@Ameershahul29
Why did you post the same video (with a different thumbnail) in #54 and #60? Nonsense said twice is still nonsense.
This preacher teaches those already convinced, how to disingenuously speak to a nonbeliever. Why do I accuse him of teaching to argue in a disingenuous manner?
It is clear from what he says: His proposed tactic is claiming that the holy Qur'an predicted something, which only recently has been discovered to be true by science. And when the nonbeliever tries to argue with you, I quote: "[...] don't argue with them".
This sentence is ubiquitous throughout his whole sermon: "Maybe somebody had a wild guess, don't argue with them. [...] He will hesitate, but may say: 'Maybe some intelligent person wrote it.', don't argue with him. [...] He will hesitate, don't wait for response, continue! Keep on posing question after question!" I.e. heavens forbid, don't examine anything more closely than on the most superficial level, you are trying to preach what you already believe to be true here, not to honestly strive for whatever might be true together! It continues:
"More [questions to ask nonbelievers] I give in the lecture." Implicitly suggesting: Be sure to see my lecture, buy my book (6.50$ for a 55 page book 'The Qur'an and modern science' on Amazon for example), etc.
"Pose one after the other and ask the question:'Who could have written that?' "
But when people (for example) answer this question as follows: The ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos) pre 230 BCE (more than 840 years before the holy Qur'an was written), who proposed the first known heliocentric model of the solar system, calculated the sizes of and distances to the moon and sun (because he knew that the moon was reflecting the sun's light), then it's just " '[...] some intelligent person wrote it.', don't argue with him [the nonbeliever]". Don't think and don't let them think. Next question.
Then he goes on and speaks about probability theory. He (correctly) establishes, that when you are faced with a binary choice (and have no clue about the correct answer whatsoever) you have a 1/2 chance of picking the correct answer totally at random. Then with childlike naiveté he applies this to every "scientific" claim in the holy Qur'an and comes up with a very low probability (seemingly 10^(-50), but he doesn't show the calculation).
Apparently he has never heard of a weighted coin. Just because there are two possible outcomes (heads and tails), doesn't mean both are always equally likely. He seems to have never learnt the least bit of probability theory.
The most drastic example for this is:
He asks: "What can living creatures be made of." Then he asserts (without justification) that they could be made of about 1000 different materials and thus concludes that picking at random, one would have a 1/1000 chance of getting the right material.
This has to be the least convincing argument I've ever heard. Clearly not all materials are equally likely contenders for what living creatures are made of, if only rudimentary observations of nature are allowed. Nobody would pick at random. His list of materials includes:
Sand (clearly humans disintegrate easily?), stone (same texture as our skin, of course!), aluminium (who doesn't know the classic seventh century aluminium smiths?), gold (because obviously humans are shiny, malleable and more dense than iron), silver (because clearly humans reflect light and make metallic noises when struck) and finally water.
Who could ever guess that humans contain a lot of water or are made of mostly water? Maybe people who once saw blood? Or saw someone bleed to death. People who looked into their mouths, eyes, nostrils, etc? People who breathe into their hand and notice the small water droplets? People who sweat (and loose other bodily fluids)? People who drink water for survival etc.
Or maybe it's a miracle and humans couldn't figure out that they and the animals they knew all had something to do with water, maybe seventh century humans couldn't distinguish between water and gold.
This is why this won't convince anybody not already convinced.
This preacher sets up the false dichotomy that either the "scientific" knowledge in the holy Qur'an is divinely inspired OR it's random chance of 1 in 10^50 (which he doesn't justify). This is palpably absurd of course, not only because the probability is absolutely ludicrous as shown above, but also because there are many more possible ways to explain seeming knowledge of future scientific discoveries in the holy Qur'an.
But as we have heard: "[...] don't argue with them."
Background information on the preacher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik):
Dr. Zakir Naik (the Dr. refers either to a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery [MBBS] from the University of Mumbai or to an honorary doctorate degree [Doctor of Humane Letters] by the University of the Gambia) does NOT hold a Ph.D.
He's an islamic televangelist, preacher and (at least according to this website: https://kingfaisalprize.org/dr-zakir-a-naik-2/) "a renowned non-Arabic Islamic scholar, public orator and an acclaimed authority on comparative religion.", whatever "acclaimed authority" is supposed to mean (to my knowledge, he has no formal training in comparative religious studies).
If his qualifications were to contain anything like this (https://www.harvard.edu/programs/comparative-study-of-religion/), this characterisation would be understandable, but I haven't been able to find anything of the kind.
@IsaiahCui
1.I do not blaspheme.
2.Could you please stop pinging me for no apparent reason ? Honestly it's getting annoying.
3.Why me ? What did I ever do to you ?
@Thalassokrator
Good point
But what you dont know is that the arabs at that time were illeterate and had no knowledge
2nd. The quran has more mentioned it in and not all of them the greeks did, take the mathematical miracles and the scientific miracles in it
Now about the preacher, there is no degree for comparitive religion but there are courses
In order to be a expert or preacher in comparitive reliogion you dont need to go to some college or whatever
He may have acclaimed it after spreading the religion's word and stletting up schools and peace tv and after defeating many scholars in debate
Like i said you dont need any degree for comparisn of religions
Also you didnt even understaand the video cause i saw it for the 3rd time
Also many discoveries about the sun in the middle and moon reflecting light was only discovered in 16 century, some little things like earth is round was discovered in 300bc but the quran has all of that including whatever discovered in 16th century and 300bc just 1400 years ago
The probability of taking a wild draw that the earth was round out of 9 other options is 1/10 but the probality of taking wild draws correctly for evryhting is some thing else like having 100 things withc each have 10 options taking wild draw correctly for all is something no man could do
@IsaiahCui 's way to prove that God exists:
1. Lets imagine that Tom lives in universe X.
2. Tom imagines a universe: universe Y, identically same to universe X.
3. Tom is the God of universe X, for he created it, and he controls it.
4. Because universe Y is identically same to universe X, so if universe Y is having an internet platform called Lichess, universe X is also having it. If there's 1'280'119'762 carrots exist in universe Y, there's also 1'280'119'762 carrots exists in universe X.
5. So if universe Y is having a God(Tom), universe X is also having a God.
6. We know for sure the universe X which Tom lives in is the universe we live in. So our universe is having a God!
Disclaimer: I quote Wikipedia a lot in this post, because I'm not very well versed in Arabic history myself. I'm aware of the limitations and possible biases (Wikipedia is not an academic source.) this entails. This post isn't meant to emulate university standards of rigour (when it comes to research), but rather to present what I have learned (as a layperson) in the preceding hours and to express opinions based on that. Please notify me of any error.
@Ameershahul29 PART 1 (mostly about the history of the holy Qur'an):
First off, I agree with you that one does not necessarily need a degree in comp. religion (though it certainly helps) to be somewhat knowledgeable about the topic. I just wanted to know what (formal) qualifications Mr. Naik has, so I researched him. I put this information at the end of the post, because my argument stands with or without it. It was meant as context, not as an ad hominem.
You wrote: 'But what you dont know is that the arabs at that time were illeterate and had no knowledge'
I was surprised by this statement. Why would you call prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and the early scribes who compiled the Qur'an illiterate and say they had no knowledge of the world?
What I found out is this:
"The Quran uses the term ummi to describe Muhammad. The majority of Muslim scholars interpret this word as a reference to an illiterate individual, though some modern scholars instead interpret it as a reference to those who belong to a community without a scripture [which links: People of the book: Ahl al-Kitâb]." (Source H: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran ; note: the neutrality of the article is disputed, I suspect this is mostly due to differences in Sunni and Shia creeds?)
I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on the matter, but it appears you are correct, that Muhammad (ﷺ) might have been unable to write.
How did he manage to save his revelations for later generations then?
"After Muhammad (ﷺ) would receive revelations, he would later recite it to his Companions, who also memorised it or wrote it down. Before the Quran was commonly available in written form, speaking it from memory prevailed as the mode of teaching it to others. [...] This fact, taken in the context of 7th-century Arabia, was not an extraordinary feat. People of that time had a penchant for recited poetry and had developed their skills in memorisation to a remarkable degree. Events and competitions that featured the recitation of elaborate poetry were of great interest." (Source: ibidem)
So yes, the arabs of that time were mostly (technically) illiterate (as in, most could not write themselves), but they had a rich culture, poetry, oral traditions (as well as written ones, for those individuals who were able to write). Hardly my definition of an illiterate people, having no knowledge.
Furthermore, the prophet's (ﷺ) place of birth, Mecca, was the foremost economical centre on the entire Arabian peninsula:
"Camel caravans, said to have first been used by Muhammad's great-grandfather, were a major part of Mecca's bustling economy. [...] Historical accounts also provide some indication that goods from other continents may also have flowed through Mecca. Goods from Africa and the Far East passed through en route to Syria including spices, leather, medicine, cloth, and slaves; in return Mecca received money, weapons, cereals and wine, which in turn were distributed throughout Arabia.[citation needed] The Meccans signed treaties with both the Byzantines [!] and the Bedouins, and negotiated safe passages for caravans, giving them water and pasture rights. [...] Other regional powers such as the Abyssinians, Ghassanids, and Lakhmids were in decline leaving Meccan trade to be the primary binding force in Arabia in the late 6th century." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#Under_the_Quraish)
Muhammad (ﷺ) himself was born "[in]to the Banu Hashim clan, part of the Quraysh tribe, which was one of Mecca's prominent families, although it appears less prosperous during Muhammad's early lifetime." (Source M: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Childhood_and_early_life). After being orphaned at the age of six, he first lived under the custody of his grandfather for two years, after his grandfather also died under the custody of his uncle Abu Talib. This uncle appears (?) to be an educated man (he [later?] was responsible for the "[...] offices of Siqaya and Rifada [foods and beverages for Haji pilgrems]. He was well-respected in Mecca, despite a declining fortune. [...] Abu Talib is remembered as a gifted poet, and many poetic verses in support of Muhammad are attributed to him.", Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Talib_ibn_Abd_al-Muttalib).
"In his teens, Muhammad accompanied his uncle on Syrian trading journeys to gain experience in commercial trade. [...] It is known that he became a merchant and 'was involved in trade between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.' [...] His reputation [trustworthy, truthful] attracted a proposal in 595 from Khadijah, a successful businesswoman." (Source: M)
"When he was 40, Muhammad reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave [Hira] and receiving his first revelation from God." (Source: ibidem)
This forty year old man, an international merchant of respected descend, with (seemingly) somewhat educated relatives, does not strike me as a person who doesn't know anything about the world. This is not some 12 year old goat herding boy, who doesn't know the slightest bit. The fact that he couldn't write himself is not surprising, seeing as very few people at the time could. Oral tradition was still much more important.
Similarly the probable scribes who first put the holy Qur'an into writing were (obviously) neither illiterate nor ignorant. As is often the case in history, it seems to be contentious who really wrote down the holy Qur'an for the first time. According to source H it was either Zayd ibn Thabit or Ali ibn Abi Talib.
The former, one of the ansar, was not only the prophet's trusted personal scribe, but also a polyglot and interpreter ("Zaid had also been commanded by Muhammad to learn Hebrew and Coptic and within a fortnight he mastered both of the languages which he used to work as an interpreter of Muhammad.").
After his death ibn Abbas said about him: 'O you people! Whoever wishes to know how knowledge leaves us should know that it is like this that knowledge leaves. I swear by Allah that a great deal of knowledge has just left us today.'
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zayd_ibn_Thabit)
The latter was a cousin of Muhammad (ﷺ) and later the fourth caliph. Of him Muhammad (ﷺ) said: "I'm the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate ...". He is regarded as the founder of islamic theology. It has also (in the 13th century) been said by Ibn Abi'l-Hadid:
"As for theosophy and dealing with matters of divinity, it was not an Arab art. Nothing of the sort had been circulated among their distinguished figures or those of lower ranks. This art was the exclusive preserve of Greece, whose sages were its only expounders. The first one among Arabs to deal with it was Ali."
Furthermore he must have been very eloquent:
"Ali was also a great scholar of Arabic literature and pioneered in the field of Arabic grammar and rhetoric. Numerous short sayings of Ali have become part of general Islamic culture [...]. They have also become the basis of literary works or have been integrated into poetic verse in many languages. Already in the 8th century, literary authorities such as 'Abd al-Hamid ibn Yahya al-'Amiri pointed to the unparalleled eloquence of Ali's sermons and sayings, as did al-Jahiz in the following century. [...] The most famous selection of Ali's utterances and writings has been gathered in a book called Nahj al-Balagha (Peak of Eloquence) by a 10th-century Shia scholar, Al-Sharif al-Radi, who selected them for their singular rhetorical beauty."
(Source for all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali#Position_in_Islamic_thought)
Obviously this doesn't mean that advanced scientific concepts (from the modern era) were known to seventh century arabs (or any humans at the time for that matter). But distinguishing between water and gold? The ancients were able to do this. Frankly any child would be able to do this. Knowing that the Earth is a sphere? The ancients knew this as well. I pointed this out, because I perceive it to be a bit disingenuous, when the preacher in the video you've provided claims that people at the time could only have taken a wild guess. I'd argue that in many cases this wasn't their only option, they could have what's called an informed/intelligent guess. The preacher's argument is simply ludicrous. And he doesn't want anybody to point this out.
Likewise, when he teaches not to argue with nonbelievers, not to examine propositions together, this is particularly alarming to me. He teaches how to proselytise (from the vantage point of a preconceived idea about what is true), not how to have an informative, open discussion on what might be true. His goal is not to encourage exchange, what he suggests actually stifles the mutual search for truth. His goal is to bring nonbelievers into the faith, but please don't genuinely talk to them, let alone allow them to explain their reasoning.
In my mind he's actually doing both the believers and the nonbelievers a disservice: He hinders the believers to carefully examine their beliefs (and potentially grow from that experience) and he turns the nonbelievers away from Islam, because most people don't like being cut short, denied the possibility to answer, generally being treated like children.
PART 2 (adressing your post #64):
You also wrote: '2nd. The quran has more [miracles] mentioned it in and not all of them the greeks did, take the mathematical miracles and the scientific miracles in it'
Of course not! The ancient greeks lived hundreds of years before the day of Muhammad (ﷺ).
Look, I'm not here to discuss every single one of the 1000 verses the preacher asserted to be miracles foreshadowing future scientific discoveries with you. Nor to cast doubt upon any particular one (or if so only as an example). The simple fact is that you are (probably?) convinced by those purported miracles while nonbelievers are not.
My goal in my last post was merely to explain why nonbelievers are not convinced. And why the twisted "logic" of Zakir Naik is highly questionable.
Let's consider an example for why nonbelievers are not convinced by such miracles: The shape of the earth.
وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا
And after that He spread the earth. Surah Naziat 79:30
Of Surah Naziat I have heard it said that there is a miracle in use of the word "دَحَاهَا". It is then explained that the word is translated by early commentators of Quran as "spreading out", but in its wordings, it [allegedly] contains all the meanings for the coming generations. That is for the previous human generations this verse was giving a sense as per their time, and for us again, the verse has the capacity that it new meaning as per our modern understanding of science. In past the more appropriate meanings were [purportedly] ignored because people were not able to understand and connect those meanings with the verse. Proponents of this view then go on to suggest that "دَحَاهَا" or "daha" (apparently that's the transliteration?) actually means an ostrich's egg (although according to this document [document E], page 2: http://quransmessage.com/pdfs/Shape%20of%20the%20Earth.pdf this is utterly incorrect), so according to them the Surah should (in light of modern science, pointing to the oblate spheroid shape of the earth) be translated as:
'And the earth, moreover, has he made egg shaped.'
I find this very telling. It shows how some are willing to alter the translation of the holy Qur'an (after centuries and against the expertise of classical Arabic authorities / lexicographers!), just because they wish to mould it into a shape (how ironic) that seemingly resembles the discoveries of modern science!
They wish to see science verified in the holy Qur'an, so they manage to find (seemingly) fitting passages. It might be a kind of pareidolia of the mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia), humans are excellent at seeing patterns, even where there are none.
This is the same method people unconsciously use to come up with claims that Nostradamus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus#Popular_claims) allegedly predicted the attacks on the WTC in NY or other modern events. The man had made so many cryptic and vague predictions that it is nearly always possible to find one, which seemingly fits a modern event, if a bit of leeway is given to the exact translation or the metaphors possibly used.
The holy Qur'an "has neither the intention to be a science book nor provide scientific data that would be incomprehensible (and thus, the idea seemingly false) to its reader." (Source: document E)
You wrote in #64: 'Also you didnt even understaand the video cause i saw it for the 3rd time'
I also saw the video several times while writing my answer. Where is my misunderstanding of his words? I believe I understood him quite well, but if you could point me towards a specific error, please go ahead.
Furthermore you wrote: 'Also many discoveries about the sun in the middle and moon reflecting light was only discovered in 16 century'
This is wrong. One might say that there was no reasonable way of denying this fact anymore after Kepler and Newton had understood gravity and planetary motion, yes. But people much earlier than them knew:
You must not have seen the link I provided in #61 then regarding the works of Aristarchus of Samos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos), he correctly reasoned that the moon was reflecting the sun's light in 230 BCE (and calculated size and distance of both moon and sun in his heliocentric model of the solar system). He wasn't alone in this either, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucus_of_Seleucia#Heliocentric_theory
If he (or rather they) – in antiquity – could correctly deduce this, couldn't other people do this as well? Granted, not every goat herder (in the 840 years between 230 BCE and 610 CE) would have had the time to think about such things, but as I've shown above, the people who wrote the holy Qur'an were anything but.
Lastly you wrote:
'The probability of taking a wild draw that the earth was round out of 9 other options is 1/10 but the probality of taking wild draws correctly for evryhting is some thing else like having 100 things withc each have 10 options taking wild draw correctly for all is something no man could do'
Yes, I understand Naik's argument as summarised by you. It's just extremely flawed, as I have argued in #61 and in this post:
Who would have to 'take a wild draw' that the earth is spherical or that the moon reflects the sun's light, when the phases of the moon can be clearly observed with the naked eye? And when the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse is always perfectly round, no matter from which direction the earth's shadow encroaches upon the moon? And when sail boats always disappear over the horizon from bottom to top? When one can clearly see farther from a higher elevation? And when the sun can be directly overhead in Syene, while at an angle in Alexandria (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_Earth's_circumference)? Nobody with a working pair of eyes (and curiosity and a good mind) would have to 'take a wild draw'. All those avenues of observation were accessible to the ancients and certainly to the people of the 7th century as well (for later examples, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_circumference#Islamic_Golden_Age it wasn't only the ancient greeks, it was the Indians too and a bit later the Islamic polymaths as well).
They were able to make intelligent guesses, there is no denying that (or were Aristarchus of Samos and Seleucus of Seleucia and many others also all divinely inspired?).
Those are just some examples, which show the multitude of ways in which Naik's argument is flawed. I think this shall be enough for now, sorry for the wall of text.
Thank you for your calm response and for providing me with such an interesting topic, it was fun learning new things.
@Thalassokrator
I have little time now
So i will anwser your first theory
Actually i know the surah by hearted really well
Unfortunalty tou used some translation source that cannot be trusted, the sources name might see trustfull but that doesnt depend on it
وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا
This means that he created the earth and he expanded it
(Meaning that he pit the rocks and asterdoids together, get it?)
It has no reference to any type of "egg"
I know you may have searched and researched but not all source can be trusted,
But let me tell you the quranic arabic is called classical arabic and today no one literally speaks it
There is a big difference with the classical style arabic and modern arabic (e.g. egyptian,MSA,gulf) so the arabic from the quran cannot be translated that easily becuase there is a difference between this and that arabic
And if you want a recommended quran translation
Use clear quran for better understanding, or simply search
E Quran in play store and get the free one with many ads
2. Actually the arabs where a "backward class"
That means that they may have had important trade centers but none of them were literate, or had money
85 percent of them lived in poverty except for the rich merchants.
Now coming to the next anwser
Mihammed (saw) never went out of the country to any other major city except mecca and medina and some surroundings, he is not an international merchant!
He was born in the qureysh tribe of the clan
Yeah you can compare him to a sheep shepherd
Like what scientific advancements di they have?
3rd. The greek scholars were able to do it. Okay i agree with that but you may have to take other things from the quran for example like the wayer being separated and seen, the mathematucal miracles in the quran, would any poet be able to do that?
Also it contains the falsification test just like the bible.
https://images.app.goo.gl/grkFyedcwAkQNFaX7
Scientific miracles"
Among these miracles said to be found in the Quran are "everything, from relativity, quantum mechanics, Big Bang theory, black holes and pulsars, genetics, embryology, modern geology, thermodynamics, even the laser and hydrogen fuel cells".
"From wikipedia"
Surah An-Naziat, Verse 30:
وَالْأَرْضَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ دَحَاهَا
And the earth, He expanded it after that.
(English - Shakir)
via iQuran
The earlier one
4. Wild draw
He never meant what you said.
He said that when you tell an athiest about these stuff they say thatvit might have been a wild draw, but that cannot be justified cause taking wild draw for these many thongs correclty is impossible
Friend i recommend you to go and explore the quran yourself and not use any source unless from Islamic scholars
Why?
Becuase people and youtubers like apostate prophet and act apologists spread misinfrlmation and lies about the quran
So go and explore yourself and eventually youll come to know.
P.s. dont trust the anti islamic youtubers, they spread sonmuch misinformation that people blindly believe them!!
If you wanna know something confirmed go do it yourself
I feel offended when you say "wrote the holy quran"
Muhammed (saw) was illeterate and coudnt even read or write his name, or have will he wrote his quran if he cant read or write.
When he got the revelation no one supported him so dont think somebody helped him in secret cause that is just impossibel
Coming to dr zakir naik
You might have seen his videos
Your understanding is different from mine
Over 1000+ people have converted after he anwsered their questions and how is islam the fastest growing reiligion if non believers are not conveinced yet.
*islam is the biggest religion if you think catholic christianity is different and another religion
@Ameershahul29
I agree, no reference to any type of egg.
Which is why I linked this (http://quransmessage.com/pdfs/Shape%20of%20the%20Earth.pdf) document (page 2 and 3), which (I hope) explains the etymology correctly.
I used this example to show that today verses like this are reinterpreted and (mis-) translated again, in order to fit some modern idea (shoehorning verses to mean something which they were probably never meant to mean). Which you and I both disapprove of. I agree, people who bend words can't be trusted.
I maintain that I've done my research properly (hopefully), but feel free to correct my errors.
Thank you for your suggestion on a Qur'an translation, I might look into that!
@Thalassokrator before you go
I would recommend you to tell.me witch translation you are going to use so i can verify that and make sure it doesn't provide fake info
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.