Nadir Ahmed vs Denis Giron (Science in the Qur'an)
On Tuesday, September 9th, 2003, Nadir Ahmed and Denis Giron engaged in a debate on the topic of whether or not scientific statements in the Qur'an served as sufficient evidence for proving that the text was of a divine origin. A PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT IS BELOW; THE FULL TRANSCRIPT IS FORTHCOMING! The audio of the debate can be found online at the following sites:
There was also a text-only debate that took place between Nadir and Denis over usenet. The following are the links to the complete threads of the usenet debate, also on the topic of science and the Qur'an (these threads cover the same topics touched on in the audio debate):
Okay, thank you. Insha'llaah, you can go ahead and start clocking me now. Well, let me first start out tonight by welcoming everyone for today's debate on the Qur'an and modern science. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Denis Giron for coming for tonight's debate. In fact, me and Denis have debated this on Google Groups for the last, I believe, nine months, so we are very familiar with the topic and of course Denis has written many papers regarding Islam.
Let me start off by saying today that the Qur'an is a book which Muslims believe to be the literal word of God, and this book was revealed one thousand four hundred years ago to the Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), who lived in the Arabian city of Makkah. Now I believe that if anyone were to analyze the Qur'an, they will find that the Qur'an contains many statements - many correct scientific statements which were not discovered only until recently. Therefore, the question I would like to raise for tonight's discussion is: how could a man in the Arabian desert, fourteen hundred years ago, have this kind of scientific knowledge? The technology and the means to get this kind of scientific information simply did not exist at that time. Advanced equipment and sophisticated methods were not developed at that time. Therefore, the only conclusion a person can make is that there had to have been a greater power other than man who was the author of the Qur'an. Man could not have been the author of the Qur'an because there is no way a man could attain that type of scientific knowledge.
Tonight is going to be kind of a very mentally intensive exercise, so I would recommend people to take notes and if you get the opportunity to listen to this debate, maybe two or three times if you can. So let me start off by saying that I think one of the difficulties we have in doing these types of discussions is that we tend to import many of our biases and our own personal opinions in this matter, and we tend to come to the table with a lot of emotional baggage. And that tends to blow our judgement. Even Denis himself, as an Atheist, of course, admits that he has a lot of bias too. But my issue is that being biased is not the problem. We cannot allow our biases and our prejudices to affect our judgement, and that is where the real problem comes in.
Therefore, what I would like to do tonight, I would like to bring some standard procedures that will sort of keep all of us in line tonight. Therefore, what I would like to present for you today is an algorythm which will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. I'm going to cut and paste this algorythm to you inside the link which you can click on and you will be able to follow along with me. I'm going to send that to you right there -[http://www.webspawner.com/users/deen56/index.html]- okay. You're going to have to remove the digits "555" from the link; so if you do that, the link should work pretty good.
Okay, anyways, this is an algorythm which I think will provide a systematic method of analysis without personal opinion or bias. It will provide a logical analysis of statements concerning science - modern science - in any ancient text, whether it is the Qur'an, the Bible, or any other book. You're going to need to refer to this pretty often for the debate tonight. So, for those of you who don't have it in front of them, perhaps you might want to write it down very quickly - I'm going to go through it very quickly here. It says basically this: if a statement in a book, whether it is the Qur'an or any other book, agrees with modern scientific fact, then it can be one or more of the eight following possibilities: (A) Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius - he was like Albert Einstein or something, and he discovered these scientific statements. [(B)] Perhaps the author of the Qur'an guessed; he just guessed "I wonder what this could be" and he got it right. (C) The author of the statement was a great scientist; so basically he had a laboratory in his backyard, he conducted experiments and that is how he came to the conclusion of these modern scientific facts. (D) Maybe it is just a coincidence, like a poetic statement which just happens to match up with science. Now let me look at this option (D). What that means is that the author had no intention of talking about modern science. He had no intention, and it was a pure accident, and out of accident the statement agrees with modern science. Let's look at (F) here. If the link doesn't work, please write something inside the box so I can manually cut and paste all this stuff. Anyway, (F) perhaps the scientific fact is observable, like for example to say 'bees have a leader'. Well I think if you observe the bee hive, you will see that it is something observable; there is nothing really miraculous about that. Let's look at (G): information already pre-existed in history. So what this basically says right over here is that the author of the Qur'an basically plagiarized from another source, maybe Aristotle or something like that. So that is another possibility. And then finally (H) which is a source greater than man the author of these statements. So these are your eight logical possibilities of how we could explain the Qur'an and modern science. So the very important point over here is that, therefore just because you have a statement in a book which matches up with modern science, that does not automatically make it miraculous. It can be any one of these eight possibilities. Let me pause for a second so I can cut and paste all this information to you, for those who cannot open the link or something like that. Okay, there we go, these are all the possible scenarios and we will be referring to them often.
Okay, so now I want to just briefly talk about some logical fallacies which Atheists have made and other critics in their study of the Qur'an and modern science. These are three main logical errors. The first error is called The Fallacy of Multiple Interpretations. Basically what this means is that they think "if we can create another new interpretation, then we can dismiss that statement of modern science as being evidence - if I can just create another interpretation." And this is a very common mistake some people deal with. Let me give you an example: this is what science today tells us about the origins of the universe: science today tells us that the universe was created some time between ten to twenty billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Now let's say you read inside some arbitrary book that it said the universe underwent a "big bang". Well, one person can correctly state that the statement in that arbitrary book matches up with modern science on the origin of the universe, and could therefore use this verse as an evidence, because it does match up with science. Science says there was this huge explosion and this book says there was a big bang. So yes, the statements do match up. But now an antagonist - he can create an equally valid interpretation saying that "no, no, no, you see what 'big bang' here means is actually a big surprise, you know like a big surprise that any big bang would cause for anyone, therefore the statement in that book is not talking about the origin of the universe - the author of the book had no intention of referring to the origin of the universe, therefore you cannot use this as evidence." But this is a logical fallacy I'm pointing out here - that just because you can spin more than one interpretation does not disprove that piece of evidence. Now of course we all know that when someone says this statement he is clearly referring to the scientific origins of the universe - about the Big Bang - so there is not question about that. So basically, the rule of thumb here is that so long as one feasible, logical interpretation matches up with science, that is all it takes to be used as evidence.
Let's look at the second fallacy which many Atheists have made. They said "well, the science pre-existed in other books." Basically they're talking about - I believe what we're looking at - is (G) the information already pre-existed in history. Therefore, what the author of the Qur'an simply did - or of any book - they just copied from that other source. That is one of the greatest misconceptions among Atheists; which is just because something has been mentioned in a book before hand, this automatically dismisses the case for the verse in the book, therefore you can't use it as evidence, and this is wrong. Let me explain to you why. Let's say that the Big Bang theory was mentioned in Aristotle's book, and it was also mentioned in the Qur'an - now this is all hypothetical - and someone brings up that verse of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an and they use it as evidence showing that man could not have been the author of the Qur'an. Now someone can say "wait a second, wait a second, hold on - look, this statement that you are talking about of the Big Bang mentioned in the Qur'an cannot be used as evidence because it was already used in Aristotle's book, therefore what the author of the Qur'an simply did - he just copied from Aristotle's work." But there is a very, very big problem with this type of argument, which is: how did the author of the Qur'an know to select this explanation versus the several wrong ideas of how the universe was created which existed at that time? We all know what if you read the books of history, whether it is the Hindu scriptures, Bible, or whatever, there are several wrong and incorrect understandings of how the universe was created. How did the author of the Qur'an know to select this particular concept? That's the first question. How was he able to detect truth in an ocean of falsehood and myths? How did he know this is the right one? Therefore, my conclusion on this is that the argument that the Qur'an was just a copy job from previous books because of the fact that it mentions scientific information that was also present in those earlier books, that argument does not work because logic dictates to us that we better find five times as many clear scientific errors, right? Let me give you an example: you see when I was in high school, I never studied. In fact, what I would do, I would copy from my neighbor when it came on test day. But you know what happened? My neighbor didn't study either, so I wound up flunking. What basically happened was yes, I did copy some correct answers off his page, but I also copied some wrong answers from his page and I also incorporated that on my test exam, therefore I flunked. Likewise, doing a copy job in the year 600 AD was an even more dangerous job. It is literally a recipe for disaster, because the books available to the author of the Qur'an are filled with myths and legends and are filled with scientific errors and blunders. In fact there are much more scientific errors and blunders than there are any true statements, probably at least a thousand times, and even Denis, my opponent tonight, will verify that for you. Therefore, my conclusion on this point is that when we see a scientifically correct statement in the Qur'an, whether it was mentioned in other books or whether it was not, that does not matter, because what matters is how did the author of the Qur'an know this was the correct answer in an ocean of falsehood and myths. So that is another illogical argument used against the Qur'an or any book for that matter.
Now let me talk about the last part. If you study the Qur'an you will see that the Qur'an does not contradict any established modern scientific fact. This is a true statement. That's really not what is going to be debated tonight, but I just wanted to bring up that point. Anyway, many have tried to find scientific errors in the Qur'an, but they have failed. On person in particular was Richard Carrier, who is also Denis' I guess friend or colleague, and he is also a writer for infidels.org, and he basically could not really find any scientific errors in the Qur'an. But my point is this here: scientific errors really are not germane to the topic tonight - they're really irrelevant. Let me explain to you why. Let's hypothetically say again that there is this book we found - an ancient book - two thousand years ago - I'm just giving you a hypothetical. And in that book you found every single concept of modern day chemistry that scientists have only discovered today. I don't think anyone would hesitate in concluding that man could not have been the author of this book - nobody would hesitate on that conclusion. Now let me throw this in this equation also: what if there were two pages filled with scientific errors also in that book? What does that mean? Does it change the fact that there are statements in that book which a human being could not have known two thousand years ago? Of course not, it does not change that fact. So again I'm talking logically here. Logically, scientific errors are irrelevant. Whether a book contains scientific errors or not is really irrelevant. It does not prove or disprove anything. These are all emotional arguments. They're basically used to capture a shock effect, but it doesn't prove or disporve the fact that this book cannot have been written by a man - it had to have been a greater source. I hope everyone understands it - I can repeat that point again in case anyone needs to. But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated to night and I understand.
Okay, having said all of that, I spent sixteen minutes pretty much laying down the ground rules and basically laying down the logic which we are going to use tonight. So let me start with the first piece of evidence of the Qur'an. I'm going to give you eight pieces of evidence, and these are eight statements in the Qur'an which agree with modern scientific fact which scientists have only discovered recently. Let me go ahead and start right here. Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to break up my talk into two different parts. I'm going to first tell you what science says, and then I'm going to tell you what the Qur'an says and then we can go from there. This is what modern science has to say on the topic of zoology, in particular bees. We're going to be talking about bees over here. Today science tells us that the male bee has only one purpose, and that is to reproduce with the female - there's really no other purpose for a male bee. Now here's the important point - however, the worker bee or the soldier bee is a female bee. She is the one that builds the nest, leaves her home, and goes out in search of food. This what modern science tells us - that we have discovered only recently. Now it takes a specialist in the field to detect the sex of the bee - you cannot look at it from the naked eye - it is impossible, there is no way you can look at it that way. Now let me show you what the Qur'an says about bees. Now, keep one thing in mind here. In the Arabic language, animals are either male or female. Like in English we have the word cow - "the cow in the pasture" - that does not tell us if the cow is male or female. But in Arabic animals are either male or female. There is no gender neutral term for animals. Let's look inside chapter sixteen verse sixty-eight. It says over there: "and thy Lord taught the bee" - here it is specified a female bee - "to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in men's habitations, then to eat of all the produce and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord." This is exactly what modern science today tell us - that the bee that goes out and builds the nest, that goes out looking for food, as what the Qur'an has mentioned, is indeed the female bee.
So anyway, I'll have to raise a question now. How did the author of the Qur'an know this scientific statement, that the bee that leaves the nest in search of food is the female bee? Let's go back to the algorythm. If you can look at that link which I have just sent you, let's look at that algorythm. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius or a scientist, which is (A) and (C). Well, I don't think that could be a possibility, becuase no matter smart you are, you'll never be able to detect the sex of a bee, unless you had these modern scientific methods which did not exist one thousand four hundred years ago, so those could not be a possibility. Let's look at (F). Perhaps the scientific fact is observable. Well, this is not true either, because you cannot look at the bees and tell which one is a male or female. Let's look at (B). Perhaps it was a very good guess. Well, it is a possibility. If it was a good guess then we'll say it was a fifty-fifty chance, one half chance if that was the case - or coincidence, we can look at it that way. Now let's look at (G) here, I want to pause on this one for a second. The information already pre-existed in history, therefore the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source. Let's analyze this for just a second here. I want to bring up one of the books which were written much before the time the Qur'an was revealed, and that is the works of Aristotle. Because I think when you look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know. Anyway, when you go to his books on meteorology you will find that he has done studies on bees. This is what Aristotle had to say - and actually Aristotle did make some scientifically correct statements regarding bees - Aristotle discovered that there were three categories of bees, and he discovered that there was such a thing as a leader bee, which today we know are queen bees, as well as drones and workers. So he did make some correct discoveries inside modern science when it comes to bees. But that can very easily fall under the category of (F), that this is something which is observable. Meaning, if you study the bee hive, you're going to see the same thing.
Anyway, here's an important point on Aristotle. Aristotle also made many scientific errors regarding bee study. I'm going to give you seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Aristotle first of all thought the queen bee was actually a male, which is wrong, it is female. Number two: he thought bees do not give birth to young, but they fetch their young from flowers, which is actually false. We know that bees are actually hatched from eggs. Number three: Aristotle thought bees come from olives[?], which of course we know is not true. He said the honey comb of the bee is actually made from flowers. This is false - the honey comb is made from wax. He knew of bee's wax though, but he thought the bee's wax comes from the gum of trees, which is completely scientifically inaccurate - it comes from the wax glands of the bees. He said female bees do not sting because nature does not provide females with weapons, but this is also false, because female bees are the ones that are stinging you. They are the ones with the stingers. The male bees don't have stingers. And he basically thought that the worker bees were basically sexless, meaning they had no male or female parts to them. So these are basically seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Now I want to ask a question - I want to raise a point here. What is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio for Aristotle? Well, I believe it is one over seven. For one scientifically correct statement he made seven errors, and that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's how scientists learn and make discoveries. They make these discoveries by a trial and error method.
Anyway, let's say the author of the Qur'an really like Aristotle's work, he thought it was incredible, "wow, this is great stuff." If he was going to copy from Aristotle's book, you know what is going to happen? The same thing which happened to me in high school: he's going to copy many of the wrong and false statements into his book. Am I right? If you're going to use this book to copy from, you're in big trouble, because there is a lot of scientific errors in there. So, that is why the point I would like to raise here is that if we are going to entertain - going back to this point which I raised - if we are going to entertain this possible scenario which is (G) the information already pre-existed in history and the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source, well then what we are going to have to find - you'll have to also show us many of the scientific fallacies that the author of the Qur'an also copied. Because how did he know what to copy and what not to? So that's my point here; that's the only way we can entertain this particular objection or this particular possible scenario. If you going to say he copied from the book, then show us other things that he copied from that book. And if you cannot show that, then we cannot entertain this possible scenario, logically. Anyway, let me ask another question: what is the ratio of the scientific error over scientific truth for the Qur'an in relation to bee study? Who can tell me? Well, it is one over zero. Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero. Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too.
Anyway, let me move on to the second piece of evidence here. Evidence [...inaudible...]. If you look in the Qur'an it talks about a city named Iram inside chapter eighty-nine, verse seven. Now, there's something very unique about the city Iram, which is that nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram before. You can look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the companions of Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or the Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a city mentioned in the Qur'an. And for this point many people have actually ridiculed the Qur'an and made fun of it because it is talking about cities which nobody has ever heard of. And even one of the most famous critics of the Qur'an, his name was Wellhausen, he stated that Iram was actually a fictional place - it didn't exist - whoever wrote the Qur'an just made up some corny city and then put it in the Qur'an. This is basically what many people thought, especially Wellhausen. Some Muslims also, they felt very ashamed of this fact and so they said "okay, okay, Iram is not the name of a city, actually Iram is the name of a person, yeah, yeah it is the name of a person," because they felt ashamed on this point. Well, anyway, all of this changed in 1978, because there was an archeological dig and they discovered a city named Ebla. Now in this city Ebla, they looked in the library and there they discovered a city that Ebla used to do business with, and low and behold, that city was named Iram. The very same exact city as mentioned in Surah eighty-nine, verse seven of the Qur'an. And that was done in 1978. Now, how was the author of the Qur'an able to have knowledge of this city? This is a question I would like to raise. And even the person who wrote the article from National Geographic in 1978 - I believe it was the December edition, I'm not sure - but he even makes specific reference to this. He says "Iram, this is that strange or obscure city that was mentioned in the Qur'an." That is even mentioned in the National Geographic article. So how did the author of the Qur'an know that such a city existed?
Well again, we would look at the algorythm and we could see that it is any one of those eight possibilities, perhaps. Now, actually Denis made kind of a very strange statement in the Google Group -I just want to raise it right now for just a second. He said - well first of all, let me back up a little bit here. Some people have guessed or basically made a hypothesis that Iram is a city in Southern Arabia. There's really no proof for that, but some people have basically guessed at that - but anyway, let's go along with that. Denis made a statement - he said "oh what's so big about an Arab talking about a statement in Arabia? There's nothing really strange about that or something miraculous." I would ask Denis to really look at that argument a little bit more carefully, because the point is, it does not really matter if it is in Europe or China or Malaysia. The point is that no one in history - in ten thousand pages of hadith literature as well as all history - has ever heard this city named Iram. And how is it mentioned in the Qur'an, this city? That is like me coming saying that let's say in Montana there was an archeological dig, and there we discovered a city named - I'll just make up some name, Montezuma, no not Monetzuma - Bohemia! I'm just going to think up some name here. And Bohemia is actually a city which is five thousand years old. Now if somebody in Florida was talking about a city called Bohemia, that would be something very profound. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How was that person in Florida talking about a city named Bohemia? Would there be anyone who would come up tonight and say "oh, no, no, no, that means nothing, that could be nothing - it is simply an American talking about a city in America." Well of course that would be foolish. So, there's really no basis for that argument.
Anyway, let me move on to proof number three here. We are now going to move away from archeology and we are going to talk about oceanography. Today, scientists tell us that there is actually a barrier between the bodies of water, and that this information has only been discovered recently, using advanced equipment. Now let me give you an example: there is actually a physical barrier between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. This barrier - the two seas basically differ in, number one, temperature, salinity, and density, and between these two seas there is an actual physical barrier. Now there is a diagram of this barrier which I'm going to give everyone right now. It is on this link - [http://www.islamiccenterofpeoria.org/miracles.html] - you can click on this link and you will see the diagram of that barrier between the seas. And of course, this barrier between the seas which we are talking about is not visible to the naked eye.
Let's see what the Qur'an has to say on this topic. Inside chapter fifty-five, verse nineteen it says over there: "He it is how has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress." Now this is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. Scientists have only recently discovered that there are barriers inside the ocean, between the seas, and I gave an example between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. So anyway, we see that this statement of the Qur'an agrees with modern science. Now I was looking and I saw that there tended to be a lot of useless debate in [which] people were trying to define what type of barrier is being used - what type of barrier is the Qur'an referring to? Because they cannot refute the idea that the Qur'an clearly, clearly states that there is a barrier between the seas, so they start to try to make a controversy out of what type of barrier.
Well, anyway, I can kind of settle the debate tonight by saying that the Qur'an does not say anything as far as what type of barrier is being used - because you know, there are many different types of barriers: there's multi-layered barriers, there's radiating barriers. Basically, a barrier impedes movement of an object or a substance - something which blocks the passage of a certain substance. Different types of barriers perform different functions. Some act like an iron curtain, which completely blocks off two substances, while some barriers do the same task of blocking two substances but they do it in a more subtle fashion, by kind of slowly bringing them to a halt. So anyway, my point is the Qur'an does not speak about what type of barrier, and there is really no point in trying to guess and trying to make a controversey out of that.
Anyway, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. Proof or evidence number four. We talked about barriers between the two different seas, which differed in temperature, salinity, density, et cetera. But science today has also told us that there is a barrier between fresh and salt water. In fact this barrier which the scientists talk about - they call it the zone of partition. So basically, on one side of the zone of partition you have salty water, and on the other part of the partition you have fresh water. And this has been also clearly, explicitly stated in the Qur'an. Let's look at chapter twenty-five, verse fifty-three: "it is he who has let free the two bodies of flowing water, one palatable and sweet" - referring to fresh water - "and the other salt and bitter." Now here is the important point I would like everyone to take heed to: "yet he has made a barrier between them, a parition that is forbidden to be passed."
Now again, many of the antagonists and Atheists cannot refute the fact that the Qur'an is clearly talking about a barrier between fresh and salt water. That is unmistakable, and that completely agrees with modern science. But again they try to make a controversey out of "what type of barrier? what type of barrier is the Qur'an talking about?" which is really a red herring. But again, this partition that is forbidden to be passed, that is something which is vague and ambiguous. That does not still tell us what type of barrier, whether it is a radiating barrier or et cetera. Anyway, I just wanted to make that one point.
Let me refer back to Aristotle again. Aristotle did research on oceanography in his books, in addition to bee study. And he tried to explain this phenomenon of fresh water and salt water. He had no idea that there was an actual physical barrier between them. This is what Aristotle thought: he says "the same thing happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the food when it enters the body is sweet, yet the residuum and dregs of liquid food are found to be bitter and salt." So basically what Aristotle is saying is that when you eat a twinkie, it tastes nice - yeah, it's great - but now, if you taste your own poop or your own feces, it is very bitter and salty. Now, this is what I call a very dedicated scientist, you know, who would taste his own feces. You have to give credit to the man.
Anyway, so Aristotle continues: "This is because the sweet and the drinkable part of it has been drawn away and the natural animal heat has passed into the flesh and other parts of the body according to their several natures." So basically he is saying when you eat something by a process of evaporation - animal heat, he's referring to evaporation - this is how fresh water becomes salty. Just like when you eat a twinkie, and you go to the bathroom and you defecate that twinkie, that is the same thing which happens when you see salt water and fresh water. So of course, needless to say, this is a gross scientific error. We all know this does not describe the relationship of salt and fresh water.
So my point here is, again, I do not think the author of the Qur'an was plagiarizing from Aristotle, or else he would have copied this gross scientific error in his book. Or let me ask the question again: out of all the scientific statements I have been showing in the Qur'an, what is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio? Who can tell me? It is one out of zero for every one - every single one of them, one out of zero.
Okay, let me continue. Now, we are still on the topic of oceanography. Let's look at the fifth piece of evidence. Scientists have only recently discovered that at the very bottom of the ocean it is completely dark. That is, you are going to have to travel one thousand meters, and after you have traveled one thousand meters in the ocean, it is complete pitch darkness. In fact, if you have ever seen the movie Titanic, the Titanic is actually at the very bottom of the sea, and the Titanic right now resides in complete total darkness. Now man, on the other hand, he could probably swim about - at the most - forty meters down in the ocean without special equipment. So he could only go about forty meters, but like I said, once you go down one thousand meters, that is when you see that it is complete pitch darkness. And scientists have only recenlty been able to discover these details - pieces of information about the seas.
Now let's see what the Qur'an has to say about this. Chapter twenty-four, verse forty of the Qur'an. It is talking about the disbeliever - that "the disbeliever is like the darkness in the vast deep sea," and it goes on in a later verse - I mean, in the same verse: "if a man were to stretch out his hand, he can hardly see it; and for he whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light." It says in the Qur'an "there is no light for him," and it is talking about the vastest deep ocean. So the Qur'an is saying at the very deep, dark levels of the ocean it is complete darkness, and that is like the analogy of a disbeliever - he lives in complete darkness. Again, this is exactly what scientists today have told us - that the ocean, after one thousand meters, is complete death[?] darkness. I would raise a question: how did the author of the Qur'an know this type of scientific information?
Okay, let's look at evidence number six over here. We are going to get off the topic of oceanography. I have produced for you three pieces of evidence of oceanography. Basically, that the author of the Qur'an knew that there was a barrier between the seas. Number two, he knew that there was a barrier between salt and fresh water, and the author of the Qur'an also knew that at the very depths levels of the ocean is complete darkness. Let me now move on to proof number six here. We are going to talk about geology.
If you have a topographical globe - topographical globes show the elevations and depressions of the earth - and if you look at where is the lowest point on the earth, you will see that that is around the Jerusalem area. That is the lowest point on the earth. Anyway, let me read to you this verse of the Qur'an. Again, this is what scientists todat tell us: that the area around Jerusalem is the lowest point on the face of the earth. Surah thirty, verse two of the Qur'an says "the Romans have been defeated in the nearer land, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious." Now, this word, "nearer land," that the Romans have been defeated in a nearer land, the word is adnaa 'l-ard, and if you look in the dictionary, they have two meanings for adnaa 'l-ard. One is "nearer land," which many commentators used, because it is a lot easier for people to understand "nearer land". But if you look for the other meaning of this verse, I'm sorry, for this word, adnaa 'l-ard, you will find that it means the lowest part of the land. So, the Romans were in fact defeated at Jerusalem, and that is the lowest point on the earth. So let me read to you this verse again: "the Romans have been defeated in the lowest part of the land." It can also be read that way, that is, any scholar of Islam will tell you that is an equally fine interpretation, because the word adnaa 'l-ard has two meanings: "nearer land" as well as "lowest part of the land". And of course the Romans were defeated at Jerusalem. So here is a statement which completely agrees with modern science. So we see here that the author of the Qur'an used a word in which one of the meanings was lowest land. Could that be a coincidence? This is my question.
Anyway, let's now jump over to the topic of astronomy. Now, we know that there are many elements in the universe today, or in our planet today - I'm sorry. Scientists today tell us that after studying the element of iron, that iron could not have been created on earth. And not only that, they say iron could not have been even created in our universe. They say that in calculating the energy required to form one atom of iron, it was found to be about four times as much energy of the entire solar system, just to create one atom of energy. Scientists go on to tell us that this kind of energy is not observable in our sun, our planets, in our solar system combined. So, what they are telling us is that iron could not have been formed on earth, neither in our solar system; rather, it should have come from some external source. That is the only place where iron could have come from.
Now, if we look in the Qur'an, we see that the Qur'an actually talks about things which were created on earth. Like, for example, inside chapter thirty-six, verse thirty-six, it says: "glory be to Him Who has created all the pairs of that which the earth produces," and then it goes on to say that the human beings were also created from the earth: "and Allah has brought you forth from the dust of the earth." That is chapter seventy-one, verse seventeen. So basically, someone would look at the Qur'an and say "well, yeah, that's reasonable, I mean how else would a man one thousand four hundred years ago - you know, he looks around his surroundings he sees that everything produced comes from the earth: grass grows from the earth, pairs come from the earth, so yeah, that's very natural." But now the Qur'an also talked about where did iron come from. Now, we would assume that the Qur'an would say that iron came from the earth, just like human beings, pairs, just like everything else - like any man would.
Notice what the Qur'an says about iron. Surah seventy-one, verse seventeen, "and Allah as brought you forth from the dust" - I'm sorry, wrong verse! Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five. Let me read this verse to you. Chapter fifty-seven, verse twenty-five, it says: "We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may stand forth in justice." Now here is the important part I want everyone to pay attention to: "and We sent down iron." It says in this verse that God sent down iron to the earth which the meaning is when people study the Qur'an that iron could not be created by the earth; rather God says "We sent down iron from the earth." That is exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be produced by earth. The earth does not possess the type of energy, nor does our solar system, and that is exactly what the Qur'an is stating. Okay, so the question I would like to raise in regards to this is how did the author of the Qur'an even know that certain elements are not from earth? What would ever make him come to that conclusion? A man one thousand four hundred years ago in the desert - if he was the author of the Qur'an, how would he have that type of information?
Okay, let me move on to the next piece of evidence. And this is going to be my last piece of evidence here, and then I am going to give a summary. Today, we all know, and I think this is not a surprise for anyone, that the moon actually moves in an orbit - a circular path, we all know that. But the scientists also tell us today that the sun also has an orbit, which many people do not know. Yes, all the planets are revolving around the sun, but the sun has an orbit in which is revolves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. So both the sun and the moon have an orbit. This is what scientists have only recently discovered.
Let me now point you to chapter twenty-one, verse thirty-three of the Qur'an. It says over there: "and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating." The Qur'an clearly states that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that word, falak, if you look in the Hans-Wehr dictionary, that word refers to a woman's chest, a round woman's chest. So it talks about that the sun and moon have a circular orbit. So this is a statement which clearly agrees with modern science. Now, someone may say "maybe the author of the Qur'an was referring to the sun and moon orbiting around the earth, like geocentricism - ah ha - that is what is [the] meaning." My response to that is, but why didn't he say that? Why did not the author of the Qur'an clearly and explicitly state - not according to your interpretation, but clearly state that the sun and the moon orbit around the earth? It does not state that. Anyway, so you would say "well, that is a coincidence, just an amazing coincidence that the author did not state that."
Okay, but let me show you how that coincidence keeps happening in the Qur'an. Look at this verse over here, it says, inside chapter thirty-nine, verse five, "He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night." Now, it is a little bit hard to visualize this, I understand. That word "coils," basically, you could think of it as "donut"[?] - he "donuts"[?] the night upon the day and the day upon the night. Again we are seeing that there is this roundness about the night and the day, you see? And basically the point over here you can see that anyone who walks away from this verse, they are going to come up with a conclusion: "hey, you know what? there is something very circular about the earth." That is okay - that is not the point I am trying to make.
My point here, is why didn't he say that the sun revolves around the earth, or the sun and the moon revolve around the earth, or something like that? Someone will say "well, that is another coincidence that he did not mention geocentricism." And you will find that there are like six to seven verses in which the author of the Qur'an was talking about the sun and the moon and its revolutions, but yet it never stated that they revolve around the earth. That is all coincidence I suppose? Anyway, my point is that this verse clearly agrees with modern science. The Qur'an says that the sun and the moon have an orbit - full stop, do not add anything more to that - and that is exactly what we know about science today. The sun and moon have an orbit.
Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in tonight's debate. Number one, I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is the female bee which leaves the house. Number two, I talked about a city named Iram, which no one has heard [of] until 1978, and this city was mentioned in the Qur'an and archeologists dug up the city. I'm sorry, the archeologists dug up a city named Ebla, and they found out that a city named Iram did exist. Number three, barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the Qur'an. Number four, barriers between salt and fresh water. Number five, that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness after, of course, one thousand meters. Number six, the Qur'an clearly pointed [to] the lowest point on earth by using a word adnaa 'l-ard, which one of the meanings is "lowest point." Number seven, the Qur'an clearly stated that iron did not come from earth, rather God said "we sent down iron," meaning it came from some external source, which is exactly what scientists today tell us. And number eight, the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us.
So, okay, I am all done over here. I would like to invite Denis Giron to come and take the microphone, and then I will summarize my conclusion on this evidence in my next thirty minutes. Thank you.
Denis Giron's Opening Statement (Time 32:30)
It is okay for me to just grab the mic, so I am taking it now. I would like to say thank you to Nadir for the introduction. Before I begin, Nadir mentioned the debate we had over usenet - via a text debate over the last roughly nine months. I am going to give the URL that has the entire debate over the nine months. If you could see it there, it is "joes.com" - J, O, E, S dot com - slash, "home," slash, and then our last two names: "Ahmed," for Nadir, and "Giron" for me - G, I, R, O, N [http://www.joes.com/home/ahmedgiron]. So that is actually where you can find all the text.
To begin, I actually should lay down exactly what my debate is - the points that I am going to be bringing up - since Nadir talked about the fallacies that are committed by Atheists and, I guess, other non-Muslims who try and dispute the scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an. So, to begin, first off, I would like to give an analogy. This analogy will help express what my approach here is. My approach here is not against the Qur'an; it is specifically against Nadir's argument.
So, suppose you are sitting somewhere in a mall, or on campus or somewhere, and you hear a Muslim and a non-Muslim having a debate. And the Muslim says "the Qur'an is the word of God," or the word of Allah, and the non-Muslim says "well, what is your proof? How do you know the Qur'an is the word of Allah?" And the Muslim says "the Qur'an is the word of Allah because my father says so." Now, do not get me wrong, do not think that I am trying to say that Nadir's argument is as poor as this - I'm not, I am just using this as an example. So the Muslim in this hypothetical situation claims the Qur'an is the word of God because his father said so. Now of course that is a bad argument. We can all agree it is a bad argument. Now here is the question. The fact that it is a bad argument, the fact that the Muslim failed in this hypothetical situation to prove that the Qur'an is the word of God, does not mean that it is not the word of God, and this is important.
The reason I am brining this up is because I am not going to claim that the Qur'an is not the word of God in this debate. I am not going to try and prove that it is not the word of God. My position is that, in my opinion, Nadir's argument was insufficient for proving that the Qur'an is the word of God, but of course this does not mean that it is not. I could very well be the word of God, and Nadir just did not prove it. Now maybe I am wrong about whether or not he proved it, but I am going to explain why I think he did not prove it. But that is just a point that I am trying to make: that my approach is not to discredit the Qur'an, but rather just to explain why I feel that this particular form of apologia does not prove that the Qur'an is the word of God. And if I today sincerely recited shahaada and became a Muslim, my position on this issue would not change. So I could argue this position from an Atheist standpoint or from a Muslim standpoint.
Okay, now, to begin with Nadir's argument, he got into the issue of the fallacies that are committed by Atheists. And the first one he said was one of multiple interpretation - where we can just create another interpretation. That is actually not an argument that I am going to raise, but I am going to raise something mildly similar. The issue that I am going to bring up is that I am going to ask the question "is it possible for a man, for a mere mortal, to say the things that are said in the verse that we are considering?" This could be with any verse, like for example let's talk about the opening few verses of the Qur'an. You all know them: bismillaahi 'r-Rahmani 'r-Raheem alhamdulillahi rabbi al-'alameen... I apologize for saying it so flippantly, but you know the verses.
The question is, is it possible for a human being to say those verses? I think it is very possible for a human being to say those verses- say those words. Does that mean they are not from God? No. I am just saying that the fact that it is possible for a human being to say such things means that we do not necessarily have to assume that the verse, in itself, is evidence of a divine origin for the Qur'an. So that is going to be my question that I am going ask each time with the eight pieces of evidence that Nadir has brought up. The question is: is it possible that a human being may have said these things, or could have said these things?
The second fallacy that Nadir brough up was the issue of if it pre-existed in science, and certainly certain things that are mentioned in the Qur'an have been mentioned by other people. Now the question that Nadir brought up is: well, why should we assume that the Qur'an plagiarized from these sources? I am actually going to say no, I have no proof that the Qur'an plagiarized from any source. That is not anything that I am seeking to prove tonight. I am not going to make any claims of plagiarism tonight. What I am going to say tonight is that, for example, if the Qur'an makes a claim - a scientific claim - and a previous source made the same claim, it is reasonable to believe that it is possible for a human being to utter such things, especially if a previous source said it. So for example, if Aristotle said something about embryology or about the cosmos, him saying that is in itself proof that it is possible for a man to say such things. So, for example, let us use the issue of bees. Aristotle actually did not believe that worker bees were female. But, nonetheless, let us assume that he did for a second. If the Qur'an says worker bees are female, and Aristotle said worker bees are female, it would mean that it is possible for a human being to reach this conclusion. Therefore, we do not have to conclude that the Qur'an saying such is proof in itself that it is the word of God. Nonetheless, even if it is not something that no one knew at the time, or if it is something that a human could say, that does not mean it is not the word God. It is possible that the Qur'an is the word of God nonetheless, even if a human could have said it.
So, with that I would like to get into the eight pieces of evidence. I hope that was clear. I hope I did not run through it too fast. I am going to get to the eight pieces of evidence that Nadir went through, and if I am correct they were the issue of the bee, the issue of the city of Iram, the issue of the oceans - which he broke down into three different sections, the issue of the near land in Soorat ar-Room, and then the issue of iron, and finally the issue of the heavenly bodies. I think I can run through these relatively quick so that I do not have to waste anybody's time.
First, with the issue of the bee, what Aristotle actually said was that others... Now he came to dispute - excuse me - he tried to dispute the belief that bees were females and drones male. And the issue, however, is that he started out by saying: it is asserted by others that bees - worker bees - that these bees are female and drones are male. This is what he said. He said also that they copulated. "It is asserted by others that these insects copulate, and that the bees are female and the drones male." So Aristotle starts out by saying that this is asserted by others. This was said before he wrote his book and then he gave his reasons for why he disagrees. Now, of course, as history bares out, Aristotle was wrong. But nonetheless, he was debating with somebody - maybe someone who was not alive anymore at his time, but nonetheless he was debating with somebody who claimed that the worker bees were female and the drones were male. So this was said before the Qur'an was written - the issue of the gender of worker bees. So that in itself proves that it is possible for a mere human being to argue such.
Actually, I would like to also bring another piece of evidence with regard to this, which is a lot more clear on this issue. And this is actually from the Talmud, from tractate Bava Bratra, which is a tractate in the Babylonian Talmud - it is section 18a. There is a verse where there is a debate about plants and bees - if one man owns bees and another man owns plants - and at one point one of the people in the debate says to another one - this is in the Talmud - I will give you the Hebrew and the Aramaic first. He says: charcheq d'vorakh min chardla'ee, which means "distance your bees from my mustard plant". Now the word that he used for "your bees" is d'vorakh, and it is from the Hebrew word for bee and the Aramaic word - well actually Aramaic has two words for bee, but this particular word for bee is feminine. So starting right away they are saying keep your bees away from my mustard plants, but he is using a feminine word for bee. So already bee is in the female. And then he explains why he wants the bees to be kept away from his plant, and he says: she-ba'ot v'okhlot lighlooghei chardla'ee - which means "they are coming and eating the flowers," or "coming and gnawing on the flowers of my mustard plant."
Now here is where it gets even more interesting. The first part, "they are coming," is she-ba'ot - ba'ot is actually conjugated in the female plural. "They are coming". And this is an interesting point about Hebrew grammar: "they are coming," being plural femine is interesting because it is stating - well let me explain something about Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew grammar, if you have a group that is plural - let us say you have all boys - if you have all boys you refer to them in the masculine plural. If you have a mixed group of boys and girls, males and females, you refer to them, again, as masculine plural. So that means that if you have one hundred women and one man, and you want to say something that the group is doing, like let us say you want to say they are writing - that the group is writing - if a hundred girls and one man, you will say kotevim. So even if the males are out numbered a million to one, nonetheless you treat mixed groups as masculine plural. The only time you use feminine plural, which is used here in the Talmud, is if the entire group is feminine - there is not a single male in the bunch. And again, in this verse in the Talmud it says: she-ba'ot - masculine feminine, they come - v'okhlot - again, mascu... I'm sorry(!), feminine-plural. I apologize, feminine plural, she-ba'ot, "they come," and then v'okhlot, again feminine plural, "they gnaw on" or "they eat," and then it goes on to say "my flowers". So what this verse is saying in the Talmud, which was written before the Qur'an - it predates the Qur'an, it is essentially saying that it takes it for granted that the bees that come to the flowers are all female. Now I have given two points: One, before Aristotle, someone said that the bees are female and the drones are male. Also, in the Talmud, it essentially treats bees, in this particular tractate - there's another tractate that does it differently, but in this particular tractate it takes it for granted that bees - the ones that comes to the flowers and gnaw on the flowers - are feminine.
I hope everyone can hear me. Can everyone hear me? Okay, I'm sorry.
So, now the question is, am I arguing that the Qur'an has plagiarized either Aristotle or the Talmud? No. I have no reason to believe that the author of the Qur'an had any direct reference to either Aristotle or the Talmud. Maybe they did, and even if they did, that still does not mean that they plagiarized from that source. All I am saying is because the Talmud and Aristotle both hinted at the fact that before the Qur'an knew that bees were female shows that it is possible for a human being to say such things. And that is all that I am arguing. If it is possible, then the verse in the Qur'an that treats bees as females is not a proof in itself that it is the word of God. That does not mean that it is not the word of God. I am just saying that this piece of evidence does not suffice as proof that it is the word of God.
I hope that is clear, because now I am going to move on to the next piece of evidence that Nadir brought up, which was Iram. And he actually gave roughly what my argument against Iram is - is it so surprising that an Arab would know about an Arabian city? Because it is assumed now, and actually Nova on PBS since the find on the seventies did a special on how there has been a dig in the Arabian peninsula at what they think was Iram, and they found the pillars and all this... That is not exactly my argument. My argument is roughly: first, is it possible for a human being, living on the Arabian peninsula to have some familiarity with a city that used to be in the Arabian peninsula? And I think the answer is absolutely yes, it is possible. So being that it is possible, that in itself says that the verse is not itself proof that it is the word of God. Second, these Ebla tablets that mention Iram also mention cities like Sodom and Gamorrah, which are mentioned in the Bible. I do not think it suffices as proof that the Bible is the word of God. It think it is just a fact that a Semitic text - excuse me, a text written in a Semitic language mentions a city mentioned - or in the case of the Bible, cities mentioned in a Semitic language. I do not think we find any other reference before the Ebla tablets - maybe I am wrong - but I do not know of any evidence before the Ebla tablets of Sodom and Gamorrah - that is written before Genesis of course; that predates Genesis - of course there are sources afterwards. So that in itself is the point: it is possible for a man living on the Arabian peninsula that was previously on the... I am sorry, I hope I did not get cut off there - someone sent me a private message. Anyway, that is why I do not agree with Iram. I am sure Nadir will have a rebuttal.
Now regarding the issue of water, which was actually Nadir's third, fourth, and fifth pieces of evidence. He actually gave the link to the Islamic Center of Peoria site [http://www.islamiccenterofpeoria.org/miracles.html] which I actually recommend people go to, because the question is the barrier, what is this barrier a reference to? The site that Nadir actually invited people to go to claims it is a reference to a phenomenon known as the pycnocline, and this is a phenomenon that you can read about in oceanographic texts - texts on oceanography. The pycnocline is a situation where if you have two bodies of water that are meeting, and they are of different temperatures or of different salinities, i.e. different amounts of salt in the water, there will be differences in density. The water that is more dense, due to either temperature, salinity, or both, will sink and the water that is less dense will rise.
First of all, Aristotle, and Nadir mentioned Aristotle of course who has made a number of errors, did show some rough familiarity with this subject. In his second book on Meteorologika, or meteorology, said the following - he said: "now the sun, moving as it does, sets up..." actually, before I read this quote I want to say that I am specifically only reading the accurate part of Aristotle - of course this is, as Nadir put it, "in a sea of errors". He said: "now the sun, moving as it does, sets up a process of change, and becoming and decay, and by its agency the finest and sweetest is every day carried up and is dissolved into vapor and rises to the upper region, where it is condensed again by the cold and so returns to the earth. The drinkable sweet water then is light and all of it is drawn up to the top. The salt water is heavy and remains behind."
He actually said this in the context of a sweet water river flowing into a salty sea. Now the question is, if you have a salty sea, and Aristotle gets into this, if you have a salty sea and fresh water is constantly flowing into it, why does it remain salty? Don't you think that if there is a constant amount of fresh water flowing in, that it would no longer remain salty, because eventually the fresh water would overrun it? Aristotle explained that what happens is the water that is less salty floats to the top and is the first to evaporate. The water that is more salty sinks to the bottom and does not evaporate. Therefore you can have a constant flow of fresh water into a salty sea, but this fresh water goes up towards the top, is the first to evaporate, and this process helps salt water remain salty.
So that in itself - this shows that Aristotle had a very loose familiarity with the phenomenon of the pycnocline. Now the site that Nadir invited us to see claims that when the Qur'an speaks of this barrier between seas as well as between salt a fresh water, it is a reference to the phenomenon of the pycnocline. So what I'm saying is that if the Qur'an is actually making a reference to the pycnocline, Aristotle too made a reference to the pycnocline - the phenomenon of the pycnocline. The fact that Aristotle made a reference to this shows that it is at least possible for a human being to have some knowledge of the pycnocline. If it is possible, then the verses of the Qur'an in and of themselves are not proof that they are from a divine origin. Of course they could be the word of God - again I'm not seeking to prove that they are not - I am just saying that Nadir has not proven it just by citing these verses, or at least not in my opinion - no offense.
Now the issue that came up was what kind of barrier, and Nadir mentioned that some people ask this question, and he insinuated that the question is insignificant, and pointed out, however, that the Qur'an does not say what kind of barrier it is. I would disagree. I think in Soorat ar-Rahman, when it talks about between the two seas, it says that the water cannot transgress. This actually is not the case with the pycnocline, nor is it the case with even the image is given in the Islamic Center of Peoria site, which Nadir invited us to see. Actually the water can transgress, and there is some mixing. If you read texts on the pycnocline and oceanography, it is somewhat of a leaky barrier. The other verse that Nadir called to witness was Soorat al-Furqaan - al-Furqaan - I'm sorry, I'm choking here, I need to get a glass of water - it essentially says that the barrier is inviolable, that it cannot be transgressed, it cannot be passed. And again, this is not the case with the pycnocline. Am I claiming that the Qur'an is in error? No. Actually I will not be making any claims of that sort today, and I will explain why right before I close. What I am saying is that the phenomenon of the pycnocline does allow some mixing; it does allow some transgression. The verses of the Qur'an that Nadir called to witness state that there is no transgression of the water, there is no passing, that the barrier is inviolable, that it cannot be violated, it cannot be passed. So for these reasons I think it is reasonable to say that (a) the Qur'an is not necessarily referring to the phenomenon of the pycnocline; (b) if it is, Aristotle himself made reference to this, in a very minor way. So for these reasons I think that the issue of the barrier between salt water, between two seas, is not necessarily a proof in itself of the Qur'an being the word of God.
Now his fifth piece of evidence was the issue of the bottom of a dark sea. Actually a number of texts, pre-Islamic texts, mention dark seas. This is in Soorat an-Noor and it mentions a dark sea; it does not necessarily say at a thousand feet, which is something that Nadir said [is from] science, but you might get the impression that he was saying that the Qur'an gives that depth. It actually does not say anything about depth whatsoever. What the Qur'an says is simply that, imagine yourself in a dark sea, with clouds overhead, layers upon layers of darkness. There is no light, you could put your hand in front of your face, and of course this is supposed to be, as he said, the analogy for what it is like to be a disbeliever. And it goes on to say that for those who Allaah does not provide light, there is no light, and so too for those who Allaah does not guide there is no guidance is the analogy.
Now the question, first off, is: is this something that no human being at the time could have known? I think the answer is no. I think it is quite possible. For example, I used to go to Brighton Beach in New York City all the time, and by the time I was four years old I knew that the deeper the water was at the beach, the less visible my feet were. A number of pre-Islamic texts make vague reference to dark seas, including Homer's Iliad. The lesson that water, that at certain depths you cannot sea through water, if that is what the Qur'an is referring to, is not something that no human being could know. In Aristotle's book, Sense and Sensibilia, he made a number of errors, of course, but, he at one point called water translucent and talked about how water can distort an image, like if an artist is trying to depict what an image looks like under water. Already, by him calling it (a) translucent, and (b) he compared something under water to being like something in a haze, he is already conceding to the fact, or demonstrating that he knows what even I knew at four years old: that water distorts light. By him calling it translucent, he is automatically saying that water distorts light. So that in itself is an admission that the deeper you are in the water, the less light there is. I do not think the verse, in itself, is proof of a divine origin. I think it is very possible for a man to almost take it for granted that in a deep sea it can be dark, or even if you are on top of a deep sea with clouds overhead, layers upon layers of darkness and large waves, that also that can be complete darkness, and I am sure many sailors have experience that. So for his fifth piece of evidence, I am not convinced that it ius proof that the Qur'an is the word of God.
His sixth piece of evidence was from Soorat ar-Room, which talks about the near land. He noted that it can also be translated the lowest land and asked if this is a coincidence. He pointed out that Jerusalem is actually the lowest point on earth. Of course, the Qur'an itself gives us no indication that it means this in the sense of depth - excuse me - altitude with regards to sea level. The fact that all the translations I have consulted translated [it] "near land" shows that it is possible to understand that it is saying the near land. So now the question again comes up, is it possible for a human being to have uttered this statement? I think it is. I think it is very possible for a human being to refer to a near land as "the near land". That in itself shows that it is possible - if it is possible that a human to have uttered this, then the verse is not in itself proof that it is of a divine origin.
Okay, moving quickly to his seventh piece of evidence, it was with regard to iron in Soorat al-Hadeed. And in this verse what it says is, it does say that iron is sent down, but the word it uses for "we sent down" is anzalnaa. It is from the nun-zain-lam root, which of course means to descend, or in the way that it is being used [here], to cause to descend. Now, also note that elsewhere in the Qur'an this verbal root is used in many places in the Qur'an. I am only going to give a couple. For example, in Soorat al-Baqara, that is the second chapter of the Qur'an, the 176th verse, it talks about sending down the book, and again, the exact same word is used, or the exact same verb is used, from the nun-zain-lam root. And they talk about sending downt the book and the book is a reference to the Qur'an. Now does this mean that the Qur'an actually fell out of the sky in the form of a book? No. It is according to Islamic tradition, quite the contrary - it was sent down by an angel not in book form, but through revelations and stuff like that. A better example might be in Soorat al-Araf, the seventh chapter of the Qur'an, the 26th verse, talks about sending down clothing to Adam and Eve. Was clothing literally dropped out of the sky? I do not think that is what it is saying.
Nadir mentioned Hans Wehr's dictionary, if you look up the nun-zain-lam root, we will call it the NZL root, if you look up this root, it can also mean in a general sense something that was given of God. So what Soorat al-Hadeed, the relevant verse that Nadir brought up is saying, is look at iron, God sent down iron or God gave us iron, and it has great strength and it has many uses. Now I do not think this is necessarily something that no human being could have uttered. Actually, a very pious monotheist man, and I am assuming that if - I am not claiming that the Qur'an was written by a man, but if it was written by a man, it was clearly, based on the way it is written, the way it reads, it was clearly written by a very pious monotheist man, or men, plural. Whoever wrote the Qur'an was someone very dedicated [to God], if it was not written by God. Is it possible for a person who is passionate about his monotheism to believe that God gave us iron and that it has great strength and many uses? Yes, it is absolutely possible, and as I have pointed out with the two verses, the verb does not necessarily have to mean literally sending down. It can also mean it just in a figurative sense. For example, if you look at Arabic translations of the Bible, Arabic translations of Luke 1:52, when it talks about God causing the mighty to fall from their thrones, the word used is nazala, again from the same root. Now I do not think this means he literally caused them to fall out of their thrones. It is being used in a figurative sense, that being brought down.
Nonetheless, what the issue here is, is that iron, as Nadir pointed out, cannot be produced on earth. What this has to do with is a process - I am not actually very familiar with metalurgy and this sort of thing - but has to do with nucleosynthesis and the binding energy of given elements. It turns out that the binding energy of certain elements is so high that it cannot be produced on earth. It has to be produced on a star, the sun or for most elements, stars outside of our solar system. Our earth can only produce helium. So what is the case with iron is actually the case with every element, with the exception of helium: it had to have come down from off the earth. Is it possible that a human being who does not know this could say something that could be correlated with that fact? Yes.
The issue of binding energy has only come up recently. Nonetheless, in the 19th century, actually the very end of the first half of the 1800s, around 1850, Walt Whitman wrote a poem called "Song of Myself." In that poem he said "I believe the leaf of grass is no less than the journey work of the stars." I will repeat that again: "I believe the leaf of grass is no less than the journey work of the stars." That statement actually is true, because every element you will find in a leaf, especially a leaf of grass and just about anything else on this earth, every single element of it came from some star. It was not produced on earth. The binding energy of all those elements is increasingly high. Now, did Walt Whitman know about binding energy? No. Did he say a statement that could be correlated with that aspect of science? Yes. So the question is, is it possible for a person to say something that can be correlated with science? I think the answer is yes. Does the fact that we can later correlate a statement with science mean that the author originally intended it to be a reference to that? No. And that is what we have to keep in mind here. I think that with what I have talked about here, it is possible for someone, particularly someone very pious, to say what was said in Soorat al-Hadeed.
Finally, the very last issue is uhh... I'm sorry, I actually forgot... oh wait, it was falak, it was the orbits - I apologize for losing my train of thought there. The final piece of evidence that Nadir brought up was the issue of orbits. And he points out that there is a verse that the [sun] and the moon each have an orbit. Now he pointed out that it does not say that they orbit around the earth. I agree a hundred percent. Of course it does not say that they do not specifically. What the issue is here is falak means circular, so what it is saying - he pulled it out of the verse in Soorat al-Anbiyya, the twenty-first Soora - what the verse is saying is simply that the earth and the moon have an orbit. It does not give us any more on that. Did people before the Qur'an believe that the sun and the moon followed each their own orbit? Yes. Ptolemy believed this, Artistotle believe this - a number of people believed this.
Of course what they believed, for example Ptolemy believed they went around the earth or around some other ball of fire, at the center of the universe or something like that. Nonetheless a number of people prior to the Qur'an believed that the sun and the moon each had an orbit. And that is all the Qur'an says. Did people believe that before the Qur'an? Yes. Am I claiming that the Qur'an plagiarized this from them? Absolutely not. But I am saying that the simple statement the sun and the moon each have an orbit, assuming that is what the Qur'an is saying, has been uttered by people before the Qur'an. People who were not divinely inspired, or at least I do not believe someone like Ptolemy was divinely inspired - I could be wrong. So that statement, is it possible, that is the question I keep having to ask, is it possible that a human being could have uttered this statement? Yes, it is absolutely possible. Therefore, I think, we can conclude this verses does not necessarily, in itself, serve as proof that the Qur'an is the word of God.
So I have covered his eight pieces of evidence, and now I just want to get to one last point. Nadir asked the question, how is it that if the Qur'an was copying from people, and of course I am not claiming that it was copying from anybody, that it could get all the things right from the sea of error, pulled out all the right things, but did not pull any of the errors. I think this is an unfortunate question, or, excuse me, an unfair question, because I actually vowed not to make any claims about the Qur'an being in error, nor am I going to make any claims about the Qur'an being in error in any part. The reason is because I do not really believe that in a religious text you can have errors.
A fine example of this is the Bible. If you look at Genesis, the way a literal reading of Genesis compares with what scientists believe about the origins of the universe seems strikingly different. So differenly, in fact, that a number of people have sided with science, and have lost their faith and abandoned Christianity, and on the other side there have been a number of fundamentalist Christians who have actually tried to deny what science claims about the Big Bang, et cetera. So, is the book of Genesis in error if science is true? No, not necessarily. Why? Because a number of physicists in Israel, Nathan Aviezer comes to mind and there are a couple others - if people email me, I will give my email before I close, or you can go to the web site that I mentioned - if people contact me I can give the exact citations. There are a number of physicists in Israel who have managed to come up with interpretations that make Genesis in harmony with science. And I'm sure you could do that with a number of other books, especially books written in Semitic languages.
So in order for a text, like the Qur'an or even the Bible, to be in error, it boils down to a matter of interpretation. No text is alive without the reader. So if I were to say the Qur'an is in error, or the Qur'an contradicts science, what I would really be saying is my interpretation of this verse from the Qur'an conflicts with science, and then all you have to do is give a different interpretation. So therefore I do not believe there are any errors in a religious text because a religious text is only alive in the mind of the reader who is reading it. The errors are only in your interpretation. Claiming there are errors in the Qur'an or the Bible tells you more about the person than it does about the text. So I think it is an unfair point to ask how did the Qur'an manage to do this without having any errors. I am already presupposing that it has no errors and I am presupposing similar things about other texts. So I will not be responding to that question tonight and I hope that does not upset Nadir, but that is actually my position. I do not think it can be proven that there are errors in a religious text, nor will I try.
With that I am going to close. I hope that I was not too incoherent here. But I am going to give up the mic and I hope it was clear and I apologize if anyone was offended or thought that was too rude or too quick. Nonetheless, I look forward to Nadir's rebuttal. Thank you very much.
