Iran Military Forum

I came across a debate about science in the Quran here:
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17851&PN=3

I posted a response, but many hours later, the site's administrator's still had not approved it.

I thought it would be a shame if no one saw it after the work I put into it. I also figured that the feedback from the members here would be as helpful as usual.

It will be easy to understand the debate from the context of the post.

Here it is:

---

Ron Webb stated, “"Any description of reproduction that claims we are formed from sperm, without even mentioning the ovum, is just plain wrong;"

First, the error is not in the Quran, but rather the error is in Ron Webb’s reasoning.

It is illogical for Ron Webb to assume that mentioning the sperm but not the ovum is “just plain wrong.”

Here is an analogy to clarify why Ron’s assumption is illogical.

If a person states that a car uses gasoline to run, is that person wrong for not having mentioned the oxygen with which to mix with the vaporized gasoline, compressed, and then ignited?

In the context of a discussion on why a car could not run on the moon, a person may say that a car uses oxygen to run. That person is not wrong for not having mentioned gasoline because he was not claiming to give a full description on how cars run. He was talking about the part that was important for the context of his discussion.

Likewise, a discussion on the importance of fossil fuels could mention gasoline and not oxygen.
Neither description mentioned the electricity which comes from the battery acid and alternator that a car needs to run.
A discussion on how an electromagnetic pulse could knock out automobiles because cars use electricity to run would not need to mention gasoline or oxygen.

In the context of the Quran where it is admonishing humanity to be humble, mentioning the origins from sperm is sufficient to make that point.

So, again, the error is not in the Quran, but in the argument of the unbeliever.

Second, the Quran does refer to the ovum.

Looking at the Muhammad Assad translation:

Quran 76,2
Verily, it is we who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled, so that We might try him . . . .

In the notes for that verse, Assad writes, "with the female ovum": cf. 86: 6-7

And then when we read 86-7, we find:

Quran: 86, 6-7
...he has been created out of a seminal fluid issuing from between the loins [of man] and the pelvic arch [of woman]

Then when we read Assad's description of 86, 6-7 we find:

The plural noun tara'ib, rendered by me as "pelvic arch", has also the meaning of "ribs" or "arch of bones"; according to most of the authorities who have specialized in the etymology of rare Qura'anic expressions, this term relates specifically to female anatomy (Taj al-`Arus).

So, while the Quran does not state the word "ovum," it does state that the sperm is combined with something that comes from the abdomen of a woman.

As for living things being made from water being obvious because of the fluids in the bodies of living things, blood accounts for only about 7 to 8 % of human body weight. Other liquids account for even less. So, no, it was not obvious at the time of the writing of the Quran that humans are mostly made of water.

“Blood accounts for 8% of the human body weight,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood

What I find interesting about this thread is how hard the unbelievers will work to try to convince themselves that the miracles of the Quran are not such, and what disingenuous arguments they will construct towards that end.

I will address their other fallacies time permitting, God willing.

Ich: the problem with your stance is the fact that the Quran is literally God´s words for the believers, perfect book back then, now and in the future thus... Your stance corresponds with the Christian doctrine about the Bible ( = book written by men with divine inspiration).

Ich: the problem with your stance is the fact that the Quran is literally God´s words for the believers, perfect book back then, now and in the future thus... Your stance corresponds with the Christian doctrine about the Bible ( = book written by men with divine inspiration).

The general consensus is that the Quran is the refinement of the bible (old testiment) by God because he thought it had gotten corrupted. So going by this logic then even the bible was the word of God instead of humans being the author of it.

@ mustavaris:
...the Christian doctrine about the Bible ( = book written by men with divine inspiration).

@ Bhārata
...The general consensus is that the Quran is the refinement of the bible...

From the point of view of many Christians, the Bible is the writing of men inspired by God.
From the point of view of many Muslims, the Bible is the word of God corrupted by men.

---

@ mustavaris

Actually, Ich's statement could mean both humans writing with divine inspiration, and it could mean God choosing the words so that humans of all ages could understand it.

He said, "...that in Quran the words had to be choosen in a way which commen people could imagine...."

That could mean both that God gave the knowledge to humans so that they could choose the wording, AND, it can also mean that God chose the wording.

In either case, Ich acknowledges knowledge that was unknown at that time but which would be known in the future (" . . . and the pelvic arch, which will also be known by all . . . .")

He disagrees with my opinion that Ron Webb's argument is illogical. That's fine. No problem. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say. I respect his disagreement.
Then, he then acknowledges that the Quran contained knowledge which would be known by all in the future (" . . . which will also be known . . . .").
Finally, he contributes more to the discussion by mentioning the age in which the Quran was written and that it had to make sense to people then also.

Babak: Ich stated "Mh, as i stated bevor, dont forget the ages in which the Quran was written." When dealing with universal and perfect book that is irrelevant. When we approach the Bible like the mainstream Christian doctrine tells; we take the alleged time of writing into account when the message is being interpreted.

Yes... And from Muslim point of view Quran is 1:1 God´s words, albeit not written by Him.

It depends on whom you ask...but the canonization was made by Uthman while the compilation & writing down the oral tradition occured earlier. According to Muslim view, everything came via Muhammed but he never wrote it down.

@ mustavaris:
Babak: Ich stated "Mh, as i stated bevor, dont forget the ages in which the Quran was written."

Oh. I see what you’re saying now.
You and I interpreted the word “written” differently.
I thought of “written” and “created” as two different things.
I interpreted his statement as, at the time of creation, God took into consideration (didn’t forget) the age when it would be revealed and then written down by Muhammad’s followers.
As you said, “…not written by Him.”
But I see what you’re saying.

---

@ Ich
So who wrote the Quran? And how could he understood god's words?

What we Muslims believe is that God created the Quran, then revealed it to Muhammad.
We believe that there were two means of revelation.
1. The angel Gabriel was sent to deliver some of the verses.
2. God revealed it directly to Muhammad’s ears.

Sometimes when Muhammad was receiving a revelation, some of his followers and companions would place their ear next to Muhammad’s ears and they heard a ringing sound.
Once when Muhammad was riding a camel and he began to receive a revelation, he became so heavy that the camel collapsed from the weight.

After the revelation was over, Muhammad would recite what he heard to his companions and they would write it on leather or whatever else they had, and they would memorize it (since it has a rhyme and rhythm and meter that is easy to memorize).
They would read and / or recite it back to him so that he could make sure that they got it right. Muhammad himself did not know how to write.

What I believe (not what most Muslims believe) is that at the time of revelation, God was changing the neurons in Muhammad’s brain to match what would have been changed if Muhammad had spent the time to memorize it.

When Muhammad was alive, some of his companions memorized the entire Quran (as many children today do so) and some people had the whole written form (like Muhammad’s cousin, Ali ibn Abu Talib).

After Muhammad died, the second or third Caliph (chief leader of the Muslims) was worried that future generations would criticize that there was no formal state approved official Quran to make sure that the Quran was exactly as it had been revealed.
So, he commissioned an official Quran by those who had memorized it and gathered it, and had most of the others destroyed.

---

@ mustavaris:
…from Muslim point of view Quran is 1:1 God´s words…

Yes, but when I present the Quran to others, I do not begin with that premise.
I don’t assume the conclusion to be true in order to prove the conclusion.
That would be circular reasoning.
I use premises to try to prove that conclusion. I try not to use that conclusion as part of the argument to prove the conclusion.

For example, I don’t say that a certain verse must be an accurate reflection of science because it was written by God.
Rather, I say, this verse . . . (insert argument) . . . therefore it must have been created by God.

For example, I might say, the Quran contains descriptions of nature that science only described later, and the Quran makes no error. This evidence (among others) shows that the Quran is from God.

---

@ the8march:
“ . . . Who came first? Quran or Human? . . . “

You’re asking about before and after, which implies time.

I'm making a big deal about this because I recently heard athiests argue that there could be no God to create the Big Bang since the Big Bang caused time, and so there was no time for God to exist within.

Actually, the proper concept of God is that God is not bound by time, but rather that time is bound by God, so that argument of the atheists falls apart.
Besides, if there was no time in existence for God to create the big bang, then there was also no time in existence for the infinitesimally small universe to exist to have a big bang.

So, how does that relate to your question of which came first, the human or the Quran?

To understand what I am about to say, remember that at a black hole, time stops. There is no time.
Likewise, “before” the big bang, our universe was infinitesimally small, and did not yet have time or space
I put the word “before” in quotes because there really could not be a “before” as time did not exist.
Based on the effort and time of my thinking and calculation, it happened in this order:

0. God,
0. God has the idea of the universe, of free will, of humanity, and the words of the Quran.
1. God creates the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of cause and effect (causality), before and after, etc.
2. God creates the Big Bang which is the beginning of time-space and energy.
3. Humans are formed.
4. The Quran is revealed.
5. The Apocalypse occurs.
6. Time ends.
0 to infinity. God

The Quran says that God says “Be” and it is.
God does not create through causality, and that is why God could create cause and effect “when” there was no cause and effect (in the material sense of causality).

For humans like me and you, there is a steady progression through time. For example, there is 5:01 AM, then there is 5:02 AM, and so on.

Since the Quran teaches that God is unlimited and infinite, then God is not bound by time or space. Time is bound by God.
That means that God does not have to wait for 5:01 before he can reach 5:02 like us humans have to wait.
For God, 5:01 and 5:02 occur within God’s realm. He exists at both times (all times) simultaneously.

So, back to the question:
“What came first, the Quran, or humans?”

The Quran existed before time.
So, the Quran existed before humans, but the Quran also existed “before” there was a “before and after.”
That is because the “before” of the Quran’s existence is different than the “before” which we understand in our universe.