Silver-level articleQur'anic scientific foreknowledge

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Style over substance

Pseudoscience

Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples
One of many articles on

Islam

Icon islam.svg
Topics of interest
Qur'anic scientists, hard at work.
Qur'anic scientists, hard at work.
A contemporary person who knows some science can make passages of the Quran superficially resemble scientific insights by manipulating verses that have nothing to do with science and trying to pigeonhole them into something resembling contemporary knowledge.
—Russell Glasser[1]
One also hears arguments like the Quoran must be true because X was stated in Quoran and later it was shown by modern science that X is true. I would like to point out that many science fiction writers wrote about travel to the Moon and travel under the sea before technology made such feats possible. If we apply similar standards of logic then we must also conclude that these science fiction writers were inspired by an omnipotent divinity.
—Nalinaksha Bhattacharyya[2]

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge (also known as Qur'anic scientific miracles) is the idea that the Qur'an, through Allah's revelations to the prophet Muhammad, accurately predicts scientific knowledge that could not have been known at the time of its writing, or about 609 to 640 CE.

Contents

[edit] Proponents

Bucaille bends the meaning of the Arabic words to suit his own ideas.
—Michael Negus[3]

Many Muslims, especially more fundamentalist ones, believe in Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.[4][5][6][7] Believers often see Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge as "proof" of the Qur'an's divine nature and a means to convert people to Islam[wp].[4][5][6] The idea of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is a relatively recent invention,[8] linked to rising Muslim creationism and fundamentalism.[5][7][note 1]

Maurice Bucaille[wp], a French physician, promoted Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge in The Bible, The Qur'an and Science[wp] and other writings. Considering that Bucaille was living in Saudi Arabia at the time, was an employee of the Saudi royalty, and may have been paid to write said book by said royalty, it appears entirely plausible that Bucaille was a government shill for not fully critical of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge claims.[8] Dr. Muhammad Rasjidi, translator of the book into Indonesian and former Indonesian Minister for Religious Affairs, describes Bucaille's book as "a half-baked mish-mash of pseudoscience and pseudo-exegesis".[9] Despite this, Bucaille helped propagate Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge to regions that hadn't previously been exposed to the idea.

Harun Yahya is perhaps the most prolific[10][11] and least credentialed[12] propagator of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge, with hundreds of websites, books, articles, and lawsuits[7] on the subject.

[edit] General problems

If the Quran contains scientific foreknowledge, why did Muslims wait until science discovered those things to claim that the Quran contains them?
—Yahoo Answers questioner[13]

A few generic faults plague effectively all "foreknowledge" in sacred texts:

  • Scientific and historical knowledge necessarily must detail every process as accurately and precisely as possible. It is not scientific merely to make vague assertions, such as, "our bodies are made of the same stuff as the earth is," or "rain falls and waters our crops", because these claims are prey to ambiguity.
  • Very few religious texts actually aim to provide detailed knowledge about the world in the way that science or archaeology do. The vast majority of statements from the Qur'an, and most other religious texts, are religious messages to followers, moral rules, or statements aimed at converting heathens.
  • Even if some of the claims of "foreknowledge" were true, there are a vastly greater number of statements in the Qur'an with no basis whatsoever in fact. Even if every one of the claims presented here were correct (which they manifestly are not), they would still be vastly outnumbered by the absurdities.
  • It's also interesting that (when the Qur'an is correct) discoveries are very rarely "predicted" by the Qur'an until after the discovery has been independently made. One would imagine that a book so full of foreknowledge would be used to predict future discoveries, while it appears that the Qur'an can only "predict" current knowledge.


[edit] Criteria for scientific foreknowledge

These are revelations of the Scripture that maketh plain.
Qur'an 26:2 on the clarity of the Qur'an.[note 2]
He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical.
Qur'an 3:7 on the allegorical nature of the Qur'an.

For a statement to be Qur'anic foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

  1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Qur'anic foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
  2. It must be in the Qur'an. A statement cannot be Qur'anic foreknowledge if it is not in the Qur'an, because Qur'anic foreknowledge definitionally can only come from the Qur'an itself.
  3. It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be Qur'anic foreknowledge if multiple outcomes could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional or not.
  4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Qur'anic foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know a statement and a guess is not valid knowledge. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true, without a solid reason for said beliefs.
  5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Qur'anic foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.


Claim   Response

[edit] Biology

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge article navigation
TopBiologyClimatologyMedicinePhysicsZoologyBottom


[edit] Embryology

Keith Moore's[wp] paper, A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an:[14]   RationalWiki:

"Statements referring to human reproduction and development are scattered throughout the Qur'an.   Religious texts do seem to love talking about makin' babies and what to do with them when they pop out. Since the Qur'an is superior to these innumerable heathen books, we're sure that it has a detailed, unambiguous, and complete description of inception, the stages of pregnancy, and birth, preferably all in one chronological section. Right?

It is only recently that the scientific meaning of some of these verses has been appreciated fully. The long delay in interpreting these verses correctly resulted mainly from inaccurate translations and commentaries and from a lack of awareness of scientific knowledge.   Indeed, the Quran appears only to have scientific foreknowledge after a scientific discovery has been made.

Interest in explanations of the verses of the Qur'an is not new. People used to ask the prophet Muhammad all sorts of questions about the meaning of verses referring to human reproduction. The Apostle's answers form the basis of the Hadith literature.   Yes, the Hadiths exist.

The translations of the verses from the Qur'an which are interpreted in this paper were provided by Sheik Abdul Majid Zendani, a Professor of Islamic Studies in King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.   Unfortunately, Prof. Zendani's translation is unavailable online. Regardless, Rationalwiki prefers the Pickthall translation, because it appears to be most accurate and not made to fit scientific foreknowledge claims.

Though not mentioned by Moore, many Muslim apologists argue that the Qur'an accurately states that both male and female contribute genetic material to the new zygote, quoting Qur'an 53:45-46 and 76:2, which separately mention the "thickened fluid" and the creation of "the male and the female".   First, neither of the verses cited explicitly argues that both the male and female provide their traits to their offspring. Instead, the apologetic argument arises here because the cited verses are sometimes translated in such a way that they imply that some "mixing" has gone on here. Even if we accept these translations, it's impossible to say what is being "mixed" -- semen and vaginal fluid, semen and menstrual discharge, semen and semen, male and female genetic material, or any of a number of possibilities.[note 3] As such, these verses are vague to the point of uselessness.

Second, Qur'an 77:20-22 strongly implies that "base fluid", or semen, develop s alone in "a safe abode", or the uterus, and does not mention any mixing whatsoever. This lends Qur'anic support to the incorrect contemporary Greek theories that semen alone grow(s) into a fetus in the uterus.

Third, and most damning, 2:223 states that women are "tilth (to cultivate)". Tilth provides no genetic material to the seed, merely harboring it while it grows. This lends Qur'anic support to the incorrect contemporary Greek theories that semen alone grow(s) into a fetus in the uterus.

[Verse 39:6 omitted; see here.] We do not know when it was realized that human beings underwent development in the uterus (womb), but the first known illustration of a fetus in the uterus was drawn by Leonardo da Vinci in the 15th century. In the 2nd century A.D., Galen described the placenta and fetal membranes in his book "On The Formation of the Foetus." Consequently, doctors in the 7th century A.D. likely knew that the human embryo developed in the uterus.   As mentioned by Moore, the knowledge that the embryo develops in-utero was known well before the writing of the Qur'an.[15][16][17] Thus, this "foreknowledge" is merely "knowledge".

It is unlikely that they knew that it developed in stages, even though Aristotle had described the stages of development of the chick embryo in the 4th century B.C. The realization that the human embryo develops in stages was not discussed and illustrated until the 15th century. After the microscope was discovered in the 17th century by Leeuwenhoek descriptions were made of the early stages of the chick embryo. The staging of human embryos was not described until the 20th century. Streeter (1941) developed the first system of staging which has now been replaced by a more accurate system proposed by O'Rahilly (1972).   First, as discounted by Moore, humans did investigate the stages of embryology.[16][17]

Second, the knowledge that the fetus undergoes different stages of development should be readily understood from the changes that pregnant women undergo, such as lack of menstruation, changes in abdomen size, etc and known at the time.

Third, the Qur'an does a very poor job of explaining the stages of pregnancy. The Qur'an includes no timeline for any of its stages, does not present the stages that it mentions in chronological order, does not describe all of the stages, and describes most of the stages either through analogy or through vague imagery. Why?


"The three veils of darkness" [from Qur'an 39:6] may refer to: (l) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall; and (3) the amniochorionic membrane (Fig. 1). Although there are other interpretations of this statement, the one presented here seems the most logical from an embryological point of view.   First, the "veils" chosen are entirely arbitrary. Why not choose the three layers of the skin[18] or the three layers of the uterus[19] or the three sides of the abdominal wall[20] or any three of the six main layers of the abdominal wall?[20] If the Qur'an was truly a scientific source of knowledge, it would not merely reference the "three veils", which is vague and can be interpreted in many ways, but describe them and detail their function. Instead, it is clear that these three layers were arbitrarily chosen because it appeared to support the Qur'an's "prophecy".

Second, the amniochorionic membrane cannot exactly be said to be "a layer of darkness", when the specific part of the membrane that surrounds the baby, or the amnion, is transparent.[21] Even if we discount the transparency point, consider also that the amniochorionic membrane is only formed after the second week of pregnancy in humans[22], which means that the first two weeks of the "creat[ion] ... in the wombs of your mothers ... in a threefold gloom" are actually occuring in a twofold gloom.


Figure 1. Drawing of a sagittal section of a female's abdomen and pelvis showing a fetus in utero. The "veils of darkness" are: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall, and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.
Figure 1. Drawing of a sagittal section of a female's abdomen and pelvis showing a fetus in utero. The "veils of darkness" are: (1) the anterior abdominal wall; (2) the uterine wall, and (3) the amniochorionic membrane.
 

"Then We placed him as a drop in a place of rest." This statement is from Sura 23:13 [see here]. The drop or nutfah has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest"). This interpretation is supported by another verse in the Qur'an which states that "a human being is created from a mixed drop." The zygote forms by the union of a mixture of the sperm and the ovum ("The mixed drop").   It seems somehow likely that the knowledge that "insemination is necessary to cause pregnancy" existed at the time of the writing of the Qur'an.

"Then We made the drop into a leech-like structure." This statement is from Sura 23:14 [see here]. The word "alaqah" refers to a leech or bloodsucker. This is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24 when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus, in the same way that a leech clings to the skin. Just as the leech derives blood from the host, the human embryo derives blood from the decidua or pregnant endometrium. It is remarkable how much the embryo of 23-24 days resembles a leech (Fig. 2). As there were no microscopes or lenses available in the 7th century, doctors would not have known that the human embryo had this leech-like appearance. In the early part of the fourth week, the embryo is just visible to the unaided eye because it is smaller than a kernel of wheat.   Leeches and embryos have a few differences.

First, leeches have many characteristics other than shape, such as size, behaviour, shape, color, appearance, and so on. Why use a metaphor relating embryos to leeches when listeners cannot be expected to know what characteristic the analogy describes? It is ridiculous to choose one characteristic, shape, which may have a very limited degree find of similarity with an embryo, particularly because the early embryo passes through a wide range of shapes.

Second, leeches simply sucks blood from its host,[23] while the embryo circulates and exchanges blood and waste products with its mother "host".[24]

Third, even when restricting the comparison to shape alone, apologists conveniently ignore the embryo's yolk sac when depicting the embryo.


Figure 2. Top, a drawing of a leech or bloodsucker. Below, a drawing of a 24 day-old human embryo. Note the leech-like appearance of the human embryo at this stage.
Figure 2. Top, a drawing of a leech or bloodsucker. Below, a drawing of a 24 day-old human embryo. Note the leech-like appearance of the human embryo at this stage.
 
Human embryo at approx. 18 to 21 days
Human embryo at approx. 18 to 21 days. Source

"Then of that leech-like structure, We made a chewed lump." This statement is also from Sura 23:14 [see here]. The Arabic word "mudghah" means "chewed substance or chewed lump." Toward the end of the fourth week, the human embryo looks somewhat like a chewed lump of flesh (Fig. 3). The chewed appearance results from the somites which resemble teeth marks. The somites represent the beginnings or primordia of the vertebrae.  

Figure 3. Left, a plasticine model of the human embryo which has the appearance of chewed flesh. Right, a drawing of a 28 day-old human embryo showing several bead-like somites which resemble the teeth marks in the model shown to the left.
Figure 3. Left, a plasticine model of the human embryo which has the appearance of chewed flesh. Right, a drawing of a 28 day-old human embryo showing several bead-like somites which resemble the teeth marks in the model shown to the left.
 
Human embryo at approx. 27 to 30 days
Human embryo at approx. 27 to 30 days. Source

"Then out of a piece of chewed flesh, partly formed and partly unformed." This part of Sura 22:5 [see here] seems to indicate that the embryo is composed of both differentiated and undifferentiated tissues. For example, when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. It later differentiates into the muscles and ligaments attached to the bones.   First, it's hard to argue that "formed and unformed" implies "differentiated and undifferentiated" when it's just as possible that the verse is poetically referring to the fact that, during pregnancy, a human baby is not yet fully formed, but is partially formed. There's no reason to prefer one interpretation over the other, making the verse vague to begin with.

Second, the Qur'an states that the "chewed lump" stage, in which cell differentiation occurs, begins after the "leech" stage (23-24 days) and ends before the "fetus" (after 36 dats) stage. This is odd, because differentiation begins at 4 days[25][26] and continues into the fetus stage.[27][28] If we interpret this verse as involving cell differentiation, then the Qur'an is correct that differentiation occurs in the chewed lump stage; however, it seems disingenuous to mention differentiation for only part of the times at which it is present.


"Then We made out of the chewed lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh." This continuation of Sura 23:14 [see here] indicates that out of the chewed lump stage, bones and muscles form. This is in accordance with embryological development. First the bones form as cartilage models and then the muscles (flesh) develop around them from the somatic mesoderm.  

"Then We developed out of it another creature." This next part of Sura 23:14 [see here] implies that the bones and muscles result in the formation of another creature. This may refer to the human-like embryo that forms by the end of the eighth week. At this stage it has distinctive human characteristics and possesses the primordia of all the internal and external organs and parts. After the eighth week, the human embryo is called a fetus. This may be the new creature to which the verse refers.  

"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding." This part of Sura 32:9 [see here] indicates that the special senses of hearing, seeing, and feeling develop in this order, which is true. The primordia of the internal ears appear before the beginning of the eyes, and the brain (the site of understanding) differentiates last.   This verse does not sufficiently indicate that the senses develop in this order. The statement, "I gave you bread, water, and fish" does not clearly imply that bread came first, then water, then fish; instead it merely indicates that all were given. If the Qur'an wished to make clear that it gave hearing, then sight, then understanding, then it could simply have used the word "then" between each, as was just done, or any number of other semantic methods of indicating order. Instead, the Qur'an appears to be boasting about how much stuff Allah has apparently given to humans, and how little thanks poor Allah gets for it.

"And We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.["] This next part of Sura 22:5 [see here] seems to imply that God determines which embryos will remain in the uterus until full term. It is well known that many embryos abort during the first month of development, and that only about 30% of zygotes that form, develop into fetuses that survive until birth. This verse has also been interpreted to mean that God determines whether the embryo will develop into a boy or girl. The interpretation of the verses in the Qur'an referring to human development would not have been possible in the 7th century A.D., or even a hundred years ago. We can interpret them now because the science of modern [e]mbryology affords us new understanding.   First, the knowledge that pregnancy goes on for a finite time probably existed at the time of the writing of the Qur'an. This statement appears to be the clearest interpretation of this verse of the Qur'an, which mentions only "rest[ing] in the womb" for "an appointed term".

Second, the Qur'anic verse in no way mentions or implies anything about zygotes, fetuses, miscarriage, or the gender of the embryo. It's impossible to read "for an appointed term" as involving any of the above. Clearly, these concepts are being read into the Qur'an.


Undoubtedly there are other verses in the Qur'an related to human development that will be understood in the future as our knowledge increases."   Undoubtedly.

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

^ "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth, and send (good deeds) before you for yomr souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Hiim. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad)." (Qur'an 2:223).   Temporarily ignoring the blatant misogyny, this verse clearly indicates that females do not provide genetic material. Or should we arbitrarily disregard this analogy while accepting the others?

^1, 2 "O mankind! if ye are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, then lo! We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of flesh shapely and shapeless, that We may make (it) clear for you. And We cause what We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed time, and afterward We bring you forth as infants, then (give you growth) that ye attain your full strength. And among you there is he who dieth (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the most abject time of life, so that, after knowledge, he knoweth naught. And thou (Muhammad) seest the earth barren, but when We send down water thereon, it doth thrill and swell and put forth every lovely kind (of growth)," (Qur'an 22:5).  

^1, 2, 3, 4, 5 "Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators! Then lo! after that ye surely die. Then lo! on the Day of Resurrection ye are raised (again)." (Qur'an 23:12-16).  

^ "Who made all things good which He created, and He began the creation of man from clay; then He made his seed from a draught of despised fluid; then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His Spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye!" (Qur'an 32:7-9).   It's not clear that this verse is even talking about pregnancy, given that it mentions "the creation of man from clay", which references Allah's creation of the first, rather than the insemination of every human. This is fit by the mention of Allah "breath[ing] into him of His Spirit", which again references Allah's initial creation of man.

^1, 2 "He hath created the heavens and the earth with truth. He maketh night to succeed day, and He maketh day to succeed night, and He constraineth the sun and the moon to give service, each running on for an appointed term. Is not He the Mighty, the Forgiver? He created you from one being, then from that (being) He made its mate; and He hath provided for you of cattle eight kinds. He created you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, in a threefold gloom. Such is Allah, your Lord. His is the Sovereignty. There is no Allah save Him. How then are ye turned away?" (Qur'an 39:5-6).   Clearly this verse is discussing the details of pregnancy, rather than listing all the stuff Allah has made (which happens to include babies).

"He it is Who created you from dust, then from a drop (of seed) then from a clot, then bringeth you forth as a child, then (ordaineth) that ye attain full strength and afterward that ye become old men - though some among you die before - and that ye reach an appointed term, that haply ye may understand.", (Qur'an 40:67).   This verse contradicts other Qur'anic accounts of embryology. Qur'an 40:67 claims that humans go directly from the "leech/clot/clinging thing/hanging thing" stage to becoming a fully-grown child. Qur'an 40:67 thus skips over the "formation of bone" stage, the "end of cell differentiation stage", and the "fetal stage". This either makes Qur'anic embryology not-foreknowledge ("first, semen; second, baby; third, human" is about as vagbasicue as it gets) or contradictory.

^ "And that He createth the two spouses, the male and the female, From a drop (of seed) when it is poured forth," (Qur'an 53:45).   First, this verse may imply that males and females both provide genetic material to a zygote. However, this verse merely mentions males and females, and doesn't even argue for the "thickened fluid".

^ "Lo! We create man from a drop of thickened fluid to test him; so We make him hearing, knowing," (Qur'an 76:2).   First,' this verse imlplies that semen mixed with something is the basis for a zygote; however, we are never told what.

Second, this verse isn't necessarily referring to pregnancy. The abilities given to man come from Creation.

^ "Did We not create you from a base fluid Which We laid up in a safe abode For a known term?" (Qur'an 77:20-22).   This verse supports the semen-only theory of zygote formation.

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes various stages of pre-birth human development, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Mostly. Most of these claims about human development are true.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. Only if one is looking for these meanings can one find them.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. Contemporary Greek and Indian accounts had similar ideas of human development.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. The Qur'an only vaguely references various "stages".
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes and no. Some of these stages would have required microscopes; some would not.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Other sources:   Other responses:

[edit] Water is essential to life

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30).   First, if we interpret this as "water formed all life," then this is incorrect. Life is made many different compounds, not just H2O. Unless Allah has some magic alchemy going on, then this isn't exactly foreknowledge.

Second, if we interpret this as "life formed in water", then we can't prove or falsify it. While many theories of abiogenesis hold that life probably formed in the water, it is unknown and can never be fully if this is true or not. Furthermore, it's probable that some fundamental parts of life formed in various areas on Earth, and collected together to form life, which would make this statement incorrect.

Third, if we interpret this as "water is essential to life", then this is true, but hardly foreknowledge, especially when the book in question was written in an arid region where water is especially treasured.


[edit] Climatology

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge article navigation
TopBiologyClimatologyMedicinePhysicsZoologyBottom


[edit] Clouds have weight

From Harun Yahya's Miracles of the Qur'an website:[29]   RationalWiki:

"The weight of clouds can reach quite astonishing proportions. For example, a cumulonimbus cloud, commonly known as the thunder cloud, can contain up to 300,000 tons of water. The fact that a mass of 300,000 tons of water can remain aloft is truly amazing.   Like any good advertiser, Yahya shows something "cool" before his sales pitch. Happily, this time Yahya is correct that clouds have weight, though he's off by about 299,450 tons.[30][31]

Attention is drawn to the weight of clouds in other verses of the Qur'an: [Verses 7:57 and 13:12 omitted; see here and here.] At the time when the Qur'an was revealed, of course, it was quite impossible to have any information about the weight of clouds. This information, revealed in the Qur'an, but discovered only recently, is yet another proof that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah."   The fact that clouds do have weight isn't quite "foreknowledge". It's not hard to go from "clouds have water" and "water has weight" to "clouds have weight". Scientific foreknowledge is supposed to be something unknowable at the time. Perhaps this logic would have been discovered sooner if people hadn't attributed weather to the gods for so long.

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

^ "And He it is Who sendeth the winds as tidings heralding His mercy, till, when they bear a cloud heavy (with rain), We lead it to a dead land, and then cause water to descend thereon and thereby bring forth fruits of every kind. Thus bring We forth the dead. Haply ye may remember," (Qur'an 7:57).   Again, realizing that clouds have weight is nowhere near impossible. It's not incredibly hard for anyone, even in the 600s, to notice that "storms are windy", that "dark clouds bring rain", or that "plants need water to live".

^ "He it is Who showeth you the lightning, a fear and a hope, and raiseth the heavy clouds," (Qur'an 13:12).   In most translations of this verse, Allah apparently likes to torment travellers with lightning. Regardless, apparently the Qur'an chalked lightning up to Allahdidit, missing a great lesson on electricity. Oh well.

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states that clouds have weight, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. Clouds have weight.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? Yes. The Qur'an mentions that storm clouds are heavy.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an does not specify how much weight clouds have, why they have them, that non-storm clouds have weight, or why they can stay aloft although they are heavy.[note 4]
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. The idea that clouds have water, that water has weight, and that clouds therefore have weight, was certainly within 7th century logic.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? No. While determining the weight of a cloud requires modern science (and which the Qur'an doesn't do), determining that clouds have weight is very possible, via knowledge that they contain water and that water has weight.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

[edit] Rain

[edit] Rain contains fertilizer

From Harun Yahya's article, About the Rain in the Qur'an:[32]   RationalWiki:

"In the Qur'an, a lot of verses call our attention to a particular function of rain, which is 'giving life to a dead land'.   A book mentions rain? Clearly, Goddidit!

It is stated in a verse as:

"We send down pure water from the sky. That with it We may give life to a dead land, and slake the thirst of things We have created, cattle and men in great numbers." [ Al-Qur'an 25:48- 49 ]

In addition to furnishing the earth with water, rain also has a fertilization effect. Rain drops that reach the clouds after being evaporated from the seas, contain certain substances 'that will give life' to a dead land. These 'life-giving' drops are called 'surface tension drops'. Surface tension drops form on the top level of the sea surface which is called the micro layer by biologists. In this layer, which is thinner than one tenth of a millimeter, there are many organic leftovers caused from the pollution of microscopic algaes and zooplanktons.

  Qur'an 25:48-49 (Pickthall):
And He it is Who sendeth the winds, glad tidings heralding His mercy, and We send down purifying water from the sky, That We may give life thereby to a dead land, and We give many beasts and men that We have created to drink thereof.

Yahya appears to be correct about the sea surface microlayer[wp] and the fertilizer content of rain,[33][34] even if he overstates their importance.

However, this verse mentions only the joy-causing properties of the breeze and the fact that life dies without water, rather than, say, detailing a layer of microorganisms and organic compounds exists on the top of the ocean which adds life-supplementing nutrients to the rain as it evaporates. A pity.


Some of these leftovers select and collect within themselves some elements which are very rare in sea water such as phosphorus, magnesium, potassium and some heavy metals like copper, zinc, cobalt and lead. These 'fertilizer' laden drops are lifted up into the sky by the winds and after a while they drop on the ground inside the rain drops. Seeds and plants on the earth find numerous metallic salts and elements essential for their growth here in these rain drops. This event is informed in another verse of the Qur'an as follows:

"And We send down from the sky rain chartered with blessing, and We produce therewith gardens and grain for harvests." [ Al-Qur'an 50:9 ]

Salts that fall with rain are small examples of some fertilizers (calcium, magnesium, potassium etc.) used for increasing fertility. The heavy metals found in these types of aerosols, on the other hand, are other elements that increase fertility in the development and production of plants. Forests also develop and are fed with the help of these sea-originated aerosols. In this way, 150 million tons of fertilizer falls on the total surface of lands every year. If there was not a natural fertilization like this, there would be very little vegetation on the earth, and the ecological balance would be damaged.

  Qur'an 50:9-11 (Pickthall):
And We send down from the sky blessed water whereby We give growth unto gardens and the grain of crops, And lofty date-palms with ranged clusters, Provision (made) for men; and therewith We quicken a dead land. Even so will be the resurrection of the dead.

This verse focuses on the really difficult idea that "plants die without water", rather than that rain gathers fertilizers from the air by absorbing pollution and through lightning strikes.


What is more interesting is that this truth, which could only be discovered by modern science, was informed by Allah in the Qur'an centuries ago."   In neither of the cited verses does the Qur'an even attempt to mention the sea surface microlayer or the fertilizer content of rain. Instead, the Qur'an focuses on the technical detail that water is necessary for the survival of plants and animals.

It should further be noted that Yahya's claims about the fertilizer content of rain contradict another Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge claim about the purity of rain.


Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states that rain contains fertilizer, which would have been unknowable.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic foreknowledge?

  1. Is it accurate? Yes. Rain contains fertilizers.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The Qur'an mentions "blessed rain" and "slaking thirst", not the fertilizer of rain or an sea surface microlayer.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an mentions "blessed rain" and "slaking thirst", not the fertilizer of rain or an sea surface microlayer.
  4. Is it improbable? No. The idea that rain helps plants grow was known; the idea that it might contain some "vital force" is not a huge step.
  5. Was it unknown? Yes. The knowledge that rain contains fertilizers was not present in contemporary Arabian culture.
    Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic foreknowledge.


[edit] Rain's formation

From Harun Yahya's article, About the Rain in the Qur'an:[32]   RationalWiki:

"How rain forms remained a great mystery for people for a long time. Only after air radars were discovered, could it have been possible to learn by which stages rain formed. The formation of rain takes place in three stages: First, the "raw material" of rain rises up in the air. Later, clouds are formed and lastly, rain drops appear. These stages are clearly defined in the Qur'an in which precise information was given about the formation of rain centuries in advance; [Verse 30:48 omitted; see here.] Now, let us look at the three stages mentioned in the verse;   This is simply untrue. Humans have known (or, at least hypothesized) about the water cycle for thousands of years, and some prominent ancient Greek and Chinese philosoher-scientists believed that rain was the source of some surface water.[35]

1st Stage: 'It is Allah Who sends the winds ... ' Countless air bubbles formed by the foaming in the oceans continuously burst and cause water particles to be ejected towards the sky. These particles which are rich in salt, are then carried away by winds and move upwards in the atmosphere.These particles which are called aerosols form clouds by collecting around themselves the water vapor -that again ascends from the seas - as tiny drops, by a mechanism called "water trap".   First, the cited Qur'anic verse does not mention ocean foam, water droplets, or a "water trap", unlike what Yahya claims; instead, it merely states that Allah brings winds that raise and spread clouds. Here, the claimed scientific foreknowledge is not in the Qur'an.

Second, drawing on the first point, the knowledge that wind and storms are associated does not require any divine inspiration whatsoever, making it unnecessary for this to be scientific foreknowledge.


2nd Stage : ' ... and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments ... ['] The clouds form from the water vapor that condenses around the salt crystals or the dust particles in the air. Because the water drops in these are very small (with a diameter between 0.01 and 0.02mm), the clouds are suspended in the air and they spread in the sky. Thus the sky is covered with clouds.   First, again, the cited Qur'anic verse does not mention salt crystals, dust particles, or condensation, unlike what Yahya claims; instead, it merely states that Allah raises, spreads, and breaks clouds. Here, the claimed scientific foreknowledge is not in the Qur'an.

Second, drawing on the first point, knowledge that wind affects clouds does not require any divine inspiration whatsoever,[note 5] making it unnecessary for this to be scientific foreknowledge.


3rd Stage : ' ... until you see rain-drops issue from the midst thereof.' Water particles that surround salt crystals and dust particles thicken and form rain drops. So, the drops which become heavier than air depart from the clouds, and start to fall on the ground as rain.   First, again, the cited Qur'anic verse does not mention salt crystals, dust particles, or condensation, unlike what Yahya claims; instead, it merely states that raindrops form in clouds. Here, the claimed scientific foreknowledge is not in the Qur'an.

Second, drawing on the first point, knowledge that clouds form raindrops, making it unnecessary for this to be scientific foreknowledge.


The conclusion to be arrived here is that; Every stage in the formation of rain is told in the verses of the Qur'an. Furthermore, these stages are explained in the order they take place ... Just like in many other natural phenomena in the world, it is again the Qur'an that provides the most correct explanation about this phenomena as well, and more, that has announced these facts to people centuries before they were discovered by science."   It is again that the Qur'an vaguely describes an already-known process and easily-observable facts, helping advance the cause of Science!

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

"Allah is He Who sendeth the winds so that they raise clouds, and spreadeth them along the sky as pleaseth Him, and causeth them to break and thou seest the rain downpouring from within them. And when He maketh it to fall on whom He will of His bondmen, lo! they rejoice;" (Qur'an 30:48).   This verse, like much of the Qur'an, is extolling the power of Allah, as he plays with clouds and winds and the deaths of millions through drought. It's hard to argue that this verse seeks to educate humans about the water cycle, when it would be incredibly easy to mention other details, such as transpiration from plants, or groundwater, or an actual description of how water is always recycled, never lost.

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes the formation of rain droplets, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. Rain evapotranspires, condenses, and precipitates.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The only information given in the cited Qur'anic verse is that the wind affects clouds and that clouds cause rain.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The cited Qur'anic verse could easily have specified how and why rain evapotranspires, condenses, and precipitates, but instead chooses to focus solely on the rain.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. The knowledge that winds affect clouds and that clouds create rain was in contemporary knowledge.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? No. The technology required to understand that winds affect clouds and that clouds create rain is no more advanced than the human eye.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

[edit] Rain's "measures"

From Harun Yahya's article, About the Rain in the Qur'an:[32]   RationalWiki:

"Rain is indeed one of the most important factors for like on the earth. Rain is a prerequisite of life in a region. Rain, which carries great importance for all living things including human beings, is mentioned in various verses of the Qur'an where substantial information is given about the formation of rain, its proportion and effects.   The level of scientific knowledge required to say, "Hey, rain exists!" is astoundingly low.

The fact that it was not possible for any of this information to have been discovered at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an shows us that the Qur'an is the word of Allah. Now, let us examine the information given in the Qur'an about rain.   None of the information Yahya presents is actually in the cited verse of the Qur'an, so it's hard to argue that the Qur'an had foreknowledge of it.

In the eleventh verse of Surah az-Zukhruf [(Qur'an 43:11)], rain is defined as water sent down in due measure. The verse is as follows: [Verse 43:11 omitted, see here.] This 'measure' mentioned in the verse has to do with a couple of characteristics of rain.   The verse in question mentions that Allah sends down rain "in due measure". From this alone, it should be clear that "in due measure" is talking about the "justice" or "fairness" of Allah's decisions to send rain where and when He wants, not about the qualities or quantity of rain. The context makes this even more clear. The verse states that rain will bring crops from dead ground and Allah will similarly bring people back to life. This verse isn't about the science of rain - this verse is about showing off Allah's power and trying to make Him seem like a good guy.

First of all, the amount of rain that falls on the earth is always the same. It is estimated that in one second, 16 million tones of water evaporates from the earth. This number is equal to the amount of water that drops on the earth in one second. This means that water continuously circulates in a balanced cycle according to a 'measure'.   First, again, this isn't what the Qur'an means by "measure", nor is it stated in the cited verse of the Qur'an, making it quite difficult for this to be scientific foreknowledge.

Second, this isn't true. Both precipitation[wp] and evapotranspiration[wp] vary daily, as wind and temperature affect both. Furthermore, the level and intensity of rain is likely to change in the future, causing erosion and drought[36], due to certain changes in climate in the future.


Another measure related with rain is its falling speed. The minimum altitude of rain clouds is 1,200 meters. When dropped from this height, an object having the same weight and size as a rain drop would continuously accelerate and fall on the ground with a speed of 558 km/h. Certainly, any object that hits the ground with that speed would cause big damage. If rain happened to fall in the same way, all harvested lands would be destroyed, residential areas, houses, and cars would be damaged, people would not be able to walk around without taking necessary precautions. What is more, these calculations are made for clouds of just 1,200 meters high, whereas there are also rain clouds at an altitude of 10,000 meters. A rain drop falling from such height could normally reach a very destructive speed. But that is not how it works; no matter how high they fall, average speed of rain drops is only 8-10 km/h when they reach the ground. The reason for this is the special form they take. This special form increases the friction effect of the atmosphere and prevents acceleration when the rain drops reach a certain speed "limit". (Today parachutes are designed by using this technique.)   First, again, this isn't what the Qur'an means by "measure", nor is this stated in the cited verse of the Qur'an, making it hard for this to be scientific foreknowledge.

Second, Yahya appears to be making an argument from design. While correct about the fall speed[37] and shape of rain,[38] his argument both fails to recognize the anthropic principle and assumes that the purpose of physics itself is to promote human life. Indeed rain, snow, and other precipitation are sometimes quite destructive.


This is not all about the 'measures' of rain. For instance, in the atmospheric layers where it starts to rain, the temperature may fall so low as 400C degrees. Despite this, rain drops never turn into ice particles. (This would certainly mean a fatal death for the living things on the earth. The reason for this is that the water in the atmosphere is pure water. As known, pure water hardly ever freezes even in very low temperatures."   First, again, this isn't what the Qur'an means by "measure".

Second, "400C" degrees would make rain steam, not water.[note 6]

Third, Yahya's claims about the "purity" of water contradict another Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge claim about the fertilizer content of water.

Fourth, It is untrue that pure water "hardly ever freezes". Ice indeed does form high in the atmosphere when it is actually cold. That's called hail and snow, which originates as tiny liquid droplets.[39]


Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

"And Who sendeth down water from the sky in (due) measure, and We revive a dead land therewith. Even so will ye be brought forth;" (Qur'an 43:11).   Again, it's pretty clear that this verse of the Qur'an is simply stating that Allah sends down rain as he pleases, not any Yahya's "measures".

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes various properties of rain, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. Rain has the properties noted by Yahya.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The Qur'an does not mention any of the properties noted by Yahya.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. None of the properties noted by Yahya are mentioned in the Qur'an, so they cannot be unambiguous.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? Yes. The properties of rain noted by Yahya were outside of contemporary knowledge.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes. The properties of rain noted by Yahya were outside of contemporary technology.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

[edit] Seven layers of the atmosphere

From Harun Yahya's Miracles of the Qur'an website:[40]   RationalWiki:

"One fact about the universe revealed in the verses of the Qur'an is that the sky is made up of seven layers: [Verses 2:29 and 41:11-12 omitted; see here and here.] The word 'heavens,' which appears in many verses in the Qur'an, is used to refer to the sky above the Earth, as well as the entire universe.   As shown earlier, the sky is closer to the correct translation, so Mr. Yayha is half-right. However, this translation is contradictory to other claims, and, due to its vagueness, is unscientific.

Given this meaning of the word, it is seen that the Earth's sky, or the atmosphere, is made up of seven layers.   Apparently, from the Qur'an, Harun Yahya has decided that the atmosphere has seven layers, and then uses this to prove that the Qur'an is correct. Fascinating.

Today, it is known that the world's atmosphere consists of different layers that lie on top of each other.   The atmosphere does have different layers. However, the borders between each are fuzzy and often overlap.

Based on the chemical contents or air temperature, the definitions made have determined the atmosphere of the earth as seven layers.   Indeed, this is part of how the layers of the atmosphere have been determined.[41] However, not all determinations arrive at seven layers, as shown here and here.

According to the 'Limited Fine Mesh Model (LFMMII),' a model of atmosphere used to estimate weather conditions for 48 hours, the atmosphere is also 7 layers.   First, Harun Yahya misrepresents what a "layer" is in weather prediction. As the Aerographer's Mate, Module 03 states:
"The Limited Fine Mesh Model II (LFMII) is still used for many 48-hour forecasts. (These are called short-range forecasts. ) Basically, it forecasts seven layers of the atmosphere: a planetary-boundary layer 50 millibars (about 1,500 feet) above the surface; three evenly spaced layers in the troposphere, including a layer at the tropopause level; and three evenly spaced layers in the stratosphere, with the top layer at 50-millibars."[42]

Notice how all seven of the "layers" were in the lower two formal "layers" of the atmosphere? That's because these "layers" are merely measurements at different sensing heights, not different types of atmosphere, unlike what Harun Yahya would have you believe.

Second, this is a prime example of cherry picking evidence. There are literally dozens of other weather prediction models, many of which have a non-seven number of atmospheric layers. Consider the 16-layer Nested Grid Model, the 12-layer Spectral model, or the 3-layer Global Model, all of which are regularly used by the National Weather Service.[42] Even if "layers" are atmospheric layers, we're stuck with the fact that this model was picked merely because it sounded like it fit.


According to the modern geological definitions the seven layers of atmosphere are as follows:
  1. Troposphere
  2. Stratosphere
  3. Mesosphere
  4. Thermosphere
  5. Exosphere
  6. Ionosphere
  7. Magnetosphere
  First, most sources put the number of layers at around 5, not 7. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lists the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, the thermosphere, and the exosphere, but excludes the (a) ionosphere and (b) magnetosphere.[41] Why? Because (a) the ionosphere is a portion of both the thermosphere and the exosphere, and isn't vertically separate enough to merit its own layer, and (b) the magnetosphere, as covered below, isn't an atmospheric layer.

Second, the ionosphere is relatively close to Earth, from about 85 km to 600 km above the surface of the Earth,[43] whereas the exosphere extends from about 600 km into interplanetary space.[44] So shouldn't "ionosphere" come before "exosphere"?

Third, the magnetosphere doesn't involve air particles at all, because it's not a layer of the atmosphere. The magnetosphere is the field emitted by the Earth's geomagnetic dynamo,[45] and so is totally unrelated to the "heavens", except in the mind of Harun Yahya.


The Qur'an says, '[He] revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate' in [Qur'an 42:]12. In other words, Allah is stating that He assigned each heaven its own duty. Truly, as will be seen in following chapters, each one of these layers has a particular function, ranging from forming rain to preventing harmful rays, from reflecting radio waves to averting the harmful effects of meteors.   First, if this is true, then no atmospheric layer can share any "functions" with another. However, all layers contribute to the destruction of asteroids, the absorption of radiation, the greenhouse effect.

Second, while the different atmospheric layers are different, it's not clear from the Qur'an what these differences are, which makes this statement scientifically useless.


[Verses 67:3-4 and 71:15-16 omitted; see here and here.] The Arabic word 'tibaqan' in these verses, translated into English as 'layer' means 'layer, the appropriate cover or covering for something,' and thus stresses how the top layer is well suited to the lower.   Harun Yahya correctly translates this word. However, this doesn't change the less-than scientific nature of the rest of the article. Moreover, it's hard to see why any given layer is a suitable cver for the one immediately below it.

The sky, described in the verse as being in layers, is without doubt the most perfect expression of the atmosphere.   It's just so beautiful, maaan.

It is a great miracle that these facts, which could not possibly be discovered without the technology of the 20th century, were explicitly stated by the Qur'an 1,400 years ago."   If by "explicitly", you mean "vaguely alluded to, in a way that adds nothing of scientific value, if we twist the meaning of 'heaven' and cherry-pick the 'data'," and "miracle" as "the incredible improbability of us figuring out what this actually means," then you're "correct".

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

"He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things., (Qur'an 2:29).   This verse adds nothing specific to the "seven heavens" concept.

"The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him, and there is not a thing but hymneth His praise; but ye understand not their praise. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving," (Qur'an 17:44).   This verse adds nothing specific to the "seven heavens" concept.

"And We have created above you seven paths, and We are never unmindful of creation," (Qur'an 23:17).   Interestingly, most translations of this verse and 67:3-4 mention that the "layers" are "one over the other", implying that they don't physically mingle in any significant fashion. However, the "layers" Harun Yahya provides include the magnetosphere, which overlaps all other mentioned layers,[45] and the ionosphere, which overlaps both the thermosphere and the exosphere.[43]

"Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Throne? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: Will ye not then keep duty (unto Him)?'" (Qur'an 23:86-87).   This verse adds nothing specific to the "seven heavens" concept.

"Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower," (Qur'an 41:11-12).   If both this verse and Harun Yahya are correct, then that makes the lowest ("nether") heaven, or the troposphere, both the location of the stars ("lamps"; also see 71:15-16 and 78:12-13) and "inviolable". For reference, the troposphere contains nearly all clouds[46] and has been "violated" by all air traffic (not to mention space missions or satellites) to date.

"Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge," (Qur'an 65:12).   This verse adds nothing specific to the "seven heavens" concept.

"Who hath created seven heavens in harmony. Thou (Muhammad) canst see no fault in the Beneficent One's creation; then look again: Canst thou see any rifts? Then look again and yet again, thy sight will return unto thee weakened and made dim," (Qur'an 67:3-4).   Both this verse and 23:17 mention that the "layers" are "one above another" and would therefore not seriously intermingle; however, we know this to be false.

"See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony, And hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp?" (Qur'an 71:15-16).   First, the moon is not "a light therein". The Moon does not produce its own light; instead, it reflects that of the Sun.[47]

Second, this verse (and 41:11-12 and 78:12-13) confirm that, because the sun is a "lamp", stars are "lamps".


"And We have built above you seven strong (heavens), And have made (therein) a shinning lamp (sun)," (Qur'an 78:12-13).   This verse (and 41:11-12 and 71:15-16) confirm that, because the sun is a "lamp", stars are "lamps".

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states that the atmosphere is made of seven layers, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? No. The "seven heavens" are not substantially different on Earth, and instead are the result of certain human categorizations of parts of the atmosphere for weather prediction purposes.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? Yes. The Qur'an frequently references the "seven heavens".
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. Only the lowest heaven is ever defined; the other six are not defined whatsoever.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? Yes. Contemporary knowledge could not have known that seven heavens exist, if seven heavens existed.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes. Contemporary technology could not have determined that seven heavens exist, if seven heavens existed.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

[edit] Medicine

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge article navigation
TopBiologyClimatologyMedicinePhysicsZoologyBottom


[edit] The medical benefits of honey

IslamWeb's article, The miracle of honey as an alternative medicine:[48][note 7]   RationalWiki:

Honey is a sweet and viscous fluid produced by honeybees from the nectar of flowers. "The definition of honey stipulates a pure product that does not allow for the addition of any other substance. This includes, but is not limited to, water or other sweeteners," according to the United States National Honey Board 2003 and other nations' food regulations. Honey is significantly sweeter than table sugar and has attractive chemical properties for baking. Honey has a distinctive flavor which leads some people to prefer it over sugar and other sweeteners. Liquid honey does not spoil. Because of its high sugar concentration, it kills most bacteria by crenation. Natural airborne yeasts cannot become active in it because the moisture content is too low. Natural, raw honey varies from 14% to 18% moisture content. As long as the moisture content remains under 18%, virtually no organism can successfully multiply to significant amounts in honey, though, importantly, enough bacteria survive to make honey dangerous for infants (especially Clostridium botulinum). The study of pollens and spores in raw honey (melissopalynology) can determine floral sources of honey. Because bees carry an electrostatic charge, and can attract other particles, the same techniques of melissopalynology can be used in area environmental studies of radioactive particles, dust, or particulate pollution. A main effect of bees collecting nectar to make honey is pollination, which is crucial for flowering plants.   IslamWeb rambles on about how great honey is. Interestingly, none of the information that they cite is found within the Qur'an.

More than 1400 years ago Allaah and His messenger [...] told us that honey can heal a variety of medical problems. Allaah [s]ays (what means): [Qur'an 16:68-69 omitted; see here.] The Prophet [...] has also told us of the healing found within honey for a variety of medical problems, including stomach ailments. It is reported by Al-Bukhaari [...] that a man came to the Prophet [...] because his brother had a stomach disorder. The Prophet [...] said: "Let him drink honey." The man returned a second time complaining that no improvement happened in his brother’s case, and again the Prophet [...] responded: "Let him drink honey." The man returned again, and said: "I have done that but to no avail." Thereupon the Prophet [...] responded: "Allaah has said the truth, but your brother's stomach has told a lie. Let him drink honey." He drank it and was cured. It is also reported that the Prophet [...] said: "Make use of the two remedies: honey and the Quran." (At-Tirmithi)   The cited verses, Al Beiwadi's story,[49] and hadiths do extoll the health benefits of honey.

Modern medicine has only recently discovered the fact that honey is a remedy to many diseases.   This is blatantly false. Knowledge of the benefits of honey predates the Qur'an by thousands of years, making it not foreknowledge at all.

Ancient Chinese medicine somewhat advocated for honey for health purposes. Shen Nang (c. 2000 BC) first mentioned using honey for medicinal purposes.[49] A book published c. 200 BC argues that those who often consume honey stay fit and do not have indigestion. Said book furthermore advises that honey can be used in medications, if only to bind different materials together.[49]

Ancient Indian medicine frequently used honey for health purposes. After surgery, a paste made with honey would be applied to the area of the operation.[49] Susruta (c. 1400 BC) treated infected wounds with a paste made of honey, butter, barley, and herbs.[49] Ayurvedic medicine proscribes honey in numerous situations, involving as a burn treatment,[50] eye diseases, vomiting of blood, urinary infection, anemia, coughing, indigestion, and many more problems.[51][49] Ayurvedic medicine proscribed at least 634 remedies involving honey.[49]

Ancient Egyptians frequently used honey for health purposes. The Ebers Papyrus, dating from 1550 BC, mentions 147 separate treatments using honey.[49] The Edwin Smith papyrus, dating to 1500 BC, tells us to use honey as a burn treatment,[50] to prevent infections,[50] and as a way to help heal bone-deep wounds.[49] Of about 900 medicinal remedies known to the Egyptians, about 500 involved honey.[52]

Ancient Greeks ascribed healing powers to honey. Pythagoras (c. 580 BC - c. 500 BC) ascribed his long life to his consumption of honey.[49] Aristotle wrote that honey is a salve for sore eyes and wounds.[49] Aristoxenus, a disciple of Aristotle, wrote that those who eat honey shall be free from disease for life.[49] Hippocrates claimed that honey cleans sores and heals carbuncles.[49] At least as early as 300 BC, ancient Greeks used a mixture of honey, bran, wine, and/or grease to treat burns.[50] Honey was believed to be the undistilled form of the drink of the gods and to possess heavenly healing powers.[52]

Traditional uses of honey have included honey mixed with lemon for sore throats. Honey coats the throat and reduces throat irritation. Research has already shown that honey blocks the growth of oral bacteria. Honey has also been used for stomach pains and problems. Modern research shows that honey is effective when used in the treatment of gastric or peptic stomach ulcers. Research has also revealed that honey is effective in the treatment of various wounds and infections because of its antimicrobial (antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal) properties. Researchers are not absolutely sure why honey heals but they are learning new things about honey everyday. As mentioned in the beginning, honey contains a variety of sugars and minerals. Honey is also considered an antioxidant. This means it allows the blood to circulate better and provide more oxygen to areas of the body such as the brain. Honey can also be used externally to promote healing when applied to wounds, even postoperative wounds. Honey has also been effective in its use to treat burns. It has even been shown to be low in calories and useful as a sweetener for diabetics, people with heart disease or those overweight. Although there is healing in honey for a variety of medical disorders, certain precautions should be taken: 1- Children under the age of one year should not be given honey due to the possibility of infant botulism. This type of food poisoning can be deadly, however, it only seems to affect infants under one year of age. 2- If you have any known allergies to specific plants, then you should make sure the honey you are using is not produced from that plant. 3- People with allergies to bee stings should be careful when using other bee-related products such as propolis or royal jelly. However, if these precautions are followed, then honey may, Allaah willing provide healing for you.   IslamWeb rambles on about how great honey is. Interestingly, none of the information that they cite is found within the Qur'an.

Muslims acknowledge and accept that Allaah and His Prophet [...] know better and that our Creator Has revealed the truth. Therefore, we study the research that is available, not to confirm or deny the truth that has been revealed by Allaah and his Prophet [...] but to learn of new ways we can use honey.   Muhammad certainly "revealed" the (then) 2500-year-old truth that honey helps people heal.

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

^ "And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch; then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect," (Qur'an 16:68).   These verses do suggest that honey is good for health. However, they do not mention any of the information cited by IslamWeb.

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states that honey has medical benefits, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. Honey does have medical benefits.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? Yes. The Qur'an simplistically describes honey as having health benefits.
  3. Is it unambiguous? Yes. For a vague claim like "honey helps health", the vague Qur'an suffices.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. Innumerable cultures in close contact with the Arabs used honey in innumerable medical practices for thousands of years prior to the writing of the Qur'an.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? No. Understanding that somebody does better when given honey requires no technology.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Other sources:   Other responses:

[edit] Physics

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge article navigation
TopBiologyClimatologyMedicinePhysicsZoologyBottom


[edit] The Big Bang happened

[edit] General Big-Bang-i-ness

From Harun Yahya's Miracles of the Qur'an website:[53]   RationalWiki:

"Until the mid-20th century, the prevalent view across the world was that the universe was infinite, had existed forever and that it will continue to do so for all time. According to this view, known as the 'static universe model,' the universe had no end or beginning. In maintaining that the universe is a collection of fixed, static and unchanging substances, this view has constituted the basis of materialist philosophy and has consequently rejected the existence of a Creator.   Yay, a science was wrong before screed! Stupid "materialists", working with available information unchangingly followed a nonexistent, due to total lack of data, foolish and incorrect scientific consensus, unlike like smart Muslim theologians physicists, who always knew that Allah magicked the world into existence in a few days caused the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago!

However, as science and technology progressed during the 20th century, the static universe model has been completely uprooted. We have now entered the 21st century and a new dawn is upon us. Through numerous experiments, observations and calculation conducted by some of the world's most prominent thinkers, modern physics has proven that the universe did indeed have a beginning, that it came into being from nothing in a single moment in a huge explosion.   First, Yahya is correct that the Big Bang theory has been conclusively supported using modern technology[wp].[54][55]

Second, however, Yahya repeats common misrepresentation of the Big Bang. First, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in the "TNT" sense of the word, but more like a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.[56] Second, it's unknown, and currently unknowable, what, if anything existed before the Big Bang.[57]

Furthermore, it has been established that the universe is not fixed and static, as materialists still stubbornly maintain.   Who are those "materialists" who maintain this? The Big Bang theory is the established model for the earliest observable moments of the universe and is thus widely acccepted in the scientific community, regardless of religious views. In fact, religious belief works against belief in the Big Bang, suggesting that "materialists" are the ones promoting the Big Bang.[58]

On the contrary, it is undergoing a constant process of movement, change and expansion. These recently-established facts all act as nails in the coffin of the static universe theory. Today, all these facts are universally accepted by the scientific community. The origin of the universe is described in the Qur'an in the following verse: [Verse 6:101 omitted; see below.] This information is in full agreement with the findings of contemporary scientists. As we stated earlier, the conclusion that astrophysics has reached today is that the entire universe, together with the dimensions of matter and time, came into existence as a result of a great explosion that occurred a long time ago. This event, known as 'The Big Bang,' is the catalyst for the creation of the universe from nothingness. This explosion, all parties in the scientific community agree, emanated from a single point some 15 billion years ago. Before the Big Bang, there was no such thing as matter. From a condition of non-existence in which neither matter, nor energy, nor even time existed-and which can only be described metaphysically-matter, energy, and time were all created in an instant.   Yahya again repeats misconceptions about the Big Bang.

This fact, only recently discovered by modern physics, was announced to us in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago."   If by "announced", you mean "vaguely alluded to, in a way that adds nothing of scientific value, if we twist the meaning of 'heaven' and cherry-pick the 'data'," then you're "correct".

implied, unstated assumption that the word "heavens" means "the entire universe"   First, the Arabic word used in many of the following verses, "السماوات", is most often translated as "the Kingdom", "the sky", "the seven heavens", or, in some modern usage, "the region of the atmosphere and outer space seen from the earth".[59] It's probable that السماوات is not an intentional reference to the entire universe, inclusive of the very fabric of space-time. Rather, it appears likely that Allah was boasting about how powerful he is, to have made a really big sky.

Second, many Muslims accept that the Qur'an may have multiple, simultaneous meanings.[60] This appears to be true of what "heavens". For example, in another claim, Yahya asserts that "The word 'heavens,' ... is used to refer to the sky above the Earth, as well as the entire universe." The Qur'an cannot accepted as scientific foreknowledge if its definition of "heavens" can be as different as "the atmosphere", "the seven layers of the atmosphere," "the entire universe," and "Heaven" and whichever definition appears to fit best can be chosen at random. Definitions like this allow many verses of the Qur'an to be shoehorned into almost any scientific position, and if none exist, then to argue that it's "poetic".


Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

^ "The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?" (Qur'an 6:101).   First, again, current science is uncertain what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang and what, if anything, caused it. It is thus inaccurate to say that the Big Bang created everything, Allah-style.

Second, Qur'an 6:101 provides merely a magical *poof* for the creation of the entire universe. The Qur'an is here vague to the point of not saying anything.


"Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!" (Qur'an 7:54).   First, if this verse is scientific, then we are told that Allah created the universe in six days and chillaxed for a day. However, the formation of hadrons (composite particles made up of quarks and antiquarks) took about 10-6 seconds, the formation of atomic nuclei took about 3 to 20 minutes, the formation of atoms took about 379,000 years, and the first star would shine at about 1,000,000 years. Where does "six days" come to play in this?[61]

Second, the word "days" in this part of the Qur'an is not given as any specific time, meaning 50,000 years in one verse, 1,000 years in another, and 1 day in others.[62] How can this verse be taken as scientific if it has no clear meaning?


"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30).   First, the theme of "breaking apart" is a very common myth.[63] In Chinese mythology, a giant deity hatches from an egg, splits the sky and earth, and dies.[64][65] Big Bang! In Tahiti, five deities split apart their sky dad and earth mom. Big Bang! Why prefer the Islamic version?

Second, this verse states that every living thing was made from water, which is incorrect.


.
"And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit," (Qur'an 21:33).   While this verse does mention the orbit(s) of the sun and moon, it adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic creation myth.

"The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it," (Qur'an 21:104).   While this verse does mention the purported destruction of the universe, it adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic creation myth.

"Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Aye, that He is! for He is the All-Wise Creator," (Qur'an 36:81).   This verse adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic creation myth.

"Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower," (Qur'an 41:11-12).   While this verse does mention the "seven heavens", it adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic creation myth.

"We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)." (Qur'an 51:47).   While this verse does mention the vast size of the universe, it adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic creation myth.

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes the Big Bang, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. The Big Bang occurred.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The Big Bang is not described in an accurate translation of the Qur'an, nor is it accurately described in an inaccurate translation of the Qur'an.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an's description is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? Yes. The Big Bang would have been outside of contemporary knowledge, though a universe that "began" at a certain point was not.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes. The Big Bang would have been outside of contemporary technology.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Other sources:   Other responses:

[edit] Universal expansion

From Harun Yahya's Miracles of the Qur'an website:[66]   RationalWiki:

"In the Qur'an, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described in the following terms: [Verse 51:47 omitted; see here.]   Yes, astronomy in the 600s sucked. However, the "revelations" of the Qur'an on this issue are vague, rely on an incorrect translation, and are probably the results of modern translation bias.

The word 'heaven,' as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe 'expands.'   As shown earlier, this translation is incorrect, contradictory to other claims, and, due to its vaguenes, unscientific.

The Arabic word 'moosiaaoona' in the term 'inna lamoosiaaoona,' translated into English as 'it is We Who are steadily expanding it', comes from the verb 'evsea,' meaning 'to expand.' The prefix 'la' emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of 'to a great extent.' This expression therefore means 'We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent.'   First, this relies on the translation of "heavens", which, as shown earlier, clearly does not mean "universe".

Second, "and indeed, We (are) surely (its) Expanders" is a much more accurate translation.[67]


This is the very conclusion that science has reached today. Until the dawn of the 20th century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that 'the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time.' However, modern research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning and that it constantly "expands."   Ah, science was wrong before, again. Lovely.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding.   The scientists and timeline are correct, even if the meaning of "constant motion" is unclear.

This notion was confirmed by the use of observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. This discovery is regarded as one of the greatest in the history of astronomy. During these observations, Hubble established that the stars emit a light that turns redder according to their distance. That is because according to the known laws of physics, light heading towards a point of observation turns violet, and light moving away from that point assumes a more reddish hue. During his observations, Hubble noted a tendency towards the colour red in the light emitted by stars. In short, the stars were moving further and further away, all the time. The stars and galaxies were not only moving away from us, but also from each other.   Yes, the existence of increasingly redshifted light from increasigly distant light sources is evidence for an expanding universe.

A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding.   If by "constant" Mr. Yahya means "not intermittent", then he's corrrect. If he means "at the same rate", then he's incorrect; the inflation of the early universe was incredibly fast, but slowed as the universe cooled, while current expansion is speeding up.

In order to gain a clearer understanding of this, let us imagine the universe to be the surface of a balloon being inflated. In the same way that the more the balloon is inflated, the further away the points on its surface move from one another, celestial bodies also move away from one another as the universe expands.   Thanks, Bill Nye.

This was theoretically discovered by Albert Einstein, regarded as one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. However, in order to avoid violating the 'static universe model' that was generally accepted at that time, Einstein laid that discovery aside. He would later describe this as the greatest blunder of his life.   That evil scientific consensus, not immediately changing to the correct view.

This fact was explained in the Qur'an in a time when telescopes and similar technological advancements were not even close to being invented. This is because the Qur'an is the Word of Allah: the Creator and Ruler of the entire universe."   Considering that the Qur'an only states that the world and the skies are very large, it's hard to see why a telescope would be required.

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

^ "We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it." (Qur'an 51:47, 2001[68] translation from Rashad Khalifa[wp]).   First, this passage most clearly refers to the atmosphere, not the universe at large.

Second, this modern translation of this verse is quite different from basically all other translations.

  1. "With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof," (Qur'an 51:47, recent Saudi-Arabia-sponsored Qur'an[69] translation from Muhammad Muhsin Khan[wp]).
  2. "And heaven -- We built it with might, and We extend it wide," (Qur'an 51:47, 1955[70] translation from Arthur John Arberry[wp]).
  3. "And WE have built the heavens with Our own hands, and, verily, WE have vast powers," (Qur'an 51:47, 1936[71] translation from Maulvi Sher Ali[wp]).
  4. "With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space," (Qur'an 51:47, 1934[72] translation from Abdullah Yusuf Ali[wp]).
  5. "We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)," (Qur'an 51:47, 1930[73] translation from Marmaduke Pickthall[wp]).
  6. "And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample," (Qur'an 51:47, 1917[74] translation from Muhammad Ali[wp]).
  7. "And the heaven - we have build it with might, and, verily, we do surely give it ample space!" (Qur'an 51:47, 1861[75] translation from John Medows Rodwell[wp]).
  8. "We have built the heaven with might; and we have given it a large extent:" (Qur'an 51:47, 1734[76] translation from George Sale[wp]).

It's hard to claim that this is an authoritative translation, when only one translation, by a man most Muslims see as heretical[77][78] and who removes Qur'anic verses at will to fit his mystical numerology,[79][80] changes the past-tense and positive "we made it big" into the present-tense and comparative "we make it bigger".

Third, to put this verse in context, the next verse states "And We have spread out the earth, how Excellent Spreader (thereof) are We!" (Qur'an 51:48). If Yahya's interpretation of 51:47 is correct, then the Qur'an also supports the "Expanding Earth" theory.


Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states that the universe expanded after the Big Bang and is expanding, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. The universe expanded after the Big Bang and is expanding.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. Only through mistranslation of "made" and misinterpretation of "heavens" does this appear.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an merely states, not describes.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? Yes. Knowledge about the formation of the early and contemporary universes was sparse at the time of Muhammad.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes. Sophisticated measurements are required to determine that the early universev expanded and that the universe is expanding.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

[edit] The Big Crunch will happen

From the Istanbul Quran Research Association's article, From Big Bang to Big Crunch:[81]   RationalWiki:

"How could the writers of the Qur'an 1400 years ago know that when the universe reaches its maximum size we will have Judgment Day?"
Well...[ T]he best model we have to account for the data we have is that the universe will continue to expand forever. There has never been evidence that suggests we live in a closed universe slated to recollapse in the future. So, your question is answered by saying that ancient writings either got the right answer or the wrong answer. In this instance they 'guessed' incorrectly so there is really no historical mystery to explain.
—Sten Odenwald[82]
In the verse it is said that God will return it [the universe] to its former state. Therefore, to be able to understand the end of the universe, we have to go back to the first three chapters of our book where the beginning of Creation is described. The fact that they appear in the same [S]ura is meaningful ([t]he beginning is explained in the [S]ura The Prophets; verse 30, in the same [S]ura, verse 104, the end is explained).   In a poetic sense, linking creation and destruction together might be meaningful. In a scientific sense, their juxtaposition in the text is irrelevant, because all that matters is whether or not the description of reality is accurate.

[Verses 21:104, 21:30, and 51:47 omitted; see here, here, and here.] We deduce from the above two[note 8] verses[:] 1- that the universe was separated from a whole, and 2- that the universe formed following this separation is expanding. The extraordinary miracle in these verses of the Quran was examined in the first three chapters. Now if we may be allowed to go back to the verse we quoted in this chapter, if the universe is going to regress to its original state, then: 1- the expanding universe will have to contract, and 2- the expanding universe will return to its primordial unity. Experts versed in astrophysics will take cognizance of the magnificence of this verse.   The IQRA argues that the Qur'an speaks about the Big Bang, when no such speech exists.

We know today that the universe is expanding. We also know that this expansion is the consequence of the acceleration generated by the Big Bang. We are faced with two alternatives here. According to one of them, the expanding universe will spread out to a vast expanse, all the stars will have exhausted their energies, the temperature will fall and thus the end will be reached. Following the exhaustion of the energy of the stars and the coming to a standstill of all actions, all celestial bodies will break apart and escape from gravitational force. This is called the “Open Universe Model.”   Though the IQRA describes the model inaccurately, the model certainly exists. If the density parameter of the universe[wp], or Ω, is less than 1, then a universe fits the open model of the universe[wp], which would lead to an unending expansion of the universe[wp] in which space is stretched to such an extent that stars cannot form, light is stretched into progressively less energetic waves[wp], until finally no substantial level of energy exists[wp]. However, this description does not fit to the observations of our universe. The scientific consensus is that, due to the strong influence of dark energy, our universe has entered a phase of accelerated expansion which will persist until matter itself may be torn apart.[wp] Pretty cool, eh?

According to a second alternative, the expanding universe will stop because of the mutual attraction of all bodies, and the universe will contract to return to its primordial state. It seems that the Quran’s implication is inclined toward the second alternative. At a time when people believed that the earth stood on the horns of an ox or on a fish, the Quran’s description of the event was incredible.   The IQRA is correct that the Qur'an describes the entire universe being compressed. However there are several key flaws here.

First, the Big Crunch theory is not scientific consensus, because observations show that the expansion of the universe accelerates and will continue to do so. [83][84][85][86][87] Until the Big Crunch theory is scientific consensus (which, given the data, is extremely unlikely), it can hardly be considered scientific fact.

Second, the Qur'an doesn't accurately describe Big Crunch theory. First, their use of the word "heavens" doesn't appear to apply to the universe. Second, in Big Crunch theory, all of matter and space-time would be compressed back into a singularity, similar to the Big Bang. The cited verses compare the end of the world to rolling up a scroll and crushing something in one's hand. Rolling up a scroll doesn't actually compress everything - it just relocates it into cylindrical form. Crushing something in one's hand is inaccurate, as what a successful Big Crunch actually requires is that the gravity within the universe is greater than the force of its expansion, while crushing with one's hand implies that an outside force is pushing inwards. A more accurate representation would be holding a walnut in one's hand, and it suddenly becoming a black hole. Clearly, the Qur'an does not accurately describe the Big Crunch.

Third, the Qur'an's "description" of the Big Crunch is inconsistent. As noted above, the Qur'an describes the Big Crunch both as rolling up a scroll and crushing something in one's hand, both of which are entirely different actions.


There is no way this fact could have been rendered from the scientific knowledge base of the day, or have been a product of fancy or flight of thought.   From a logical perspective, this is silly. When considering the size of the universe, there are three options: the universe is either expanding, standing still, or contracting. If one guesses that the universe is expanding, then there are also three options: the universe will continue to expand, the universe will stop expanding and stand still, or the universe will contract. Without any knowledge about the universe, it's entirely possible for "a flight of thought" to have happened upon an expanding-to-contracting universe.

The source of this knowledge is not scientific observation but God’s revelation. The verse under our scrutiny also gives an answer as to which of the two alternatives man should put faith in. The greatness of the Quran, which stated that the universe was created from the one primordial wholeness, that it expanded, and that it would shrink back - at a time when all scientific evidence was lacking - is understood better today with the advance of science and the discovery of the mystery of the universe.   Wait, I thought the point was to convert people Islamic by manipulating science, not to hate on it.

The collapse of the universe is referred to as the “Closed Universe Model.” The power to realize this folding up is gravity. As we know, all matter is in mutual attraction. When something is thrown into the air, the object thrown cannot help falling back after some time because of gravity[.]   "Collapse of the Universe" is only equivalent with "Closed Universe" in the Friedmann Models of the universe[88]. These models are only accurate if matter is the only relevant energy contribution to the universe, which is [Dark Energy

[M]atter that has scattered in every possible direction in space following the Big Bang will retrace its steps in a given time to be folded up.   Nowhere in this argument does the IQRA actually argue that the Big Crunch is going to happen, instead preferring to cite various Qur'anic verses.

We must remember that at the time of the descent of the Quran, the notion of gravity did not exist and that it was to be known some one thousand years later, thanks to Newton’s discovery.   First, this would be relevant if the Qur'an actually mentioned gravity. It does not, in these verses or elsewhere.

Second, it's very likely that ancient people understood that stuff falls down, even if the idea of gravity as something other than "down" didn't exist.


Once the expansion of the universe was established, scientists began to study whether the universe would continue to expand or come to a close by folding up. To this end, they tried to find out the critical density of matter in the universe and arrived at certain ratios that they called “Omega.” If the density in the universe is at a certain level, the process of folding up will begin before the scattering of matter into infinity...   Yes. "If."

Humans are born, live and die and eventually return to the dust of which they were made. The same thing holds true for beasts and plants. It appears that the law that governs all living creatures is also applicable in the case of the universe.   The fact that we die is pretty much totally irrelevant to how the universe functions (though the reverse isn't).

In the verse we examined, this event is stressed with the word “revert.” Following are the verses in which this word is used. And He is the One who first creates and then reverts it. [Verses 30:27 and 10:34 omitted; see here and here.   The Qur'an indeed supports a cyclic idea of creation. However, the cited verses do not in any way explain that cycle, and thus cannot be considered scientific.

[Verse 55:37 omitted; see here.] The Quran speaks of the color of heaven on the day the solar system comes to an end. Heaven’s “split asunder” is also mentioned in other verses of the Quran.   The color of the sky on the "day" (more likely, years) that the solar ends is irrelevant, and the IQRA makes no attempt to justify this claim.

[Verses 77:9 and 69:16 omitted; see here and here.] I believe that these verses may be understood in two different ways. If we take heaven for the entire universe, one may think of the decay at the outer extremities of the universe in continuous expansion. (By this the decay in the vacuum structure of the universe may have been meant. However, I am not going to dwell on this long issue.) According to a second alternative, if we take heaven for the atmosphere of our earth, big earthquakes, activities on the surface of the earth will likely affect the atmosphere, which will be split asunder and the protective layer of the atmosphere will be peeled off. As a matter of fact, the atmosphere depends on the fine balance between the earth’s gravitational force and the movement of molecules in the atmosphere. Any alteration in this balance will likely affect the atmosphere. Either of these two alternatives, or both, for that matter, may have been meant by the verses.   First, "heavens" cannot realistically be taken to mean the entire universe.

Second, while much of the IQRA's doommongering might actually be valid if the entire universe was being compressed, it's probable that it's not.


[Verse 7:187 omitted; see here.] The Quran says that the process of the end of the world and the universe will begin all of a sudden, at a time which even the Prophet does not know. According to the theory of relativity, the fastest motion in the universe belongs to light, the speed of which is not surpassed by anything. The data we obtain from light-emitting objects and the reflection of light are the limits of our understanding of the phenomena taking place in the universe. If information about the time the Hour will take place is to be transmitted at the speed of light, we can never be informed of it before some time has elapsed. For instance, if the sun explodes this very moment and the beginning of the end has come, we will be aware of it only after the lapse of eight and a half minutes. The same holds true for other phenomena that will likely occur, causing the destruction of the universe. If the process in question has started at some point in the universe, we cannot be aware of it for some time. A series of phenomena will occur before we are conscious of it, up until the time we are suddenly caught by it.   This might be true, if the Qur'an was describing the explosion of the Sun. Instead, the Qur'an is describing something that must take billions of years, making it spectacularly difficult to miss.

[Verses 56:1-4 omitted; see here.]The end of the universe and of the world is the most serious event next to its formation. Riches, reputations, situations, families, beauty, ugliness, joy, distress will be no more; the entire universe will be transformed into a small unit. Superiority will no longer be measured by riches, possessions and high offices. Now, “superiority” will depend on the sort of life man has led. From the scenery of the end of the universe and the world described in the Quran, there are lessons to draw in this life of ours. All these are not for the mere sake of knowing. What is communicated has as its objective to move people and guide them to God.   If the knowledge that the universe might restart in a few billion years is all that motivates you, then you've got a ridiculously long-sighted view of your impacts on the world for a fatalist.

We must bear in mind the third verse of the 56th [S]ura: [Verse 56:3 omitted; see here.] Expansion is the consequence of the acceleration generated by the Big Bang.   This verse is clearly talking about the fact that some people are oppressed in society and others are making it rich, not about gravity.

[Verse "104:21" is stated. Verse 104:21 does not exist, as Sura 104 has only 9 verses. Verse 21:104 (the first verse cited) is intended. See here.]   Verse 21:104 is stated again, with no accompanying text.

Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

"They ask thee of the (destined) Hour, when will it come to port. Say: Knowledge thereof is with my Lord only. He alone will manifest it at its proper time. It is heavy in the heavens and the earth. It cometh not to you save unawares. They question thee as if thou couldst be well informed thereof. Say: Knowledge thereof is with Allah only, but most of mankind know not. Say: For myself I have no power to benefit, nor power to hurt, save that which Allah willeth. Had I knowledge of the Unseen, I should have abundance of wealth, and adversity would not touch me. I am but a warner, and a bearer of good tidings unto folk who believe," (Qur'an 7:187).  

"Say: Is there of your partners (whom ye ascribe unto Allah) one that produceth Creation and then reproduceth it? Say: Allah produceth Creation, then reproduceth it. How then, are ye misled!" (Qur'an 10:34).  

^ "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30).   While this verse does mention the creation of the universe, it adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic end times myth.

^ "The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it," (Qur'an 21:104).   If the universe actually does crunch, it almost certainly not roll up like a scroll - it's more like ripples in water going the other way. A more apt description would be a scroll's paper shrinking up until it turns into a black hole.

"He it is Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and it is easier for Him. His is the Sublime Similitude in the heavens and the earth. He is the Mighty, the Wise," (Qur'an 30:27).  

"And they esteem not Allah as He hath the right to be esteemed, when the whole earth is His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens are rolled in His right hand. Glorified is He and High Exalted from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him).", (Qur'an 39:67).  

^ "We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)." (Qur'an 51:47).   While this verse does mention the vast size of the universe, it adds nothing specific to this Qur'anic end times myth.

"And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red hide - Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny?"' (Qur'an 55:37-38).  

"When the event befalleth - there is no denying that it will befall - abasing (some), exalting (others); when the earth is shaken with a shock and the hills are ground to powder so that they become a scattered dust, and ye will be three kinds:" (Qur'an 56:1-7).  

"And the heaven will split asunder, for that day it will be frail," (Qur'an 69:16).  

"So when the stars are put out, and when the sky is riven asunder, and when the mountains are blown away, and when the messengers are brought unto their time appointed For what day is the time appointed?" (Qur'an 77:8-12).  

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately predicts the Big Crunch, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Possibly. The Big Crunch is not yet proven or disproven.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The Qur'an does not mention the Big Crunch, and does not accurately mention the Big Crunch.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an's "description" of the "Big Crunch" is ambiguous, contradictory, and doesn't correctly detail how and why the Big Crunch would occur.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? Yes. Knowledge about the ultimate fate of the universe was not within contemporary Arabian knowledge.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes. The technology required to know the ultimate fate of the universe was not within contemporary Arabian tools.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Other sources:   Other rebuttals:

[edit] Celestial bodies have orbits

From Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby's article, A New Astronomical Quranic Method for The Determination Of The Greatest Speed C:[89]   RationalWiki:

[Verse 21:33 omitted; see here.] "Here an essential scientific fact is stated, namely, the existence of the earth's, sun'so (sic) and moon's orbits; besides, a reference is made to the travelling of these celestial bodies in space with their own motion! A new concept had therefore been established in the Quran, hundreds of years before it was discovered by modern science[.]"   First, the cited verse does not actually mention the Earth's orbit, and is in that respect entirely compatible with contemporary geocentrism.[90][91]

Second, the fact that the sun and moon have orbits isn't exactly a new idea. For example, in the parts of the world influenced by Greek philosophy and science, it was long believed that the sun and moon orbited the Earth. This verse is, again, consistent with contemporary theories.


Relevant verses:   Relevant commentary:

^ "And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit," (Qur'an 21:33).   First, as noted, this isn't exactly foreknowledge.

Second, mentioning the creation of "day" apart from the creation of the sun is a bit odd for a scientific textbook, considering that one cannot exist without the other.

Third, how does one "create" the night? Much like "creating" cold, this is rather difficult to do.


Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states that planets have orbits, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. Planets have orbits.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? Yes. The Qur'an mentions that planets have orbits.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an is unambiguous which planet(s) and star(s) orbit which, and offers no rebuttal to contemporary geocentrism.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. Many people since the ancient Greeks, including contemporary Arabians, believed that other planets/stars orbited earth.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? No. It was possible, with contemporary science, to determine that the planets of the solar system have near-fixed orbits.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Other sources:   Other rebuttals:

[edit] Entering space is possible

From Maurice Bucaille's article, The Conquest of Space:[92]   RationalWiki:

Interesting. I don´t remember NASA asking Allah for permission to go to the Moon, though.
—Carmen R (Now a Koala)[93]
From this point of view, three verses of the Qur'an should command our full attention. One expresses, without any trace of ambiguity, what man should and will achieve in this field. In the other two, God refers for the sake of the unbelievers in Makka to the surprise they would have if they were able to raise themselves up to the Heavens; He alludes to a hypothesis which will not be realized for the latter.   Oooh, scientific foreknowledge "without any trace of ambiguity"!

The first of these verses is sura 55, verse 33: "O assembly of Jinns and Men, if you can penetrate regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate them! You will not penetrate them save with a Power." The translation given here needs some explanatory comment: a) The word 'if' expresses in English a condition that is dependent upon a possibility and either an achievable or an unachievable hypothesis. Arabic is a language which is able to introduce a nuance into the condition which is much more explicit. There is one word to express the possibility (ida), another for the achievable hypothesis (in) and a third for the unachievable hypothesis expressed by the word (lau). The verse in question has it as an achievable hypothesis expressed by the word (in). The Qur'an therefore suggests the material possibility of a concrete realization. This subtle linguistic distinction formally rules out the purely mystic interpretation that some people have (quite wrongly) put on this verse.   The full Pickthall translation of Qur'an 55:33 is: "O company of jinn and men, if ye have power to penetrate (all) regions of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate (them)! Ye will never penetrate them save with (Our) sanction."

Bucaille is right that "إن (ini)" is in the verse[94] and that it implies possibility.[95] This doesn't change much.

First, it should be noted that, in Islam, the "heavens" are a solid dome over a flat earth above which exist 7 separate heavens. To assert that this verse shows scientific foreknowledge is to ignore the rest of the Qur'an on "what's up there".

Second, this verse is part of a list of things that are impossible, to support the idea that death is inevitable and that resisting Allah is futile:

  • "And the sky He hath uplifted; and He hath set the measure, That ye exceed not the measure, But observe the measure strictly, nor fall short thereof," (Qur'an 55:7-9).
  • "He hath loosed the two seas. They meet. There is a barrier between them. They encroach not (one upon the other)," (Qur'an 55:19-21).
  • "Everyone that is thereon will pass away; There remaineth but the Countenance of thy Lord of Might and Glory," (Qur'an 55:26-27).
  • "We shall dispose of you, O ye two dependents (man and jinn)," (Qur'an 55:31).
  • "There will be sent, against you both, heat of fire and flash of brass, and ye will not escape," (Qur'an 55:35).
  • "And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red hide .... On that day neither man nor jinni will be questioned of his sin," (Qur'an 55:37-39).
  • "The guilty will be known by their marks, and will be taken by the forelocks and the feet," (Qur'an 55:41).

The fact that this sura is about the inevitability of Allah's will is supported by numerous tafsirs:

  • "(O assembly of Jinn and men! If you are able to pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, then pass beyond (them)! But you will never be able to pass them, except with authority (from Allah)!) meaning, 'you will never be able to escape Allah's orders and decrees, because it encompasses you. You will never be able to avoid or avert His rule and judgement over you, you are surrounded by it wherever you may be.' This is also about the Gathering when the angels, comprising seven lines in every direction, will surround the creatures. None of the creatures will be able to escape on that Day, [....] (except with authority) meaning, except with the commandment from Allah, [....] (On that Day man will say: "Where (is the refuge) to flee" No! There is no refuge! Unto your Lord will be the place of rest that Day.)(75:10-12)," Ibn Kathir[wp], Qur'an 55:33-35[96]
  • "O company of jinn and humans, if you are able to pass through, to exit from, the confines, the regions, of the heavens and the earth, then pass through! — a command [meant] to challenge them to what they are incapable of [doing]. You will not pass through except with a sanction, [except] with some power, and you have no power for such a thing," Tafsir al-Jalalayn[wp], Qur'an 55:33[97]
  • "O company of jinn and men, if ye have power) if you are able (to penetrate (all)) to break free from (regions) the extremities (of the heavens and the earth) and from the rows of angels; (then penetrate (them)) then break free and flee! (You will never penetrate them) you will not be able to break free (save with (Our) sanction) save with a reason and proof," Abd Allah ibn Abbas[wp], Qur'an 55:33[98]
  • "O company of jinn and men, if you have the power to go beyond the bounds of the heavens and the earth, go beyond them! Yet you will be unable to go beyond them for that requires infinite power. [...] "The earth and the heavens": the Universe or the Kingdom of God. The verse means to impress this: 'It is not in your power to escape Allah's grasp. When the time for the accountability of which you are being foretold comes, you will be seized and brought before God in any case wherever you may be. To go out of God's reach you will have to flee from the Universe of God for which you do [not] have the required power. If you feel that you have the power, then you may use that power if you so will," Abul A'la Maududi[wp], Qur'an 55:33[99]

Rather than predicting space travel, the Qur'an is challenging humans to do something nearly impossible.


b) God is addressing the spirits (jinn) and human beings (ins), and not essentially allegorical figures.   The entire section tries to convince people that Allah's will is inescapable, not imparting scientific knowledge. Even if the verse isn't metaphorical, it certainly isn't meant to be taken literally.

c) 'To penetrate' is the translation of the verb nafada followed by the preposition min. According to Kazimirski's dictionary, the phrase means 'to pass right through and come out on the other side of a body' (e.g. an arrow that comes out on the other side). It therefore suggests a deep penetration and emergence at the other end into the regions in question.   Qur'an 55:33 does have the phrase "أن تنفذوا (tanfudhu min)"[94] which is often translated as "pass through", "penetrate", or similar.[100] However, the precise translation doesn't change anything. First, this doesn't indicate that entering space is feasible. Second, if you want to get to the other side of the sky-dome, then obviously you have to pass all the way through -- going halfway would just mean getting stuck in the sky-dome.

d) The Power (sultan) these men will have to achieve this enterprise would seem to come from the All-Mighty.' There can be no doubt that this verse indicates the possibility men will one day achieve what we today call (perhaps rather improperly) 'the conquest of space'.   The statement "Ye will never penetrate them save with (Our) sanction" indicates that getting into space requires Allah's permission. We presume that Allah, in His infinite wisdom, allowed the heathen-led Soviet Union, United States, France, Japan, China, United Kingdom, European Space Agency, India, Israel, and Ukraine all to predate the first attempted launch by majority-Muslim Iran in 2009.[101]

One must note that the text of the Qur'an predicts not only penetration through the regions of the Heavens, but also the Earth, i.e. the exploration of its depths.   Qur'an 55:33 challenges humans to explore all the "أقطار (aqtari)" of the Earth.[94] Considering that aqtari is translated as "country, land, territory, [or] region",[102] and the only countries/lands/territories on Earth are on the surface of the Earth, it's a bit of a stretch to imagine that the Qur'an is talking about spelunking and oceanic exploration.

Furthermore, we're not sure how talking about exploring downward is scientific foreknowledge. Humans had already been mining into the Earth for millenia and that humans already knew there was probably something deeper than the surface of the ocean.


The other two verses are taken from [S]ura 15, (verses 14 and 15). God is speaking of the unbelievers in Makka, as the context of this passage in the sura shows: "Even if We opened unto them a gate to Heaven and they were to continue ascending therein, they would say: our sight is confused as in drunkenness. Nay, we are people bewitched." The above expresses astonishment at a remarkable spectacle, different from anything man could imagine.   The full Pickthall translation of Qur'an 15:14-15 is: "And even if We opened unto them a gate of heaven and they kept mounting through it, they would say: Our sight is wrong - nay, but we are folk bewitched.".

While Bucaille paints it as being about space, Qur'an 15:14-15 is actually about about how stubborn those nasty unbelievers are. Muhammad is saying that even if he opened up a portal into heaven and let unbelievers go through it, they still wouldn't believe that he's right. Multiple tafsirs support this interpretation:

  • "[...] Allah says that He has sent Messengers before him to the nations of the past, and no Messenger came to a nation but they rejected him and mocked him. [....] 14. And even if We opened to them a gate to the heavens and they were to continue ascending through it (all day long).) (15. They would surely say (in the evening): "Our eyes have been (as if) dazzled (we have not seen any angel or heaven). Nay, we are a people bewitched.") Allah explains the extent of their disbelief and stubborn resistance to the truth by stating that even if a door to heaven were to be opened for them, and they were to be taken up through it, they would still not believe. Rather, they would say: [....] (Our eyes have been (as if) dazzled,)" Ibn Kathir[wp], Qur'an 15:14-15[103]
  • "(15:14) If We were even to open for them a way to the heavens, and they could continually climb up to it in broad daylight, (15:15) they would still have said: "Surely our eyes have been dazzled; rather, we have been enchanted." (15:16) We have indeed set constellations in the heavens8 and have beautified them for the beholders,9 8. In the preceding[ ]( Ayats 14-15) it was stated that the disbelievers had become so hardened against the Quran that they would not have believed in it even if they had ascended the Heaven and seen with their own eyes the signs mentioned in it. Now in (Ayats 16-22), some of the signs are being cited in order to convince there of its truth. Buruj (mansions of stars) are signs of Allah. For it is not possible to pass through one sphere of the Heaven into another, as each sphere of the space has been fortified by invisible boundaries. In this connection, it may be noted that literally the Arabic word burj means a fortified place, but as a technical term of ancient astronomy this stood for each of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, which marked the sun’s path through the heavens," Abul A'la Maududi[wp], Qur'an 15:14-16[104]

The conditional sentence is introduced here by the word lau which expresses a hypothesis that could never be realized as far as it concerned the people mentioned in these verses. When talking of the conquest of space therefore, we have two passages in the text of the Qur'an: one of them refers to what will one day become a reality thanks to the powers of intelligence and ingenuity God will give to man, and the other describes an event that the unbelievers in Makka will never witness, hence its character of a condition never to be realized.   Bucaille is flatly wrong about the first passage; the second is unrelated.

The event will however be seen by others, as intimated in the first verse quoted above. It describes the human reactions to the unexpected spectacle that travelers in space will see: their confused sight, as in drunkenness, the feeling of being bewitched... This is exactly how astronauts have experienced this remarkable adventure since the first human space flight around the world in 1961. It is known in actual fact how once one is above the Earth's atmosphere, the Heavens no longer have the azure appearance we see from Earth, which results from phenomena of absorption of the Sun's light into the layers of the atmosphere. The human observer in space above the Earth's atmosphere sees a black sky and the Earth seems to be surrounded by a halo of bluish color due to the same phenomena of absorption of light by the Earth's atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere, however, and therefore appears in its true colors against the black background of the sky. It is a completely new spectacle therefore that presents itself to men in space, and the photographs of this spectacle are well known to present-day man.   Yeah, space doesn't look the same as Earth. Big whoop. This is irrelevant, for two reasons:

First, Qur'an 15:14-15 isn't talking about space. It's talking about Heaven.

Second, it's not scientific foreknowledge to imagine that space might look weird. No scientific knowledge is required to make such a prediction. This is even more true, given the Qur'an's lack of detail about what "space" looks like.


Here again, it is difficult not to be impressed, when comparing the text of the Qur'an to the data of modern science, by statements that simply cannot be ascribed to the thought of a man who lived more than fourteen centuries ago.   We agree that the statement that it is possible to enter space cannot be ascribed to Muhammad, since he didn't say it.

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately it's possible to exit the Earth's atmosphere and enter space, which looks weird, which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. It is possible to enter space.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The Qur'an is trying to drive home the point that Allah's will is inescapable and that unbelievers are stubborn bastards, not that it is possible to enter space.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an does not describe space, describe what's between the surface and space, describe how to get up into space, or anything remotely useful.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. It was possible to imagine going "above" the sky-dome.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? No. It was possible to imagine going "above" the sky-dome.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Other sources:   Other rebuttals:

[edit] The speed of light is 299792.5 km/s

Dr. Mansour Hassab-Elnaby:[89]   RationalWiki:

Is God's monitoring of Earth and occasional interactions with people subject to physical limitations like the speed of light? Is prayer subject to those delays? Or does prayer operate via ansible?
—FruminousBandersnatch[105]
Abstract: The greatest speed C, denoting the velocity of light in vacuum, is hinted at in two glorious Qur[']anic verses relating this fundamental universal contant C with the motion of the Earth-Moon system. A new relativistic interpretation of this Qur[']anic relation gives C=299792.5 km/s in an extremely marvellous agreement with the accepted international value.   "Hinted at in" may be parsed as "inserted into".

This astonishing result emphasises the unity of the physical world, the validity of the special theory of relativity and the authenticity of the Glorious Qur[']an for unbelievers.   Strangely, Hassab-Elnaby believes that the holy book proves the science rather than vice versa. If the Qur'an disagreed with the scientific speed of light, would Hassab-Elnaby follow the Qur'an over relativity?

Introduction: The velocity of light[,] C[,] in [a] vacuum belongs to a small group of the fundamental constants; however, it occupies an outstanding position even within this group. First of all, it is encountered in very different branches of physics. It will come as no exaggeration if one says the story of the determination of the velocity of light is a concise history of physics. And this story has not come to an end yet. From the ancient Greeks down to the Middle ages, the speed of light was believed to be infinite. Aristotle believed that light propagates instantly!. (sic) In the eleventh century, an Arabic scientist Alhassan suggests that light travels at a finite speed. Galileo (1600) tried this speed but he [f]ailed[,] saying that light is extraordinarily rapid (l). Roemer (1676) was the first measuring (sic) C using the eclipses of the Jovian satellite Io. He obtained an inaccurate value of C (215000 km/s) because the diameter of the earth's orbit was not known exactly. Starting from 17th century, experiments show the progress of methods and techniques in the determination of the speed C as indicated in the following table (1).[note 9] Froome's value was considered to be the most accurate for a long period until 1983 when the modulated laser radiation interferometers were applied for the determination of C with great precision.   Here we get a long, unnecessary history of the science of the speed of light as buildup.

According to the US National Bureau of Standards(3): C = 299792.4574 + 0.0011 km/[s] and according to the British National Physical Laboratory C = 299792.4590 + 0.0008 km/s[.]. A basically new definition of the metre was[ ]accepted in October 1983 at the 17th General Conference on Measures and Weights (3): "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second". The Fixation of the value of C after the formation of the new definition of the meter does not mean yet the end of the story of this fundamental constant C. There are numerous other questions dealing with the realtion between this multifarious, enigmatic constant C and the theory of Relativity.   Indeed, the speed of light is defined as 299,792,458 m/s.[106]

Recalling the second postulate of the special theory of relativity declared by Albert Einstein (1905): "The velocity C of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference in all directions and depend neither on the velocity of the source nor on the velocity of the observer". Pauli (4) (1958) said that the data on binary[ ]stars allowed us to consider this postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light to be almost certainly correct.   Indeed, according to Einstein, light's movement is not relative.[107]

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity (1917), the law of the constancy of the velocity C of light in vacuum can not claim any unlimited validity because the curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position!. (sic) Einstein (4) himself solved this contradiction between special and general relativity declaring in his paper written (1917): "The results of the special relativity hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influence of gravitational fields on the phenomena". This validity condition of the second postulate of special relativity is considered in the present work because the constancy of the velocity C needs absolute space (vacuum). To attain vacuum in the Einstein's sense of this word[,] it is not: (sic) sufficient just to eleminate from a volume of space every atom, molecule and particle, it is necessary also to get rid of the gravitational field. Therefore we have screened out the effect of the solar gravitational field on the geocentric orbital motion of the moon, which is considered here, according to the applied Qur[']anic equation; as a standard measure reference for evaluating the greatest cosmic speed described in the Holy Qur[']anic verses.   Hassab-Elnaby argues that we need to eliminate the effects of gravity to get a valid result. This is incorrect, for multiple reasons.

First, the gravity of the sun-earth-moon system is irrelevant to this measurement, because we're not measuring the speed of light. We're measuring the movement of the moon in the earth-moon system. The gravity of the sun within the sun-earth-moon system is irrelevant to the distance travelled by the moon.

Second, it is true that, to find the speed of light in anything but freefall, one must factor in gravity's effects on the speed of light from your reference point.[108] However, the number chosen for this "effect", does not even factor in gravity -- instead, it factors in the angle of the moon's motion. The specific value is chosen just to make the sham actually work, rather than in pursuit of science.


Lunar Orbital Motion described in Qur[']an: Fourteen centuries ago, the QUR[']AN (5), i.e. .the (sic) Holy Book of Islamic Religion, was directed from GOD to all humanity through Prophet Mohammad, who lived in the Arabian Peninsula. The ARAB people use the lunar system in their calculation of time. The Qur[']an addressed them in the only language they could understand without upsetting their habits. GOD (in Arabic ALLAH: the ONE and Only GOD, the CREATOR) says in the Qur[']an:

"GOD is the ONE who made the sun a shining glory and the moon a light and for her ordained mansions, so that you might know the number of years and the reckoning" (10:5)

The lunar year is twelve months, the month is defined recently as the time of one revolution of the moon in its orbit around the earth.

  Qur'an 10:5 (Pickthall):
He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light, and measured for her stages, that ye might know the number of the years, and the reckoning. Allah created not (all) that save in truth. He detaileth the revelations for people who have knowledge.

Hassab-Elnaby cites the Qur'an to prove that the Qur'an uses the lunar year. The Qur'an uses a lunar year because it was known to contemporary Arabians. This is reasonable. It's also interesting how often holy books mimic the culture they're revealed in.

Aside from that, Qur'an 10:5 mentions basically nothing that Hassab-Elnaby claims that it does.


God hints at such orbit in the Qur[']an:

"GOD is the ONE who created the night, the day, the sun, and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion" (21:33).

Here an essential scientific fact is clearly stated, namely, the existence of the earth's, sun'so (sic) and moon's orbits; besides, a reference is made to the travelling of these celestial bodies in space with their own motion! A new concept had therefore been established in the Qur[']an, hundreds of years before it was discovered by modern science (6-7)[.] Today the concept of the lunar year is widely spread and, as we know, the moon is our nearest neighbour in space, and a companion to our planet. It is often said that the earth and moon form a twin-planet.

  Qur'an 21:33 (Pickthall):
And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

This is interesting, but not foreknowledge.


As the moon orbits around the earth, the change in the relative positions of the moon, earth and sun cause the moon to show its phases (8-9). The time between consecutive new moons is 29.53 days and is called the synodic month. During this time, however, the earth, and consequently the moon's orbit, have travelled some way around the sun, so the position of the moon against the background of stars is different. [T]he time for the moon to return to the same position in the sky as viewed from earth is called the sidereal month (27.32 days) which represents the actual real net time of one revolution in the moon's orbit.   Indeed, the synodic month takes 29.530587981 days,[109] the sidereal month takes 27.321661 days,[109] and a day on earth takes 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds.[110] If, however, we are evaluating from Muhammad's time, when the Qur'an was dictated, then we should incorporate the facts that the earth's day shortens by 0.000017 s/yr, or 0.0238 s since 600[111] and that the sidereal lunar month shortens by about 0.000000001857 days/yr, or 0.0000025998 days since 600.[112] These differences are basically negligible; however, the failure failure of Hassab-Elnaby to even account for this suggests a disinterest in the facts and an interest in finding Qur'anic miracles. Thus, in 600, the moon's sidereal orbit lasted 27.321661 days and the Earth's day lasted 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds.

This orbit is almost circular having an average radius r=384264 km.   Indeed, the moon orbits 384,403 km from earth.[113] If, however, we are evaluating from Muhammad's time, when the Qur'an was dictated, then we should incorporate the fact that the moon regresses 0.000038 km/yr, or 0.0532 km since 600.[114] This difference is basically negligible; however, the failure of Hassab-Elnaby to even account for this suggests a disinterest in the facts and an interest in finding Qur'anic miracles. Thus, in 600, the moon orbited about 384,403 km from Earth.

ig. 1 describes the moon's motion during a lunar month. Position A1 shows a new moon. Position B (about 2 weeks later than A1) illustrates the following full moon. Position A2 the moon has orbited the earth once (with respect to an apparently fixed star). Thus one sidereal period (27.32 days) has elapsed since position A1. The next new moon does not occur until position A3 where the moon has once again lined up with the sun. Thus one lunar synodic period (29.53 days) has elapsed since position A1.   Fig. 1 is not included in the original text, and as such cannot be included or rebutted. A pity.

Referring to the Qur[']anic verse (10:5), we notice that it discriminates between the apparent synodic period for knowing the number of years and the real sidereal period for reckoning in scientific calculations. These two systems of measuring time are now given in the text books of Astronomy as indicated (10:5) in table 2: The aim of this work is to determine the value of the greatest speed mentioned in the following relativistic Qur[']anic verses. In these verses the sideral system should be used for both the lunar month and the terrestrial day as accurate measured periods (with respect to a distant apparently fixed star).   No such discrimination occurs. Verse 10:5 doesn't even mention lunar months, much less attempt to argue that one is *better* for use in timekeeping. The use of one over another, with absolutely no reason, again suggests a search for trinkets of foreknowledge rather than scientific learning.

Period Siderial Synodic
Lunar Month T 27.321661 days = 655.71986 hours 29.53059 days
Terrestrial day t 23 h, 56 min 4.0906 sec = 86164.0906 sec 24 hours = 86400 sec
  Hassab-Elnaby reiterates his data.

A New Relation in the Earth-Moon System: The length of the moons' orbit L and the time t of one terrestrial day are correlated in a marvellous Qur[']anic verse which describes a universal constant velocity of a certain cosmic affair as follows:

"GOD rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the earth. Then this affair travels, to Him (i.e. through the whole universe) in one day, where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning"[, ](32:5)[.]

[T]he Qur[']anic expression "of your reckoning" leaves no doubt as to our understanding of the year as the lunar year. The verse begins with a reference to a certain "cosmic affair" which GOD creates and commands. This affair travels, permanently through the whole universe between the heavens and the Earth, so speedily that it crosses in ONE DAY a maximum distance in space equivalent to that which the moon passes during ONE THOUSAND LUNAR YEAR[S] (i.e. during 12000 Sidereal months). The question which pause[s] itself now is: what could this cosmic affair be? and what is its greatest velocity as expressed in this Qur[']anic equation?. (sic) To answer this question. The above Qur[']anic verse has been understood** in terms of the following equation: Distance crossed in vacuum by the universal cosmic affair in Osle sidereal day = length of 12000 revolutions of the moon around the earth. .:. Ct = 12000 L . where: C is the velocity of the cosmic affair, t is the time interval of one terrestrial sidereal day kefined as the time of one rotation of the earth. (sic) about its axis (relative to the stars). (sic) i.e. 23 hr, 56 min, 4.0906 sec = 86164.0906[ ]sec. ) L is the inertial distance which the moon covers in c-o revolution around the earth during one sidereal month i.e. L is the net length of the moon's orbit due to its own geocentric motion, without the interference of its spiral motion cause[d] by the earth's revolution around the sun, i.e. [L] is the lunar orbit length excluding the effec[t] of the solar gravitational field on the measured value.

Indeed, the moon makes 12,000 orbits around the earth every single day![note 10]
  Qur'an 32:5 (Pickthall):
He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.

First, this verse is clearly stating that, to Allah, time is meaningless. Nothing more.

Hassab-Elnaby states that the Qur'an states that "1 light-day = the distance that the moon moves in 12000 sidereal months". While "12000 sidereal months" can be gathered from the text, nowhere in the cited verse does the Qur'an mention "light" or distances. Why must we assume that Allah's "affairs" are light? And if Allah's "affairs" are light, then he certainly works slowly -- it takes a whole day for the "light" to reach him, and a whole day for him to signal back! Most clearly, this verse is just saying "Allah is so incomprehensible, you can't even understand his time".

Second, Qur'an 70:4 (Pickthall):

(Whereby) the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years.

After all that, the Qur'an can't even keep its story straight. Using 50,000 years makes Hassab-Elnaby's calculation (based on 1000 years) off by about 98%. So which is the correct verse? They both are the unadulterated Word of God, aren't they?


Let V is (sic) the measured average orbital velocity of the moon deduced from the average radius R of the lunar geocentric orbit tas (sic) measured from an orbiting earth during its heliocentric motion)

.:. V = 2 Pi *R/T[.]

[S]ubstituting R = 384264 km and T = the siderial lunar month = 655.71986 hr[.]

.:. V = [(2 * 3.1415 * 384,264 km) / (655.71986 hr) = 3682.07 km/hr (2).]

This value is given in all text books of astronomy and is accepted by NASA.

  Plugging in his numbers, Hassab-Elnaby's math does actually return 3681.95 km/hr, or 1.0227 m/s. This is close to the 1.022 km/s velocity provided by NASA.[115] Amazingly, math works. The problems only seem to arise when the Qur'an gets involved.

Let @ (Fig. 1) is (sic) the angle travelled (sic) by the earth[-]moon system around the sun during one sidereal month of period 27.321661 days. We can calculate @ if we take into consideration the period (365.25636 days) of one heliocentric revolution (1 year) of the earth-moon system (Fig. l). @ = 27.321661 * 360 [degrees] / 365.25636 = 26,92848[ degrees.] Thus @ is a characteristic constant of this system depending on uniform[ ]periods of the month and the year.   According to Hassab-Elnaby, @ is the average degrees traveled by the moon in one sidereal month around the sun. Hassab-Elnaby's math may be correct, but is completely irrelevant.

Since the presence of the sun changes the geometrical properties of space and time, we must screen out its gravitational effect on the earth moon system according to the validity condition of the second postulate of special relativity, i.e. we must only consider the lunar geocentric motion without the heliocentric motion of the earth-moon system. Thus a velocity component VO = V cos(O) representing the net orbital velocity of the moon as shown in fig. (1) is introduced for calculating the net length L of the lunar orbit assuming a stationary earth.

.:. L = V cos @ T [(3).] From equation (1) and (3) we get a new Qur[']anic relation for the earth moon system:

[.:.] C * t = [12000 V cos(@) * T] [(4).]

1=.:. C = [12000 * V * cos(@) * T / (t)] [(5).] substituting the sidereal values of the periods t and T from table (2), the NASA value of the measured orbital lunar velocity V = 3682.07 km/hr., and the calculated [v]alue of cos@ = cos 26.92848 = 0.89157, we get the velocity of the cosmic affair from eq. 5 as expressed in the Holy Qur[']an.

[.:.] C = 12000 x 3682.07 x 0.89157 x 655.71986 / 86164.0906

.:. C = 299792.5 km/s

Referring to table (1) and the international value of C = 299792.458 km/s we find an extremely marvellous agreement. Thus we conclude that the cosmic affair, mentioned in the previous Qur[']anic verse, is identical to LIGHT and all similar cosmic affairs travelling in vacuum with this maximum speed such as: all types of electro magnetic waves propagating between the heavens and the earth, the expected Gravitational waves spreading all over the universe, and all particles travelling in this cosmic greatest spead such as neutrinos.

  Basically, Hassab-Elnaby's equation boils down to this:

C [Speed of light] = 1000 [Number of years in one day of god's time] * 12 [synodic lunar revolutions around the earth per years] x 3682.07 kilometers/hour [Average orbital velocity of the moon in 2001 CE in km/hr] x 0.89157 [Hassab-Elnaby's proposed compensation factor for heliocentric gravitation] x 655.71986 hours [Length in hours of one sidereal lunar orbit transit in 2001 CE] ÷ 86164.0906 seconds [length in seconds of one day on earth today] = 299792.5 km/s

Unfortunately, there are two fundamental problems here.

First: Hassab-Elnaby uses the wrong number of lunar revolutions around the earth per year. (This section ignores the 2nd problem in its calculations.)

There are (roughly) 12 synodic months per year. (A synodic month occurs when the moon swings back around, slightly more than 360 degrees, and makes a new moon between the earth and the sun.[116])

However, Hassab-Elnaby multiplies the number of synodic months in a year (12) by the number of hours in a sidereal orbital transit (655). Instead, it should be the number of sidereal months in a year (13.368[116][117]) by the number of hours in a sidereal orbital transit (655).

This changes the equation from this:

C = 1000 * 12 x 3682.07 x 0.89157 x 655.71986 ÷ 86164.0906 = 299792.5 km/s

To this:

C = 1000 * 13.368 x 3682.07 x 0.89157 x 655.71986 ÷ 86164.0906 = 333968.8 km/s

The difference is 34176.3, or +11%. Kinda a big deal. So why did Hassab-Elnaby include this faulty math? Either he (1) messed up, is stupid, whatever, or (2) wanted to shift the results down by 11%, so that he could get the number closer to the speed of light, and fraudulently "prove" a miracle.

Second: The "compensation factor" is bullshit. (This section ignores the 1st problem in its calculations.)

Hassab-Elnaby tells us that he is going to screen out the effects of the sun's gravity. If so, why is there no value in this equation equal to the force of the sun's gravity? Instead, all we get is the cosine of the angle that the moon passes, on average, in one sidereal lunar month (cos(@)). This has asbolutely nothing to do with reality, let alone the sun's gravity. Furthermore, if Hassab-Elnaby is trying to factor out gravity (or, as may be more likely, the orbiting motion that the moon passes in) why doesn't he bother to factor out the galaxy's gravity/orbital motion or the local supercluster's gravity/orbital motion? The answer is (1) because it doesn't make the equation fit, like the cosine of @ does.

Interestingly, the equation with the cosine of @ results in exactly the speed of light, while the equation without is about 40,000 km/s off. This suggests that Hassab-Elnaby chose the cosine of @ because it makes the equation work, rather than that the equation is a key to some cosmic mystery.

Additionally, when somebody ran a n-body simulation (considered one of the best available standards for simulation) of the Moon-Earth-Sun system with and without the Sun, they found that the speed of the moon only varied by ±0.06% in one year, depending on when the sun magically disappeared.[118] By comparison, the "compensation factor" changes the value of the calculation by about 10%.

It is very interesting to mention here the second Qur[']anic verse that hints at the same relativistic Qur[']anic equation in the earth-moon system: God Most High said:

"A day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning" (22:47)[.]

Thus both relativistic Qur[']anic equations emphasise the obtained value of the greatest speed C and show that C is a permanent absolute constant. Actually there have been no scientific evidence that the value of C can change in time as yet. The constancy principle of special relativity is confirmed in the present work, which correlates also the speed of light C in vacuum with the celestial mechanics of the earth-moon system.

  Qur'an 22:47:
He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.

Again, Hassab-Elnaby strangely argues that the Qur'an provides evidence for relativity.

Referring to equation (4) and substituting the velocity V from eq. (2), we find that the average radius of the moon. R = [C/12000x2 Pi Cos@]*t (6) .:. "The average radius R of the lunar orbit is directly proportional to the period of one terrestrial sidereal day t.". This new law deduced in the present work is important so far as it confirms the law of conservation of momentum in the Earth-Moon system. Moreover it implies the influence of the tidal effect and the gravitational change factor on the this system. According to Dirac's cosmology, the universal gravitational constant G must be variable in time! i.e., it decreases with the age Tv of the universe according to Diracs equation: G=[e^4/(m*e^2pC^3)]*1/T (7) where e the electronic charge, m and p are the masses of the the electron and proton respectively. Also according to Newtons law, the gravitational changes affect the radius R of the lunar orbit as indicated in the following equation(ll) R=[h^2/m^2*M]*1/G (8) where h is the angular momentum of the moon about the earth, m and M are the masses of the moon and earth respectively. Since h,m and M remain unchanged with time, the radius R is inversely proportional to G. Correlating the last three equations, further studies in Cosmology may be prompted and facilitated.   Hassab-Elnaby rests on his laurels and tries to tie his new equation into other fields of physics, when the equation itself is invalid.
Conclusion: It is both important and interesting to find a new astronomical relationZ (sic) between the radius of the lunar orbit R and the time t of one terrestrial day deduced according to a new relativistic interpretation of a cosmic Qur[']anic verse alluding to the greatest universal speed identical to the velocity C of light in vacuum. It is so awesome to find unity in the complex of phenomena, that at first sight appear to have nothing in common. This work proves the universality and constancy of the fundamental constant C as the Greatest Cosmic Speed and reveals the Glorious Qur[']an as a Holy Book worth studying with meticulous analysis since its author is the CREATOR of the Universe.   This result is denied on four grounds.

First, the claimed relationship between the speed of light and the orbit of the moon is not actually present or clearly stated in the Qur'an.

Second, the mathematical relationship between the speed of light and the orbit of the moon does not actually exist, unless one adds a PIDOOMA coefficient.

Third, the mathematical relationship between the speed of light and the orbit of the moon does not actually exist, unless one switches synodic and sidereal months.

Fourth, the Qur'an itself disagrees about how long one of Allah's years is, potentially throwing off the equation by 98%.


Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately describes the speed of light, which would have been unknowable.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic foreknowledge?

  1. Is it accurate? Yes. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. The Qur'an's "statement" more probably refers to the travel of angels or the length of Allah's day and contradicts other Qur'anic verses (1000 vs 50000)
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. The Qur'an's "statement" of the speed of light could refer to the travel of angels, the length of Allah's day, or, through much mental gymnastics, the speed of light.
  4. Is it improbable? Yes, it would be difficult to guess the speed of light.
  5. Was it unknown? No. The information "presented" in the Qur'an was present in the Bible.[note 11]
    Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic foreknowledge.


Other sources:   Other rebuttals:

[edit] Zoology

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge article navigation
TopBiologyClimatologyMedicinePhysicsZoologyBottom


[edit] Worker bees are female

The Islamic Bulletin's article, The Miracle of Honey:[119]   RationalWiki response:

Allah says in the Qur[']an, [ "And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch; Then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect," (Qur'an 16:68-69). ]   Aside from using a feminine form for its nouns and verbs in Arabic, this verse is pretty much unremarkable.

Some have noted that the verse apparently mistakenly states that bees eat fruit. While bees do eat fruit,[120][121] it is correct to say that the verse offers bad advice for bees -- instead of eating fruits, they should be gathering nectar.


The imperative "build" above is the translation of the Arabic word "attakhithi", which is the feminine form (Arabic grammar[,] unlike English, differentiates between the sexes). The feminine form is used when all of those it refers to are female, whereas the masculine is used when a group consists of at least 1 male. Therefore the Qur[']an is in fact saying "build, you female bees." A swarm of bees, which collect honey and build the hive, are female only. Thus, the phrasing of this command is in agreement with the scientific fact that male bees do not partake in the construction of the hive.   First, this entire claim is based on the idea that Muhammad's use of a feminine noun and feminine verbs is intentional and for the purposes of letting us know that worker bees are female. However, the word for "bee" in Arabic is "النّحلة", or "nahla", and is inherently feminine.[122][123][124] (Unlike English, Arabic has gendered nouns.) The fact that Muhammad used a feminine word, when no other word was available, is extremely weak evidence that he wanted to tell us that worker bees are female. If Muhammad wanted to tell us that worker bees are female, why not just explicitly say, "Worker bees are female"?

Second, Isaiah 7:18 uses the feminine word "וְלַדְּבוֹרָה", which comes from the feminine root "דבורה" ("dvorá"), for "bee".[125] This suggests that prior knowledge (detailed below) existed about the purported gender of worker bees. But if we reject any evidence of prior knowledge, then we must accept the grammatically-based Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge claim and simultaneously accept the grammatically-based Biblical scientific foreknowledge claim, even though the two are mutually exclusive. Lovely.


Microscopes were not invented until 1610, when Galileo invented one of the first microscopes almost a thousand years after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).   Even before microscopes were invented, people speculated about bees. For example, in 350 BC, Aristotle wrote: "Others, again, assert that these insects copulate, and that the drones are male and the [worker] bees female. .... [Worker b]ees are provided with a sting, but the drones are not so provided."[126] Aristotle mistakenly misidentifies the Queen bee as being a King bee; but aside from that, he was correct about their gender. It is not at all impossible that Muhammad, or one of his advisers, had read or had learned about Aristotle's views on the matter.

Other sources:   Other responses:

Summary of claim: The Qur'an accurately states the gender of worker bees through its use of feminine verbs and nouns., which would have been unknowable to contemporary science.
Does this statement meet all criteria necessary for Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge?

  1. Is it correct? Yes. Worker bees are female.
  2. Is it in the Qur'an? No. Unless Allah is communicating through grammar, the Qur'an does not mention that bees are female.
  3. Is it unambiguous? No. It's entirely possible that Muhammad was just using the available nouns, rather than providing stupendous insight.
  4. Was it outside of contemporary knowledge? No. Aristotle and other Greek philosophers speculated on the gender of bees.
  5. Was it outside of contemporary technology? Yes and no. Some level of magnification is essential for truly determining the gender of a bee. However, it was not impossible to inspect bee hives and make an educated guess, like Aristotle and the Greeks.

Thus, this statement is not an example of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge.

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge article navigation
TopBiologyClimatologyMedicinePhysicsZoologyBottom


[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Notes

  1. It appears likely that the concept of Biblical scientific foreknowledge as proof of the unerring truth of the Bible seemed like an effective way of convincing unbelievers and was adopted by Muslim apologists, especially populizers like Harun Yahya.
  2. See also 2:2, 27:1, 44:58, 54:17, 54:22, 54:32, and 54:40.
  3. Seeing as all but the last of these ideas were present in contemporary Greek and Jewish societies, and Arabic societies had frequent contact with the Greeks and Jews, it's not hard to believe that Muhammad may have come into contact with these ideas.
  4. Unless Goddidit counts.
  5. Some might say that clouds are too high up to understand whether wind affects them. This seems strange, given that widespread cultures have created storm gods, usually in charge of lighting, rain, and wind. Furthermore, if our example needs to be closer to ground, it's easy enough to understand that fog and clouds are fundamentally the same, and that wind (or even just breathing) affects fog.
  6. Seriously, what could posssibly be the intended value? 400 K? Even that's enough to boil water.
  7. The article uses the phrase "sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam (may Allaah exalt his mention)" whenever they mention Muhammed. The article also apologizes for mentioning certain people. These have been replaced with "[...]".
  8. 3 verses were cited, and apparently morphed into 2.
  9. Table 1 does not exist in the original.
  10. They don't actually believe this. Whoever made the image just screwed up, funnily.
  11. See Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8.

[edit] Footnotes

  1. Glasser, Russel. "The Quran and the speed of light". The Atheist Experience. The Atheist Experience blog. 17 August 2010. Web. 27 August 2014.
  2. Bhattacharyya, Nalinaksha. "QURAN is not word of GOD". 23 January 1997. Web. 13 October 2014.
  3. Negus, Michael Robert (2005). Islam and Science. God, humanity, and the cosmos, Edition: 2, illustrated, revised, by Christopher Southgate, John Hedley Brooke, Celia Deane-Drummond. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 332. ISBN 978-0-567-03016-0. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 Dallal, Ahmad. "Science and the Qur'an", Encyclopedia of the Qur'an.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Tzortzis, Hamza. "Does the Qur'an contain scientific miracles? A new approach on how to reconcile and discuss science in the Qur'an". HamzaTzortzis.com. 21 August 2008. Web. 17 October 2014.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Taner, Edis. "Quran-science: Scientific miracles from the 7th century?" Truman State University. n.d. Web. 28 October 2014.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Arda, Halil. "Sex, flies and videotape: the secret lives of Harun Yahya". 09 September 2009. Web. 06 November 2014.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Mirza, Syed. "Religion, Science, and Maurice Bucaille". n.d. Web. 06 November 2014.
  9. Roff, William (1987). Islam and the political economy of meaning: comparative studies of Muslim discourse. Routledge. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-7099-4248-1. http://books.google.com/?id=s5sOAAAAQAAJ&dq=Islam+and+the+political+economy+of+meaning. 
  10. Yahya, Harun. "About the Author". n.d. Web. 06 November 2014.
  11. Yahya, Harun. "Websites". n.d. Web. 06 November 2014.
  12. See the Wikipedia article on Adnan Oktar#Biography.
  13. "If the Quran contains scientific foreknowledge, why did Muslims wait until science discovered those things...?" Yahoo Answers. n.d. Web. 02 October 2014.
  14. Moore, Keith L., Ph.D., F.I.A.C. "A Scientist's Interpretation of References to Embryology in the Qur'an". Islam101.com. The Sabr Foundation. n.d. Web. 11 July 2014.
  15. See the Wikipedia article on Epigenesis (biology).
  16. 16.0 16.1 "History of Embryology". WikiIslam. 14 February 2014. Web. 25 October 2014.
  17. 17.0 17.1 Wellner, Karen. "A History of Embryology, by Joseph Needham". 25 September 2013. Web. 25 October 2014.
  18. See the Wikipedia article on Human skin#Skin layers.
  19. See the Wikipedia article on Uterus#Layers.
  20. 20.0 20.1 See the Wikipedia article on Abdominal wall.
  21. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-213X/11/48
  22. See the Wikipedia article on Amniotic sac#Formation of the Amniotic Cavity.
  23. http://pbs.org/wnet/nature/bloodysuckers/leech.html
  24. Barry Mitchell & Ram Sharma 2009. Embryology: An Illustrated Colour Text. Second Edition. Chruchill Livingstone ElSevier. Page 10-11
  25. See the Wikipedia article on Human embryogenesis#Blastulation.
  26. See the Wikipedia article on Blastula.
  27. See the Wikipedia article on Fetus.
  28. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
  29. Yahya, Harun. "THE WEIGHT OF CLOUDS." MiraclesOfTheQur'an.com. n.d. Web. 12 July 2014.
  30. Soniak, Mark. "How Much Does a Cloud Weigh?" MentalFloss.com. 04 April 2013. Web. 29 August 2014.
  31. "300,000 tons - 1,100,000 lbs - Google Search". Google.com. 21 October 2014. Web. 21 October 2014.
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 Yahya, Harun. "About the Rain in the Qur'an". SunnahOnline.com. n.d. Web. 19 August 2014.
  33. Lowenfells, Jeff. "Blanket of snow is a poor man's fertilizer". Alaska Dispatch News. 08 October 2008. Web. 13 October 2014.
  34. Cook, David. "Rain Water vs Ground Water". June 2012. Web. 13 October 2014.
  35. See the Wikipedia article on Water cycle#History of hydrologic cycle theory.
  36. "Global rainfall by decade". WATCH. Natural Environment Research Council. n.d. Web. 03 October 2014.
  37. Elert, Glenn. "Speed of a Falling Raindrop". Hypertextbook.com. 2007. Web. 29 August 2014.
  38. Fraser, Alistair. "Bad Rain". Penn State University, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences. n.d. Web. 29 August 2014.
  39. See the Wikipedia article on Snow#Snowflakes.
  40. Yahya, Harun. "THE LAYERS OF THE ATMOSPHERE." MiraclesOfTheQur'an.com. n.d. Web. 05 July 2014.
  41. 41.0 41.1 "Layers of the Atmosphere." The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 22 July 2013. Web. 05 July 2014.
  42. 42.0 42.1 "NUMERICAL PREDICTION MODELS USED BY NWS." Aerographer's Mate, Module 03 states. Integrated Publishing. n.d. Web. 05 July 2014.
  43. 43.0 43.1 See the Wikipedia article on Ionosphere.
  44. See the Wikipedia article on Exosphere.
  45. 45.0 45.1 See the Wikipedia article on Magnetosphere.
  46. See the Wikipedia article on Troposphere.
  47. Cain, Fraser. "Why Does the Moon Shine?" Universe Today. 09 December 2013. Web. 05 July 2014.
  48. "The miracle of honey as an alternative medicine". IslamWeb.net. IslamWeb. 05 November 2014. Web. 15 December 2014.
  49. 49.00 49.01 49.02 49.03 49.04 49.05 49.06 49.07 49.08 49.09 49.10 49.11 49.12 Altman, Nathaniel. Healing Arts Press. Google Books. p. 55-61. 2010. Web. 17 December 2014.
  50. 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 Pećanac M, Janjić Z, Komarcević A, Pajić M, Dobanovacki D, Misković SS. Burns treatment in ancient times. Med Pregl. May-June 2013. Web. 17 December 2014.
  51. Role of honey in ayurvedic treatment. Center for Science and Environment. n.d. Web. 17 December 2014.
  52. 52.0 52.1 Benefits of Honey. Crandallfarms.com. n.d. Web. 17 December 2014.
  53. Yahya, Harun. "THE COMING OF THE UNIVERSE INTO EXISTENCE." MiraclesOfTheQur'an.com. n.d. Web. 05 July 2014.
  54. Wright, Richard. "The Age of the Universe". UCLA.edu. 27 December 2012. Web. 12 September 2014.
  55. Chuss, David. "Tests of Big Bang: The CMB" NASA.gov. 05 December 2014.
  56. Moskowitz, Clara. "Was the Big Bang Really an Explosion?" Live Science. Purch, Inc. 18 March 2010. Web. 09 July 2014.
  57. See the Wikipedia article on Planck epoch.
  58. Agiesta, Jennifer and Seth Borenstein. "AP-GfK Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans". The AP-GfK Poll. 21 April 14. Web. 06 November 2014.
  59. See, for example:
    1. "Translation and Meaning of 'السماوات' in Almaany English Arabic Dictionary." Almaany.com. n.d. Web. 07 July 2014.
    2. "Translation and Meaning of سماء in Almaany English Arabic Dictionary." Almaany.com. n.d. Web. 07 July 2014.
    3. "Arabic-English translation for 'السماوات'." bab.la. n.d. Web. 07 July 2014.
    4. "Arabic-English translation for 'سماء'." bab.la. n.d. Web. 07 July 2014.
    5. "سماء." Wiktionary.org. 31 March 2014. Web. 07 July 2014.
    6. alana_32882@yahoo.com. "The term 'heaven' in the Qur'an." 08 February 2006. Web. 07 July 2014.
    7. Dukes, Kais. "Verse (7:54) - Word by Word". The Quranic Arabic Corpus. n.d. Web. 03 October 2014.
    8. "Google Translate". Google.com. n.d. Web. 11 October 2014.
    9. "English Arabic Translation". Arabdict.com. n.d. Web. 11 October 2014.
    10. "Assignment 2 - Group 1". Hadith Of Rahmah. 18 November 2010. Web. 11 October 2014.
  60. http://www.tafheem.net/tafheem.html
  61. See the Wikipedia article on Graphical timeline of the Big Bang.
  62. Huda. "Creation of the Universe." About.com. n.d. Web. 08 July 2014.
  63. See the Wikipedia article on World egg.
  64. "Chinese Myths." LivingMyths.com. n.d. Web. 09 July 2014.
  65. See the Wikipedia article on Pangu.
  66. Yahya, Harun. "THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE." MiraclesOfTheQur'an.com. n.d. Web. 14 July 2014.
  67. See, for example:
    1. Dukes, Kais. "Verse (51:46) - Word by Word". The Quranic Arabic Corpus. n.d. Web. 01 October 2014.
    2. "Google Translate". Translate. n.d. Web. 01 October 2014.
    3. "Arabic-English translation for 'بنيناها'." bab.la. n.d. Web. 02 October 2014.
  68. Khalifa, Rashad. "Quran: The Final Testament, Authorized English Version". Amazon.com. n.d. Web. 02 October 2014.
  69. See the Wikipedia article on Noble Quran (Hilali-Khan).
  70. See the Wikipedia article on The Koran Interpreted.
  71. See the Wikipedia article on The Holy Quran - Arabic Text and English translation.
  72. See the Wikipedia article on The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary.
  73. See the Wikipedia article on The Meaning of the Glorious Koran.
  74. Aziz, Dr. Zahid. "Shakir's Qur'an translation - blatant plagiarism of the first edition of Muhammad Ali's translation." n.d. Web. 09 July 2014.
  75. See the Wikipedia article on John Medows Rodwell#Works.
  76. See the Wikipedia article on George Sale#Translator.
  77. See the Wikipedia article on United Submitters International.
  78. Robert. "Arizona: Muslim convicted of murdering imam for Islamic heresy". American Infidels. 22 December 2010. Web. 01 October 2014.
  79. Abdulllah, Osama. "Refutation off Rashad Khalifa's 19 theory nonsense". Answering Christianity. n.d. Web. 02 October 2014.
  80. "CLAIM THAT 9:128-129 WERE 'FRAUDULENTLY ADDED' TO THE QURAN". Answering Christianity. n.d. Web. 02 October 2014.
  81. "From Big Bang to Big Crunch". QuranMiracles.com, Istanbul Quran Research Association. 2011. Web. 14 October 2014.
  82. Odenwald, Sten. "Archive of NASA IMAGE Space Science Questions and Answers". Ask the Space Scientist, North Carolina A&T University, Science Technology and Space Institute. n.d. Web. 14 October 2014.
  83. Mastin, Luke. "THE BIG CRUNCH, THE BIG FREEZE AND THE BIG RIP". The Physics of the Universe. n.d. Web. 13 October 2014.
  84. Villanueva, John. "Big Crunch". 08 August 2009. Web. 13 October 2014.
  85. "Dark Energy Changes the Universe". NASA. 27 February 2004. Web. 14 October 2014.
  86. "FATE OF THE UNIVERSE". HubbleSite.org, Space Telescope Science Institute. n.d. Web. 14 October. 2014.
  87. Hough, Andrew. "The universe 'will expand forever', new Nasa study on 'dark energy' concludes". The Telegraph. 19 Aug 2010. Web. 17 October 2014.
  88. Friedmann models of the universe
  89. 89.0 89.1 Hassab-Elnaby, Mansour. "A New Astronomical Quranic Method for The Determination Of The Greatest Speed C". IslamiCity. IslamiCity.com. n.d. Web. 31 August 2014.
  90. See the Wikipedia article on Geocentric model#Ancient Greece.
  91. See also WikiIslam's page.
  92. Bucaille, Maurice (n.d.). "THE CONQUEST OF SPACE". Islam101. http://www.islam101.com/science/space.html. Retrieved 12 February 2015. 
  93. "QURAN(632AD) AND SCIENCE(TODAY)?". Yahoo! Inc.. 2011. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110217102210AACSKAn. Retrieved 12 February 2015.. 
  94. 94.0 94.1 94.2 http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=55&verse=33#(55:33:1)
  95. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A5%D9%86
  96. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1518&Itemid=111
  97. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=55&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
  98. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=55&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
  99. http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=55&verse=33&to=33
  100. http://islamawakened.com/quran/55/33/
  101. See the Wikipedia article on Timeline of first orbital launches by country.
  102. http://translation.babylon.com/arabic/to-english/%D8%A3%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B1/
  103. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1518&Itemid=111
  104. http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=15&verse=14&to=16
  105. http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/412556.page
  106. See the Wikipedia article on Speed of light.
  107. See the Wikipedia article on Special relativity.
  108. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
  109. 109.0 109.1 See the Wikipedia article on Lunar_month#Terminology.
  110. http://www.universetoday.com/14700/how-long-is-a-day-on-earth/
  111. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/
  112. See the Wikipedia article on Lunar_month#Cycle_lengths.
  113. http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm
  114. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124
  115. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
  116. 116.0 116.1 http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/animations/content/sidereal.html
  117. https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=1%20year%20%2F%2027.322%20days
  118. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/earth-moon-without-sun.381623/#post-3047993
  119. The Miracle of Honey. The Islamic Bulletin. n.d. Web. 18 December 2014.
  120. http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/insects/ahb/inf4.html
  121. http://www.honeybeesuite.com/do-honey-bees-eat-fruit/
  122. http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-arabic/bee
  123. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english-arabic/bee
  124. https://translate.google.com/?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&client=tw-ob#en/ar/bee
  125. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%93%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94
  126. Aristotle. The History of Animals. Trans. by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. The Internet Classics Archive. n.d. Web. 18 December 2014.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support