Quranic verses, in the niche there is a lamp. And that lamp, light of Allah (swt) is its own light. Allah reflects his own light.  

(Ali Sina) Earlier Dr. Naik ridiculed Genesis 1:16 for saying ‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night.'   The same error also exists in the Quran.

010.005 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the Moon to be a light

025.061 Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;

071.016 'And made the Moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp?  

Dr. Naik insists that the Quran makes it clear that the light of the Moon is borrowed light and to prove that, he claims 'nur' means reflection. This is not a fallacy but a blatant lie.  Let us read the complete verse as Dr. Naik suggests. 

Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth; a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp, the lamp is in a glass, (and) the glass is as it were a brightly shining star, lit from a blessed olive-tree, neither eastern nor western, the oil whereof almost gives light though fire touch it not -- light upon light -- Allah guides to His light whom He pleases, and Allah sets forth parables for men, and Allah is Cognizant of all things.

This verse is not comprehensible. Putting it in a much clearer language Muhammad is saying that the light of Allah is a lamp (flame) inside a brilliant glass placed on a niche. Its never ending fuel is supplied by the glowing oil of a pure olive tree that grows at the center of the world. So we have light upon light (the light of the lamp plus the light of the oil). 

What this parable mean? I consulted Ibn Khathir for explanation (you can skip it. I have written the gist of it below.)  theholybook.org/en/a.47288 

The Parable of the Light of Allah

`Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said:

[اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ]

(Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.) means, the Guide of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth. Ibn Jurayj said: "Mujahid and Ibn `Abbas said concerning the Ayah:

[اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ]

(Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.) He is controlling their affairs and their stars and sun and moon.'' As-Suddi said concerning the Ayah:

[اللَّهُ نُورُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ]

(Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.) by His Light the heavens and earth are illuminated. In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "When the Messenger of Allah got up to pray at night, he would say:

«اللَّهُمَّ لَكَ الْحَمْدُ، أَنْتَ قَيِّمُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَنْ فِيهِنَّ، وَلَكَ الْحَمْدُ أَنْتَ نُورُ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَنْ فِيهِنَّ»

(O Allah, to You be praise, You are the Sustainer of heaven and earth and whoever is in them. To You be praise, You are the Light of the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them. ) It was narrated that Ibn Mas`ud said, "There is no night or day with your Lord; the Light of the Throne comes from the Light of His Face.''

[مَثَلُ نُورِهِ]

(The parable of His Light) There are two views concerning the meaning of the pronoun (His). The first is that it refers to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, meaning that the parable of His guidance in the heart of the believer is


(as a niche) This was the view of Ibn `Abbas. The second view is that the pronoun refers to the believer, which is indicated by the context of the words and implies that the parable of the light in the heart of the believer is as a niche. So the heart of the believer and what he is naturally inclined to of guidance and what he learns of the Qur'an which is in accordance with his natural inclinations are, as Allah says:

[أَفَمَن كَانَ عَلَى بَيِّنَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّهِ وَيَتْلُوهُ شَاهِدٌ مِّنْهُ]

(Can they who rely on a clear proof from their Lord, and whom a witness from Him recites it (can they be equal with the disbelievers)) [11:17]. The heart of the believer in its purity and clarity is likened to a lamp in transparent and jewel-like glass, and the Qur'an and Shari`ah by which it is guided are likened to good, pure, shining oil in which there is no impurity or deviation.


(as (if there were) a niche) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Muhammad bin Ka`b and others said, "This refers to the position of the wick in the lamp.'' This is well-known, and hence Allah then says:

[فِيهَا مِصْبَاحٌ]

(and within it a lamp.) This is the flame that burns brightly. Or it was said that the niche is a niche in the house. This is the parable given by Allah of obedience towards Him. Allah calls obedience to Him as light, then He calls it by other numerous names as well. Ubayy bin Ka`b said, "The lamp is the light, and this refers to the Qur'an and the faith that is in his heart.'' As-Suddi said, "It is the lamp.''

[الْمِصْبَاحُ فِى زُجَاجَةٍ]

(the lamp is in a glass,) means, this light is shining in a clear glass. Ubayy bin Ka`b and others said, "This is the likeness of the heart of the believer.''

[الزُّجَاجَةُ كَأَنَّهَا كَوْكَبٌ دُرِّىٌّ]

(the glass as it were a star Durriyyun,) Some authorities recite the word Durriyyun with a Dammah on the Dal and without a Hamzah, which means pearls, i.e., as if it were a star made of pearls (Durr). Others recite it as Dirri'un or Durri'un, with a Kasrah on the Dal, or Dammah on the Dal, and with a Hamzah at the end, which means reflection (Dir'), because if something is shone on the star it becomes brighter than at any other time. The Arabs call the stars they do not know Darari. Ubayy bin Ka`b said: a shining star. Qatadah said: "Huge, bright and clear.''

[يُوقَدُ مِن شَجَرَةٍ مُّبَـرَكَةٍ]

(lit from a blessed tree,) means, it is derived from olive oil, from a blessed tree.


(an olive,) This refers to the blessed tree mentioned previously.

[لاَّ شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلاَ غَرْبِيَّةٍ]

(neither of the east nor of the west,) means, it is not in the eastern part of the land so that it does not get any sun in the first part of the day, nor is it in the western part of the land so that it is shaded from the sun before sunset, but it is in a central position where it gets sun from the beginning of the day until the end, so its oil is good and pure and shining. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented on:

[زَيْتُونَةٍ لاَّ شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلاَ غَرْبِيَّةٍ]

(an olive, neither of the east nor of the west,) "This is a tree in the desert which is not shaded by any other tree or mountain or cave, nothing covers it, and this is best for its oil.'' Mujahid commented on:

[لاَّ شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلاَ غَرْبِيَّةٍ]

(neither of the east nor of the west, ) saying; "It is not in the east where it will get no sun when the sun sets, nor is it in the west where it will get no sun when the sun rises, but it is in a position where it will get sun both at sunrise and sunset.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr commented:

[زَيْتُونَةٍ لاَّ شَرْقِيَّةٍ وَلاَ غَرْبِيَّةٍ يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِىءُ]

(an olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself)) "This is the best kind of oil. When the sun rises it reaches the tree from the east and when it sets it reaches it from the west, so the sun reaches it morning and evening, so it is not counted as being in the east or in the west.''

[يَكَادُ زَيْتُهَا يُضِىءُ وَلَوْ لَمْ تَمْسَسْهُ نَارٌ]

(whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself), though no fire touched it.) `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said (this means) because the oil itself is shining.

[نُّورٌ عَلَى نُورٍ]

(Light upon Light!) Al-`Awfi narrated from Ibn `Abbas that this meant the faith and deeds of a person. As-Suddi said:

[نُّورٌ عَلَى نُورٍ]

(Light upon Light!) "Light of the fire and the light of the oil: when they are combined they give light, and neither of them can give light without the other. Similarly the light of the Qur'an and the light of faith give light when they are combined, and neither can do so without the other.'' 


From this tafsir we learn some possible interpretations of the following words:  

Light = guidance; obedience to Allah
Niche = heart of the believer
Lamp = heart of the believer; Qur'an and the faith that is in his heart
Olive tree = Not given in the tafsir 
pure, shining oil = Quran and Sharia
light over light = faith and deeds of a person; Quran and the faith.

This by no means explains the parable. The parable remains incomprehensible. How did  Dr. Naik come to the conclusion that God is within a niche? What is this niche that houses God?  

Dr. Naik says "Allah beside having light of his own ... [He] reflects his own light." How is this possible? Assuming that God is within a niche, (which is a ludicrous concept) how can He reflect His own light? How can any luminous object act also as its own reflector? When Dr. Naik says Allah reflects his own light, he is dabbling in absurdity. Is the light coming to us from the Sun direct light or is it a reflection? What is this niche that Dr. Naik is talking about that houses Allah and reflects his light? This verse is gibberish. 

(Dr. Naik)  Dr. William Campbell says that… ‘The Qur’an says that… ‘Qur’an is nur’…  It is reflecting light.’ Of course - The Qur’an is reflecting the light and the guidance of Allah Subhanawataala. Regarding Prophet Mohammed Sallallahu alaihi wasallam being Siraj - Yes he is.  The Hadith of the beloved Prophet is giving guidance to us.  So Muhammad Sallallahu alaihi wassallam – he is also ‘nur’ he is also ‘Siraj’- Alhamdullillah. He has his own knowledge also - Alhamdulillah. He has the guidance from Allah Subhanawataala-Alhamdulillah. So if you use this word ‘Nur’ as reflected light, and Munir as reflected light, yet Alhamdulillah, you can prove it scientifically that the light of the moon is not its own light, but it is the reflected light.

(Ali Sina) Of course you can. Also if  you translate the word  "slay" in verse 2:191, "And slay them wherever ye catch them" as "love" and change the meaning of other words used in the Quran that incite Muslims to hate others and be violent,  we won't have any problem with Islam at all. By changing the meaning of the words, not only we can make the Quran look peaceful but also make it look scientific.

Sadly we can't translate the words contrary to their meaning. Nur is not borrowed light. It is light. Munir also does not mean borrowed light. It means 'luminous'. Dr. Naik is simply playing the Islamic game of deception, taqiyyah. What is impressive is that he does it with absolute conviction and certainty. This must be how Muhammad convinced his followers. He lied to them with such an authority that they believed. 

In response to Dr. Campbell who quoted 24:35 showing that even God has been called Munir, Dr. Naik gave an amazingly absurd explanation with such a strength and  authority that his audience clapped. He said that God is like a lamp inside a niche, the niche reflects the light of God. Now this sound utterly stupid but the way Dr. Naik presented it, sounded very plausible. Derisively he sneered his response and made his audience believe "how can anyone not see this obvious truth?" Yet what he said was plain nonsense.   

Dr. Naik has refined sophistry to an art. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone lie so convincingly and with such an authority and sway. What he says is all chicanery. Dr. Naik is a flamboyant deceiver. Most of the audience were Muslims and many of them were Arabs. Of course they all knew that nur means light and not borrowed light. But no one objected. They all went along and took part in this transparent game of deception, partly because they wanted to believe in this lie - truth would have been painful - and partly because Dr. Naik was so authoritative that left everyone spellbound. "How can one lie with such an authority?" they must have thought to themselves. "So he must be right.  Maybe we were wrong all along. Maybe the dictionaries are wrong." 

Let us review some of the verses of the Quran where the words nur and Munir are used and see if it can be interpreted as borrowed light. 


He bringeth them out of darkness into light

We have sent down unto you a clear light

There hath come to you from God a (new) light

We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light

We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light,

Praise be to Allah, Who hath created the heavens and the earth, and hath appointed darkness and light

Moses brought, a light and guidance for mankind

Is he who was dead and We have raised him unto life, and set for him a light 

Then those who believe in him, and honor him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.

Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light,

Is the blind man equal to the seer, or is darkness equal to light?

We have revealed unto thee (Muhammad) that thereby thou mayst bring forth mankind from darkness unto light

We verily sent Moses with Our revelations, saying: Bring thy people forth from darkness unto light.

And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light

He may bring you forth from darkness unto light

And as a summoner unto Allah by His permission, and as a lamp that giveth light

Nor is darkness (tantamount to) light;

Is he whose bosom Allah hath expanded for Al-Islam, so that he followeth a light from his Lord

And the earth shineth with the light of her Lord

On the day when thou (Muhammad) wilt see the believers, men and women, their light shining forth before

On the day when the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women will say unto those who believe: Look on us that we may borrow from your light! it will be said: Go back and seek for light!

and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and their light

He will give you twofold of His mercy and will appoint for you a light wherein ye shall walk,

So believe in Allah and His messenger and the light which We have revealed.

Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us!

As you can see in none of these verses we can replace light 'nur' with "borrowed light" or "reflection of light" without changing their meaning drastically. 

Nur is a common day to day word. Every Muslim whether Arab or not knows that nur means light and not borrowed light. But when it comes to defending Islam and protecting it from being ridiculed, they remain silent and go along with the lie. All these Muslims in the hall listening to Dr. Nailk's charade felt that it is their religious duty to take part in this taqiyah and not object when someone lies for the glory of Islam. This comes so natural to Muslims that they do it subconsciously. They think they are fooling others. In reality they are fooling themselves.  


Zulqarnain and the Setting place of the Sun 

(Dr. Naik)  The other point that Dr. William Campbell raised was regarding Sura Kahf 18:86. The Sura says the sun setting in murky water, in turbid water. Imagine, sun setting in murky water! Unscientific! The Arabic word used here is: it’s wajada meaning, it appeared to Zulqarnain. Dr. William Campbell knows Arabic. Wajada means… you can look in the dictionary also; it means it appeared. Allah (swt) is describing what appeared to Zulqarnain. If I make the statement that a student in the class said 2+2=5 and you say “oh Zakir said 2+2=5. I didn’t say. I am telling that the student in my class said 2+2=5. I am not wrong, the student is wrong. There are various ways to try and analyze this word. One is this way, according to Muhammad Asad, that vajada means it appeared to. It appeared to Zulqarnain.  

(Ali Sina) Dr. Naik is again trying to give a new meaning to a commonly used Arabic word. Wajada means “found”, not “appeared”. All the ten translators of the Quran that I consulted have translated this word as found. URL. Dr. Naik is lying again. Let us read the verse:   

And he followed a road.

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found (wajada) it setting in a muddy spring, and found (wajada) a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.

The word wajada is used twice. Are we supposed to understand that the people whom he saw were not real but also an apparition? How could he reward and punish such imaginary people? Again we find the same word in the same sura: 

18.92 Then followed he (another) way,

18.93 Until, when he reached (a tract) between two mountains, he found, (wajada)  beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word. 

Was this also an apparition? 

Here are two other verses where wajada is used:

3:37 And her Lord accepted her with full acceptance and vouchsafed to her a goodly growth; and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah went into the sanctuary where she was, he found (wajada) that she had food. 

28:23 And when he came unto the water of Midian he found (wajada) there a whole tribe of men, watering.

Dr. Naik lied. Then he went on to shift the blame on Zulqranain and said it is not the fault of Allah for saying what Zulqranain had mistakenly assumed. 

If so, why Allah did not make it clear that Zulqranain had made a mistake? Since in those days everyone thought that the Earth is flat, this was the perfect chance for Allah to set the record straight and clarify that Zulqranain was mistaken because the Sun does not set in waters; it is the Earth that is rotating making you think it is rising and setting. If this was said, then we would have accepted that the Quran contains scientific miracle. As it stands now, it contains nothing but error and scientific blunders     

(Dr. Naik) Point # 2: The Arabic word used is Maghrib. It can be used for time as well as place. When we say sunset, sunset can be taken for time. If I say the sun set at 7 PM, I am using it for time. If I say the sun set in the West, it means I am taking it for place. So here if you use the word Maghrib for time. So Zulqarnain did not reach that place of sunset –use it for time- he reached there at the TIME of sunset. Furthermore you can solve it in various ways.  

(Ali Sina) The verse in Arabic says Hatta itha balagha maghriba alshshamsi. This literally means: Till when he reached the setting-place of the Sun. All the translators have invariably translated maghrib as "setting-place" and not "time of setting". The structure of the sentence does not allow for such an interpretation.

But the most interesting part of Dr. Naik’s statement is his last sentence. He said, “You can solve it in various ways”. That is the main point. If the Quran is the book of God, it should have been clear. There would have been no need for Muslims to try to solve its problems in every imaginable way. Why should there be several explanations for each verse when at the outset the book says "this is a clear book with no doubt in it"? Did it appear to Zulqranain that the Sun sets in murky waters or did he just reach that place at the time of sunset? Do you see how Muslims desperately try to find ways to explain the unexplainable?  

The reason Muslims need these “various ways" to explain the obtuse verses of the Quran is because the meaning of these verses are not clear. They sound irrational and Muslim ulama know that. Therefore they bend backwards and perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to make them look plausible. One comes with one silly explanation which is not satisfactory, so someone else offers another explanation and so on. The only correct explanation is that the Quran is not the word of God. 

When you read tafsir, you see that virtually for every verse in the Quran the Ulama have come up with several interpretations but none of them is convincing. This is proof that the Quran is a book of confusions. If the Quran was true, there would be no need for any interpretations and tafsirs. It would have been clear to all those who read it. Truth is only one, but falsehood can be many. The Quran is the only book that I know that cannot be understood without external help. So much for a book that claims to be a perspicuous book 5:15, explained in detail 6:114, conveyed clearly, 5:16, 10:15, easy to understand 44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40 and in which there is no doubt 2:1.


(Dr. Naik) Even if Dr. William Campbell says… ‘No No, the basic assumption is too much - It is not… ‘Appeared to’… it is actually this.’ Let us analyze it further. The Qur'anic verse says… the Sun set in murky water.’ Now we know, when we use these words, like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ - does the sunrise? Scientifically, sun does not rise - neither does the sunset. We know scientifically, that the sun does not set at all. It is the rotation of the earth, which gives rise to sunrise and sunset. But yet you read in the everyday papers mentioning, sunrise at 6 a.m. sun sets at 7.00 p.m. Oh! The newspapers are wrong – Unscientific!’ If I use the word ‘Disaster’, Oh! There is a disaster’ – ‘Disaster’ means there is some calamity which has taken place. Literally, ‘disaster’ means ‘an evil star.’ So when I say… ‘This disaster’ every one knows what I mean is ‘a calamity’, not about the evil star.’ Dr. William Campbell and I know, when a person who is mad, we call him a lunatic - Yes or no?  At least I do, and I believe Dr. William Campbell also will be doing        that. We call a person ‘a lunatic’ – He is ‘mad.’ What is the meaning of ‘lunatic’?  It means… ‘struck by the moon’ - But that is how the language has evolved. Similarly sun rise, is actually, it is just a usage of words. And Allah has given the guidance for the human beings also - He uses so, that we understand. So it is just ‘sunset’ - Not that it is actually setting - Not that sun is actually rising. So this explanation clearly gives us a clear picture, that the Verse of the Qur’an of Surah Kahf, Chapter.18, Verse No 86, is not in contradiction with established science - That is the way how people speak.

(Ali Sina) Earlier Dr. Naik told us that this was an error committed by Zulqarnain who thought the Sun is setting in murky waters and Allah is simply reporting what appeared to Zulqarnain. Here Dr. Naik is shifting position and is saying that Allah is only using a figurative speech. Which explanation is the correct one? 

Yes indeed the word sunset, although technically wrong, is still part of our lexicon, but this does not explain the difficulty that we find in the Quran. Is Allah speaking figuratively? Verse 018:085 says: 

And he followed a road.

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun

And  018:089
Then he followed a road

Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun,

The text does in no way allow us to take the setting and the rising places of the sun figuratively. The story is clear. Zulqarnain followed a road till he reached the setting place of the Sun. He took another road till he reached the rising-place of the Sun.  Anyone can see sunrise and sunset from anywhere in the world. This is hardly worthy of mention. But only Alexander the Great (Zulqarnain) who was believed to have conquered the world form one end to another had the unique privilege to see the setting and the rising places of the Sun. That is why this story was deemed to be important to be mentioned. 

All the explanations offered by Dr. Naik are excuses. In these verses maghrib cannot be translated as the TIME of sunset. None of the translators have made that mistake. The expression used is not figurative. The verse is talking about an event that actually took place and was observed by Zulqarnian and not something that appeared to him.

Dr. Naik continued:

(Dr. Naik) He quoted Surah Furqan, Chapter. 25, Verse. 45 and 46, that… ‘The shadow lengthens and prolongates - We can make it stationary - the sun is its guide.’ And in his book he mentions… ‘Does the sun move?’ Where does this Verse say… ‘The sun moves.’ In Surah Furqan, Chapter.25, Verse. 45 and 46, does not say the sun moves. And he writes is his book… ‘We were taught in eliminatory school’ - and he said that also in his talk that… ‘It is due to the rotation of the earth, that the shadow prolongs and gets small. But what the Qur’an says… ‘The sun is its guide.’ Today, even a person who has not gone to school, knows that shadow is due to sunlight. Even a layman, who has not gone to school, knows that shadow is due to sunlight. So Qur’an is perfectly right - It does not say the sun moves and the shadow is caused. He is putting his own words in the Qur’an. The Sun is its guide - It is guiding the shadow - Without sunlight, you cannot have shadow. Yes, you can have shadows of the light - it is a different thing. But here it is referring to the shadow, which you see, which is moving - Prolonging and becoming short.

(Ali Sina) Well let us read the verse and see who is putting his own words in the Quran .  

Hast thou not seen how thy Lord  hath spread the shade - And if He [3rd person] willed He could have made it still - then We [1st person] have made the sun its pilot.  

Yes everyone knows that shadow is caused by the Sun and not just today but always. My cat knows it too because when it gets hot, he seeks a place of shade. But Muhammad says that if Allah willed he could have made the shadow stand still. How that is possible? The only way that is is possible is to make the "moving" sun stand still.  

Let us consult  Bukhari and Muslim and see if they can shed some light on this problem.  

Bukhari 4.53.353
The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out a holy military expedition, …and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.' It was stopped till Allah made him victorious

Muslims 1.0300
Abu Dharr reported: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) the (implication of the) words of Allah, the Exalted: The sun glides to its appointed resting place. He replied: Its appointed resting place is under the Throne.  

Bukhari 4.54.421

Narrated Abu Dhar: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (36.38)  This hadith is also reported in Bukhari6.60.326, Bukhari6.60.327, Bukhari 9.93.528, and Muslim1.0297  

Bukahri 4.55.556
Narrated Abu Huraira: We were in the company of the Prophet at a banquet and a cooked (mutton) forearm was set before him, and he used to like it. He ate a morsel of it and said, "I will be the chief of all the people on the Day of Resurrection. Do you know how Allah will gather all the first and the last (people) in one level place where an observer will be able to see (all) of them and they will be able to hear the announcer, and the sun will come near to them  

So it is clear what Muhammad thought about the function of Sun in the sky. He thought like any other ignorant person of his time. He thought the Sun is a lamp that thinks and worships Allah; that it goes around the earth and if Allah orders it to stop in midair it will and if He tells it to rise from the West, it will obey. This is the cosmology of Muhammad.

Bukhari 2.018.167  
Narrated Abu Musa:
The sun eclipsed and the Prophet got up, being afraid that it might be the Hour (i.e. Day of Judgment). He went to the Mosque and offered the prayer with the longest Qiyam. 

This is again another proof that Muhammad had no understanding of a natural phenomenon such as eclipse. He was afraid of it and thought this is the sign of Allah that the world is ending. Why would he be afraid of the Hour of Reckoning if he had nothing to fear? Obviously he was well conscious of the fact that he was lying. 


Solomon’s Death  

(Dr. Naik) Dr. William Campbell spoke about Solomon’s death - Surah Saba, Chapter 34, Verse 12 to 14, and said that… ‘Imagine a person standing on the stick, and he dies, and no one come to know, etc.’ here are various ways to explain - Point no 1, Solomon peace be him, he was a Prophet of God, and it can be a miracle. When Bible says that Jesus Christ peace be upon him, could give life to the dead, Jesus Christ is born of a virgin birth. Which is more difficult to imagine’ - Being born of a virgin birth, giving life to the dead… or standing on a stick for a very long time. Which is more difficult. So when God can do miracles through Jesus Christ peace is upon him, why cannot he do a miracle through Solomon Alai Salaam. Moosa Alaika Salaam parted the sea. He threw a stick - stick become a snake - Bible says that… Qur’an says that. So when God can do that, why cannot God let a man rest for a long period? Any way I have give him various different answers - No where does the Qur’an say that Sulaiman Alaika salaam rested on the stick for a very long period - No where does it say. It just says that… animal…. May be some say… ‘Ant’… may be other animal of the earth came and bit - May be possible. May be, that Sulaiman alaika salaam was just dead, and any animal may have shook the stick, and Sulaiman alaika salaam may have fallen down. But I assume - I use the conflict approach with the Qur’an - because irrespective whether you use the conflict approach or the concordance approach, the ayat I quoted in the beginning of my talk Surah Nisa, Chapter 4 Verse, 82, says… (Arabic)… ‘Do they not consider the Qur’an with care?’ Had it been from anyone besides Allah, there would have been many contradictions.’ Irrespective, whether you use the conflict approach or the concordance approach, if your logical, is you will not be able to take out a single Verse of the Qur’an, which is contradicting - neither a single verse which is against established science.

(Ali Sina) 34:12-14 say that Solomon was dead for a long time while standing and leaning on his staff and no one noticed it until a creeping creature of the earth gnawed away his staff and he fell.  

Now, this story is ludicrous. Dr. Naik can’t explain it logically. So, instead he resorts to the favorite Islamic tactic - the fallacy of tu quoque; and says that in the Bible there are more incredible stories. This is not an answer. This is a logical fallacy. Just because the Bible has many unproven and unscientific stories, the ridiculous stories in the Quran do not become true.  

Then he sneers and says "it could be a miracle". This is also a logical fallacy. There is no proof that any of the miracles claimed in any book has ever happened. There is no scientific proof for miracles. Dr. Naik is using one fallacy to prove another fallacy. If we take miracles as proof, we have to take every charlatan for his word. This debate was about science not miracles. Scientifically speaking the story of the dead Soloman standing on his feet leaning on his staff for days or maybe months without anyone noticing until termites or other creeping creatures gnawed at his staff is ludicrous.  

Dr. Naik says “Anyway, I give him various different answers”. Truth is only one. Various different answers that are illogical and can be refuted do not make up for one solid and logical answer that can’t be refuted. If the Quran was true, one logical answer would have sufficed. When a suspect is interrogated, one way the investigators determine whether he is lying or telling the truth is by seeing how many times he changes his story. If he keeps changing his story and gives various answers to the same question, the cops determine that he is lying. The very fact that Muslims come up with several answers to every question is because none of them is convincing. Truth is only one, lies can be many.  

As it is clear; we considered with care and have found much discrepancies and stupidities in the Quran. This book is quite possibly the most asinine book ever written. There are hundreds of statements made in the Quran that are absolutely wrong and yet there is not a single claim that could not have been know by an ordinary illiterate Arab during the time of Muhammad. In fact we see that many men of Quraish were a lot more intelligent and more knowledgeable than Muhammad.  

All we need to prove that the Quran is not from God is one error. We already found many. I can show hundreds of them. But let me make this easy on Dr. Naik and all the Muslims. I challenge any Muslim to show me one verse from the entire Quran that could not have been said by an ordinary man living in the seventh century Arabia. Show me one single verse that is miraculous and I will withdraw all my charges against Muhammad and the Quran and pay you $50,000 US dollars in reward. If you can’t show me a single verse that is miraculous, why are you clinging to this cult so tenaciously? Remember that the test of a book that claims to be the word of God is that it should not have a single error. We already found tens of them. What I am asking is actually much simpler, forget about the hundreds of errors in the Quran, just sow me one single miracle if you can and I withdraw all my charges. 

Truth is that the Quran has hundreds of errors and not a single miracle. 


back      next  > 





Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.