Sometimes the plates
get caught on each other and starts sliding - During this period, great
forces are built up. When the forces of friction are overcome, the piece
of plate that was stuck, lurches forward, causing a shock wave of a thrust
quake, and then all of a sudden it goes ‘dumm’ like this.
In a recent
earthquake, it was calculated that the Cocos Plate in
, suddenly jumped forward 3 meters. Well if your house suddenly jump 3
meters, there will be a Catastrophe.
Another type of
mountain is that formed by volcanoes. Lava and ash from inside the earth
are thrown out and piled up, until a high mountain is formed - Even from
the bottom of the sea. And we can see this kind of action in this picture.
I hope you can see it - Not clear is it? The ocean crust is right here and
the continental crust is there, and the oceanic crust is going down under
the continental crust, and mountains have been found here. Here is the
volcano, and here is the magma of the molted rock, going up through the
volcano, and here is another volcano with magma going up. And so this is
how the mountains are formed and earthquakes are formed.
In the case of some
igneous mountains, molten rock intrudes into the probe of the volcano’s
opening and cools, to form a relatively dense intrusion, which extends
below the surface of the earth. So this… if this gets stuck and sealed,
then it would be like a plug - However it is not a root. It does not bear
the weight of the mountain - It is really a plug. Therefore at occasions,
pressure builds up under the plug, and the volcano explodes as happened in
the South Pacific at Crackato, in 1883 when the whole island was blown
away. And it happened at Mount Saint Halena in our days, when a mountain
was blown away.
We can conclude from
this information, that mountains were formed originally with movement and
shaking, and that now in the present, earthquakes are caused by their
continued formation. When the plates buckle over each other, there are
earthquakes - When the volcanoes erupt there can bring earthquake. However
it is clear that the followers of Mohammed were understanding these
Verses, to say that Allah threw the mountains down, as a tent peg or
anchors, to keep the Earth from shaking. Throwing the mountains down under
the Earth may be poetry, but to say that mountains keep the Earth from
shaking is a severe difficulty, which is out of step with modern science.
Now we are going to
take a little look at … what the Qur’an says about the ‘Sun.’ In the Surah of the Kahf, 18:86, it says… ‘Until when
Zulqarnain… that is Alexander the great, reached the setting of the sun,
he found it set in a spring of murky water.’ I’m sorry - In 20th
Century Science... the Sun does not set in a spring of murky water.
And then in ‘The
Criterion’, Al Furqaan, 25:45 to 46, it says… ‘Hast
thou not turned thy vision, to thy Lord - how He prolongs the shadow! If
He willed, He could make it stationary! Then do We (God) make the
sun its guide.” What about this? Has the sun… if we think of
the sun overhead, you have no shadow or a little tiny shadow, and then as
the sun goes down, your shadow gets longer on the other side. Well the sun
is stationary in relation to the Earth - It is not what causes the shadow
to shift. The rotating Earth guides the shadows. So if you demand 20th
century accuracy, the Surah should say… ‘The rotating earth causes the
shadows to change.
I would look at a
different subject… ‘Solomon’s
death.’ Whether this is Science, I don’t know -Maybe sociology.
Solomon’s death – He is propped up on his staff. Says… ‘The
jinn worked for him, as Solomon desired. ‘Then when We decreed death
upon Solomon, nothing showed them his death, except a little creeping
creature of the earth, which gnawed away his staff. And when he fell, the
jinn saw clearly how - If they had known the unseen, they would not have
continued in the humiliating penalty of work.’ So here Solomon…
he’s dead, propped up on his staff, like a walker from
overseeing only a road guy, and no cook comes to ask him…what he wants
for dinner. And no General comes for orders, and none of his Nobles comes
to say… ‘Lets go hunting.’ No one notices. I’m sorry - I do not
believe this story and it won’t fit 20th century Sociology,
or 7th century Sociology, where the king will never be left
alone like that.
Now finally let us
look at ‘Milk.’ It says in
the Surah of ‘The Bee’, Nahl, 16:66… ‘We
pour out to you from what is within their (the cattle’s) abdomen,
between excretions and blood – milk, pure and agreeable to the drinkers.’
The abdomen where the intestines are…. Sorry - In 20th
century medical science, the abdomens where the intestines are… is where
the intestines are - the mammary glands are under the skin. In humans they
are under the skin here - In cattle they are under the skin between the
legs. No connection - There is no connection between the breasts and the
intestines, and their feces, in any way. Feces though in the body, it
really is outside of the animal - Animals has finished with it. It is not
connected to milk or to anything else.
And finally going to
look at ‘Communities.’ The
Surah of ‘The Cattle’, Al – Anam 6:38, ‘There
is not an animal on the earth, nor a being that flies on two wings, but
forms communities like you’…. Speaks about no animal on earth,
not a being that flies, and then it says, that every one of them is
communities like you - And I assume that the Qur’an is speaking about we
humans. Well, in some Spiders, when they finish mating, the mother eats
the father. Well I’m glad that my wife did not eat me. Even in Bees, the
extra male drones are thrown out to die. Well I’m glad also that after
we had four children, that my wife did not push me out of the house too.
Finally, the Lions. When the lion gets old, the male lion gets old, a
young lion comes along and drives him away from his own wives, and the
young lion takes over the wives. But what he does with the cubs? The
cubs of the old lion – he kills them all. So I do not think that this
stance is true all other communities and all other animals do not live as
communities like us.
In conclusion it is clear that the Qur’an has many scientific
errors. As a generality the Qur’an meets and reflects the science
of its time - the science of the 7th century AD. We came here
to seek truth - I’ve done my best to present valid information. If you
want to see all the references, my book… ‘The Qur’an and the Bible
in the light of History and Science’, is for sale outside that door, at
a bargain price, tonight. May the God of all truth, guide you - Thank you.
(Dr. Mohammed) Thank
you Dr Campbell for your presentation. Now we have Br. Sabeel Ahmed
presenting an introduction of our next speaker, Dr. Zakir Naik.
(Br Sabeel Ahmed)
Rahmatullah. It is my pleasure to introduce one of the best scholars of
our time, Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik. Age 34 years old, he is the
president of Islamic Research Foundation,
. Though a medical doctor by professional training, Dr. Zakir Naik is
known as a dynamic international orator in Islam and comparative Religion.
Dr. Zakir Naik clarifies Islamic view points, and clears misconceptions
about Islam based upon the Qur’an, Hadith and the other Religious
Scriptures, as well as adhering to reason logic and scientific facts.
He is popular for
his critical analysis and convincing answers to challenging questions
posed by audiences, after his public talks. In the last four years itself,
Dr. Zakir Naik has delivered more than 400 public lectures world wide, in
addition to many public talks in India. He appears regularly on many
international TV and Satellite TV channel programs in several countries of
the world. He has authored books on Islam and comparative Religion. He has
also participated in several symposiums and dialogues, with prominent
personalities of other Religious faiths.
announce, after the talks by both the speakers and the response session,
we would be having an open Question and Answer session. So those who have
come late, kindly note, we’ll have questions on the mikes, followed by
questions on index cards. Ladies and gentlemen, may I call upon Dr. Zakir
Naik to present his talk.
Respected Dr. William Campbell, Dr. Maracuss, Dr. Jamal Badavi, Br. Samuel
Nauman, Dr. Mohammed Naik, my respected elders and my dear brothers and
sisters, I welcome all of you with the Islamic greetings… ‘As
Salaamo Alaikum Wa
Barkatahu. May peace mercy and blessings of Allah Subhanawataala be on
all of you.
The topic of
today’s dialogue is ‘The Qur’an and the Bible in the
light of Science.’ The Glorious Qur’an is the last and final
Revelation which was revealed to the last and final Messenger Prophet
Mohammed, peace be upon him. For any book to claim that it is a Revelation
from Almighty God, it should stand the test of time.
Previously in the
olden days, it was the age of miracles - Alhamdulillah, the Qur’an
is the miracle of miracles. Later on came the age of literature and
poetry, and Muslims and Non Muslims alike, they claim the Glorious Qur’an
to be the best Arabic literature available on the face of the Earth. But
today is the age of science and technology.
from the onset, Dr. Zakir Naik makes two assumptions that are both false. The
first is the claim that “in the olden days, it was the age of
miracles”. We do not have any proof for such claim except the fairytales
of the ancient people passed to us as "holy scriptures". Even then we
see that Muhammad
disclaimed being able to perform any miracles. Unable to perform miracles,
that the Quran is his miracle.
Quran is no miracle at all as you'll come to see in this paper.
Naik makes another false statement and
says that "both Muslims and Non Muslims claim the Glorious Qur’an
to be the best Arabic literature available on the face of the Earth". This
is not true. Only Muslims make this claim. If Non-Muslims believed in this
why they don't convert? Non-Muslims have found many
errors in the Quran, not only scientifically and logically but also
grammatically. Many actually believe this book is the most asinine book
ever written, not only because it is violent but also because it is
confused and very tedious to read.
Some of the earlier verses rhyme, but there is no beauty in this book. Ali
Dashti in his Book 23 years of Prophetic Career gives us a list of such
errors. Also M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton
show more than a dozen of grammatical errors of his book here
Let us analyze
whether the Qur’an is compatible or incompatible with modern
science. Albert Einstein said… ‘Science without Religion is lame, and
Religion without Science is blind’.
thing Einstein did not believe in a personal God but advocated cultivating
Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. He
wrote: “I do
not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My
God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by
wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”
when he spoke of religion he did not have religions such as Islam in mind.
He wrote: “I
have found no better
expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational
nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever
this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.
Elsewhere he wrote: “The sense of the
religious, which is released through the experience of potentially nearing
a logical grasp of these deep-lying world relations, is … a
feeling of awe and reverence for the manifest Reason which appears in
reality. It does not lead to the assumption of a divine personality—a
person who makes demands of us and takes an interest in our individual
being. In this there is no Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being.
Einstein’s religion was a sense of
veneration of the subtleties, the intangible, and the inexplicable that
lay behind all the discernible concatenations of natural phenomena. It was
not the “revealed” religions that he spoke of.
He called his religion a "cosmic
"What I see in Nature” he
wrote, “is a magnificent structure
that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a
thinking person with a feeling of 'humility.' This is a genuinely
religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
Therefore it is misleading and hypocritical
to quote Einstein who opposed the idea of a personal and demanding god as
taught in Islam to take advantage for a kind of religion that he detested. Einstein's idea of
religion was completely distinct from what Islam stands for. Islam is not
in harmony with science. It is against it and therefore it is not the kind
of natural religion that Einstein was talking about.
It is the
opposite of it. When Einstein said science without religion is lame he
was not speaking of Islam which is a blind religion that opposes science.
Let me remind you
that the Glorious Qur’an is not a book of
Science…S-C-I-E-N-C-E, It is a book of signs S-I-G-N-S… It is a book
of Ayats. And there more than 6000 signs… Ayats in the Glorious Qur’an
out of which more than a thousand speak about science. As far as my talk
regarding Qur’an and Science is concerned, I will only be
speaking about scientific facts, which has been established. I will not be
speaking about scientific hypothesis and theories, which are based on
assumption without any proof, because we all know many a times science
Dr. William Campbell
who wrote a reply to the book of Dr. Maurice Bucaille… ‘The Qur’an
and the Bible in the light of history and science’ - He says in
his book, that there are two types of approaches. One is a concordance
approach - Which means a person tries to bring compatibility between the
Scripture and science. And the other is the conflict approach, in which a
person tries to bring a conflict between Scripture and science, like how
Dr. William Campbell has done very well. But as far as the Qur’an
is concerned, irrespective whether a person uses a conflicting approach,
or a concordance approach – As long as you are logical, and after a
logical explanation is given to you, not a single person will be able to
prove a single Verse of the Qur’an, in conflict with established
Dr. William Campbell
has pointed out various alleged scientific errors in the Qur’an,
and I am supposed to actually refute in the rebuttal. But since he chose
to speak first, I will be refuting a few points in my talk - I will reply
to the major part of his talk, mainly dealing with Embryology and with
Geology. The remaining InshaAllah, InshaAllah, I will try my level best to
reply in the rebuttal.
I have to do both -
I cannot do injustice to the topic. The topic is… ‘Qur’an and
Bible in the light of Science.’ I cannot only speak about one
Scripture - Dr. William Campbell hardly spoke about one or two points
about the Bible, which I will deal with InshaAllah. I will speak about
both InshaAllah, - I want to do justice to the topic.
(Ali Sina) Up to
here is introduction and promises. From hereon he begins with his
Bang in the Quran?
As far as Qur’an
and modern Science is concerned, in the field of ‘Astronomy’, the
Scientists, the Astronomers, a few decades earlier, they described, how
the universe came into existence - They call it the ‘Big
Bang’. And they said… ‘Initially there was one primary nebula,
which later on it separated with a Big Bang, which gave rise to Galaxies,
Stars, Sun and the Earth, we live in.’ This information is given in a
nutshell in the Glorious Qur’an, in Surah Ambiya, Ch. 21, Verse
No. 30, which says…. (Arabic).... Do not the unbelievers see…? ….
(Arabic)…. ‘That the heavens and the earth were joined together, and
we clove them asunder?’ Imagine this information which we came to know
recently, the Qur’an mentions 14 hundred years ago.
his fervor to make the Quran look scientific Dr. Naik overlooks the
fact that the theory of Big Bang precludes the concept of creation. If
the Big Bang is true then the story of the creation and Adam and Eve must be
false and vice versa.
Naik should have at least studied the theory of the Big Bang before
commenting about it.
theory of the Big Bang stipulates that about 13.7 billion years ago a
tremendous explosion started the universe. Prior to that event all of the
energy that was later transformed into matter was contained at one
infinitely small point (not nebula). This explosion, not only gave birth
to the particles that gave birth to the matter, but also to space and
Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike
an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies
were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations
for the universe. Therefore the notion of “separating the heaven
and the earth” is meaningless.
is how the Big Bang took place
how can this tiny planet of ours be separate from the universe? Our Earth
is a planet of one of the billions of galaxies that comprise the universe.
the following photo you can see a small portion of the universe. The
galaxies are scattered everywhere. Each galaxy contains several hundred
billion stars. The earth is a planet revolving around one of the stars
that comprise our galaxy, known as The Milky Way. Where
is the separation between the heavens and the Earth?
is what the Qur'an says:
‘The heavens and the earth were joined together, and we clove
is not an allusion to the Big Bang. It is the rehashing of the Genesis:
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate
water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated
the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8
God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there
was morning—the second day. Gen
if this is a miracle, the credit should go to the Bible and not to the
Qur'an. This fable, like many others, is borrowed from the Bible.
the origin of this tale dates back to pre biblical stories of Babylonians
The Qur'an is full of legends borrowed from the Bible and the fables of the
Pagan Arabs. These in turn were based on the myths of ancient Sumerians,
Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. Muhammad’s cosmology is the cosmology of
the ancient people. In pre-Hebrew Semitic myth two watery tumultuous
beings, one male and one female, Apsu (sweet water) and Tiamat
(salt water) give birth to a variety of sea monsters and gods. In the
ensuing chaos Tiamat, the female creator, tries to take control. Her
descendants unite against her, choosing one of their number - Marduk,
the god of
to lead them. Armed with a hurricane and riding a tempest drawn by four
fiery steeds, Marduk meets Tiamat and her evil accomplice Kingu in battle.
He kills them both.
great god Marduk slaying Tiamat the dragon goddess of salt water.
She is the personification of the Untame, Primeval Forces of the
Universe before established order and the mother of all gods.
the death of Tiamat her conqueror forms the heavens and the earth by
cutting her body open "like a cockleshell" and lifting up
one half to form the sky while leaving the bottom half as the earth:
lord rested; he gazed at the huge body, pondering how to use it, what to
create from the dead carcass. He split it apart like a cockleshell; with
the upper half he constructed the arc of sky, he pulled down the
Muhammad is not talking about the big bang. He is rehashing a biblical
tale that was borrowed from ancient mythology.
read more on this subject here http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/alAssadip5.htm
presents also another problem. It contradicts with
He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said
to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or
unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing
story is the right tale of the creation? Were the heaven and the earth joined together and
them asunder or were they apart and Allah told them to come together?
Of course both are
false. The earth is inside the sky and part of it. They can neither come
together nor separate. The Qur'an gives us two versions of the
creation that contradict each
other and both are scientifically wrong.
the Quran say the Sun and the Moon Revolve Around Their Own Axis?
When I was in
school, I had learned that the Sun in respect to the Earth - it was
stationary - the Earth and the Moon, they rotated about in axis, but the
sun was stationary. But when I read a Verse of the Qur’an saying,
in Surah Al–Ambiya,
. 21 Verse No. 33, it says…. (Arabic). … ‘It is Allah who has
created the night and the day.’…. (Arabic)…. The sun and the
moon…. (Arabic)…. Each one traveling in an orbit with its own motion.
Now Alhamdulillah, modern science has confirmed the Qur’anic
statement. The Arabic word used in the Qur’an is ‘Yasbahoon’,
which describes the motion of a moving body. When it refers to a celestial
body, it means it is rotating about its own axis. So Qur’an says
the sun and the Moon, they revolve as well as rotate about their own axis.
Today we have come to know that the Sun takes approximately 25 days to
complete one rotation.
(Ali Sina) Dr.
Naikr claims that the verse
which says the sun and the moon follow their
orbits means they rotate around their axis because the word يَسْبَحُونَ ysbahun
means rotating around its own axis. This is simply not true. Dr. Naik is
fabricating evidence and twisting the meaning of the words. Yasbahoon
means swimming. The word here
implies that the Sun and the Moon float in the sky around the
Earth and not around their own axis. This is what Muhammad observed and
this is what he said. He stated what was obvious to him and to everyone
else in his time who had no understanding of how the solar system works. See how this word is translated.
float, each in an orbit.
along, each in its rounded course.
each in an orbit floating.
(orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.
each gliding along smoothly in its orbit.
each floating in its own orbit.
each swimming in a sky.
each floating in a sky.
each moving swiftly in its sphere.
celestial bodies] move swiftly, [each] in [its respective] orb.
one can see, Dr. Naik is in error. By bundling the Moon and the Sun
together, it is clear that Muhammad thought they are alike with one being
brighter than the other.
Attempts such as
this, to twist the apparent meaning of the words reveal the desperation of Muslims to find
miracles and science in the absurdities of the Qur'an and hide its errors. Why none of these so called
miracles attributed to Muhammad are in clear language? Why Allah did not
say the Earth is round and it is rotating around the Sun and the Moon is
rotating around the Earth? Simple and clear! In none of the so called
Qur'anic miracles you find clarity.
Then again, if the Qur'an is full of
science why the Islamic countries are most wretched? Muslim's response to
this is that Muslims do not practice Islam, that is why. But how is
it that the Kafir countries that do not practice Islam at all are better than Muslim
countries that practice it a little? Why
virtually all the kafir countries are more advanced than virtually all the
Islamic countries? The
more Islamic a country gets the more backward, barbaric and poor it
becomes. Is there in this a lesson for us all?
This is what Dr Farrukh Saleem in Jang.com
majority countries have an average of ten universities each for a total of
less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people;
has 8,407 universities, the
has 5,758. From within 1.4 billion Muslims Abdus Salam and Ahmed Zewail
are the only two Muslim men who won a Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry
(Salam pursued his scientific work in
, Zewail at California Institute of Technology). Dr Salam in his home
country is not even considered a Muslim.
Over the past 105
years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel Laureates while a
mere 14 million Jews have produced 167 Nobel Laureates. Of the 1.4 billion
Muslims less than 300,000 qualify as 'scientists', and that converts to a
ratio of 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The
United States of America
has 1.1 million scientists (4,099 per million);
has 700,000 (5,095 per million).
A quick calculation reveals that the
likelihood that a Jew wins the Noble Prize is 2088 times higher than a
Muslim winning it. If all the science is in the Qur'an
why all the Muslims are so backward?
One of these eight
"Muslim" Noble Prize winners is the Egyptian novelist Naguib
Mahfouz. One of his best known works, Children of Gebelawi (1959), has
been banned in Egypt for alleged blasphemy. In 1994 at the age of 82 yrs
Mahfouz was stabbed by a man of Allah. When asked if he has ever read any
of Mahfouz's books, the servant of Allah responded: "I never
read any of his filthy books".
Letter to Maurice
Solovine, I January 1, 1951; Einstein Archive 21-174, 80-871,
published in Letters to Solovine , p. 119.