The science of the Koran


Science-in-hindsight, is what the Koran should be called. Very vague ‘science’ at that. It is a book that you can find obscure verses and claim scientific understanding….. after the science has already discovered something. Like when people suggested Nostradamus predicted 9/11…. but were only able to make the connection after 9/11. The Koran is similar… wait until something is known, and then claim Islam knew it all along. This isn’t science, this is absurd opportunism.

I was first introduced to Islam’s claims on scientific advancement, and forethought, when listening to the Muslim speaker, Hamza Tzortzis try to point to the Koran’s description of mountains as proof that the Holy book is divine. He claimed that there is no way Mohammad could have known that mountains act as ‘pegs’ – as claimed in the Koran – at that time. This refers to the fact that mountains extend downwards into the upper mantle of the Earth. The moment he said it, the Muslim observers in the room were taken in, as if he’d just proven the existence of God. They were awed by his vision. Sadly, they were also woefully misinformed and manipulated (which is of course, the job of the religious preacher). The Koran in this instance, states:

“Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?”

- Typically vague, but also wrong. Clearly Allah is asking a rhetorical question. If an answer were permitted, it would be an unequivocal ‘no’. Though Islam Guide.com thinks the answer is a definitive yes backed by modern science.

Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground. So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

- All of the above, simply isn’t true. A mountain is not stabilising anything, it holds nothing together. It is like a human in water, part is above the surface, part is below, but you wouldn’t refer to the part of the body below the surface as a peg. It simply floats. Likewise, a mountain simply floats on the mantle.
Islam-guide.com continues its plague of ignorance, with the conclusion:

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth.

I recall my science lessons at school, my geography lessons of which I retained information from, to the abandonment of all mathematical teaching, which I quickly learned to discard through pure hatred of the subject. I recall that Volcanoes do not extend as ‘pegs’. Contractional tectonics also form mountains – the Appalachians for example, are definitely not ‘pegs’. The Sierra Navada mountain range has mountains created by what is known as fault block mountains, which are formed when rocks slide through the slopes of the Earth’s crusts. None of which act at all as stabilizers. To claim so, would get a huge roar of laughter from the scientific community.

The reason that the Koran refers to mountains as “pegs” is for it’s next claim:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you… (Quran, 16:15)

Now, islam-guide.com again tries to, rather embarrassingly, explain this quote, and link it to modern science:

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth.

- Firstly, they don’t hinder the shaking of the Earth. In fact, mountains are formed by the shaking of the Earth. Secondly, that isn’t what the Koran says. It states quite unequivocally that mountains will ensure the World that the Earth will NOT shake with you, in any way. Well, tell that to the people of Japan. An Earthquake so strong, the island of Honshu was moved eight feet eastward. If Allah had intended for mountains to prevent the Earth from shaking, he failed, miserably.

Often, I have been told by the religious faithful that their Holy Book contains advance science that humanity, at the time of writing the Holy Book, could not possibly have known.

Followers of Islam, more so than Christianity or Judaism in this instance, claim their book is filled with advanced scientific knowledge. To the believer, it’s somewhat of an assurance that their scripture is anything but a book of delusions and vicious hatreds. To the unbeliever, its poor attempt to break the increasing truths offered by science.

Every claim of scientific advancement in the Koran, is either too ambiguous to take seriously, already knowledge widely accepted at the time, or just plain wrong. It is extraordinary for Islamic scholars to claim that their Holy Book holds any sort of scientific truth. A very quick critical analysis of the Koran, and of scientific knowledge already known, long before Mohammad’s time, proves that the Koran offers nothing new. It is beyond irrational to claim it does.

For example:

“Seest thou not that Allah merges Night into Day And He merges Day into Night?” [31:29]

- This, according to Way to Allah.com is, quite bizarrely, proof that the Koran held the knowledge of the Earth’s spherical shape:

Merging here means that the night slowly and gradually changes to day and vice versa. This phenomenon can only take place if the earth is spherical. If the earth was flat, there would have been a sudden change from night to day and from day to night.

- Well, why didn’t the Koran say that the Earth is spherical, if that’s what it meant? As opposed to a deeply ambiguous suggestion? Not only that, but it is wrong. The Earth spinning on its axis is what creates the illusion of day and night, not “Allah”. I cannot imagine a reputable astronomer or physicist would phrase the day turning into night, as a God merging the two together.
If we are going to take deeply ambiguous statements and claim they are proof of scientific advancement, with respect to the Earth’s shape, then we must be consistent:

[15:19] And the earth We have spread out like a carpet; set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.

- This seems to suggest that the Earth is flat, like a carpet, and that Mountains cannot in any way move.
Not only is the idea of a flat Earth scientifically wrong, it was even known to be wrong by the time the Koran was written. It offers no new insight, it simply offers an idea that was defunct around the 3rd Century BC. About 800 years before the Koran. Aristarchus of Samos suggested the Sun was the centre of the Universe, in the 3rd Century BC; this piece of wisdom was truly way ahead of its time. Aristarchus offers us a glimpse into scientific reality on a scale that, 800 years later, the Koran hadn’t even came close to, and Aristarchus certainly didn’t claim divine revelation for his predictions. Unsurprisingly, flat Earth predictions were borne out of Ancient Mesopotamia, and so it would seem that cosmological claims in the Koran can be viewed as earlier traditions coming out of Mesopotamia thousands of years prior to the Koran. Heavens, Firmament, great deep, pillars, the concept of the Earth being flat like a carpet, all this nonsense can also found in the Bible. Educated people knew the Earth was round, as envisaged by Ptolemy and before him, Aristotle, long before the Koran; which still seems to suggest that Earth is flat.

I’m not the only one who suggests that the Koran says the Earth is flat. Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a prominent exegeses of the Koran that still holds much importance, 600 years after it was written, states quite openly:

” … and his saying sutihat makes it obvious that the earth is flat, and this is certified by Ulama’ ash-shar’a (the shari’a theologians), not a globe as it is said by ahlul-hay’a (the laymen).”

Let’s for one second accept that the Koran states that the Earth is egg shaped (this translation, is rather new), is this new to the Koran? Well, no. Let’s note that before becoming a Prophet, Muhammad was a merchant. A trader. He had contact with different cultures, and would most definitely have come into contact with ideas especially those coming out of Greece. The Greeks knew the Earth was round in the 6th Century BC. Plato taught students that the Earth was a sphere. Aristotle’s incredible evidence based in astronomy was way ahead of its time, predating Islam by a millennium. Aristotle noted that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse, is round. Eratosthenes even attempted to work out the Earth’s circumference, 700 years before Muhammad’s time. These great Greek scientific leaders, have seemingly had their brilliance hijacked by Islam, which claims their achievements as their own.

A simple observation of Greek history, finds that by the time that the Koran sprung up, Greek cosmology and culture had spread as far as Afghanistan and even India, having penetrated Arabia centuries previous.

Much like the Nostradamus obsessives, believers in the Koran cannot predict a new scientific discovery, until after the discovery is made. They then re-translate their Holy Book, and surprise! “We were right all along!” Fans of Nostradamus will only assign a prediction of his, after an event has taken place. It is weak reasoning, and it certainly proves absolutely nothing. If the Angel Gabriel genuinely did present Mohammad with scientific knowledge written in the Koran, then the Angel Gabriel was less knowledgable in the 7th Century, than Aristotle was, 1000 years earlier. I’m not sure that’s too good an advert for Heaven.

On the subject of taking the translation too far, and just inventing their own translation from the original, to suit objections, there is one doing the rounds that amuses me greatly. The claim is that the Koran actually accurately describes the Big Bang, here:

It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)

- The problem here is, the experts claim that this isn’t actually what the original translation says. The translation, according to the the Centre for Muslim-Jewish engagement at the University of California, the verse actually reads:

Yusuf Ali: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.
Pickthal: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).
Shakir: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

- This is clearly vastly different from the more modern translation. The constant use of the phrases “heavens and Earth” echoes the same offering from the Bible and other ancient sources, which considered the universe to consist pretty much entirely of the Earth and heaven, so it is unsurprising that the Koran mentions them together, all the time. The Koran, again, proves to be a product of its time. If it is divine, it is horribly lazy of its creator. The Koran is pretty conclusive with its cosmology; the Earth is flat, there are seven heavens, and it is geocentric.

Another favourite of the Muslim community, is to quote the Koran’s claims on embryology:

And indeed We created man out of an extract of clay. (12) Thereafter We made him as a Nutfah in a safe lodging. (13) Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So Blessed is Allâh, the Best of creators.[] (14)

- This is one of those instances where the Koran is not vague. It claims that man is made from a clot of congealed blood. Whilst being entirely wrong, the moulding together of a drop of blood, with embryology already existed, is not new to the Koran, and was quite obviously stolen by Muhammad, from the Babylonian Enuma Elish tablet. When you copy something from another source, and the other source is entirely wrong, thus making your claim entirely wrong, then it is clear your book is not divine.

The quote from the Koran also claims that the bones come first. Nutfah by the way, means sperm, in the best possible translation into English. To be precise, nutfatun amshaajin means a mixed drop of sperm. It doesn’t refer to the female ovum, in any such translation (and believe me, those who believe that the Koran contains scientific truth, like to say, when questioned about the vague, ambiguous, and wrong statements in the Koran, that it can be translated differently; they only tend to play this card when their first translation is quite obviously wrong).
The word used for blood clot, is alaqa. This word has been translated into ‘blood clot’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali, in 1951, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan in 1971, the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon in 1980, Hamidullah in 1981, and Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs in 1984. It’s pretty obvious that Alaqa is best translated to mean blood clot. The problem with this is, there is no stage in human development where the fetus is a clot of blood. It is just false science.

When it comes to the joining together of male sperm, and the female egg. Perhaps the Koran is unique and shows great forethought and revelation? Well, no. The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim, in his book Kitab al-tibyan fi aqsam al-qur’an, gives us a statement from the lips of Mohammad himself:

He is created of both, the semen of the man and the semen of the woman. The man’s semen is thick and forms the bones and the tendons. The woman’s semen is fine and forms the flesh and blood.

- Quite obviously, this is wrong. The “great” Prophet, is entirely wrong.

Dr Basim Musallam Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge says:

“Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen were as much a part of Middle Eastern Arabic culture as anything else in it…… “The stages of development which the Qur’an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen’s scientific account….There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur’an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur’anic terms to describe the Galenic stages”

- Turns out, the Koran merely states something that was known centuries earlier, alongside completely wrong ‘science’. All the Koran does here, is spend a long time catching up to scientific thought at the time.

Does the reference to sperm mean that the Koran has stumbled upon a great revelation; that sperm is partly responsible for life? Well, again……. no. Not even slightly. Aristotle had pointed to Anaxagorus, a Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, around 450bc, who stated that sperm came only from the male, and that the female simply provided a place of nurture. So, the “safe lodging” which Muslims say refers to the womb, was known as that, 1000 years before the Koran.

Secondly, it is important to note that bones are not created first, and slowly fleshed out. Bones and muscle tissue are created simultaneously. For a far more eloquent explanation, whilst at the same time dismissing the Islamic claim on embryology of Hamza Tzortzis, I would strongly advise watching this video, as Hamza attempts to explain embryology and the Koran’s claims on embryological truth, to……. a leading embryologist. The result is predictable; Tortzis and whomever he is with are proven wrong, and so they resort to changing the interpretation of the text, to suit the objection. Weak, weak, weak.
Needless to say, the Koran is wrong. There is never a stage in the development of a fetus, in which bones exist alone, much like there being no stage in fetus development when the fetus is a clot of blood. It would appear that we can find more information from Wikipedia on the development of a fetus, than we can from the all knowing master of the Universe. Wikipedia > Allah?

And do we really believe that we needed a 7th century divine commentary to tell humanity that sperm creates human life? The Koran, simply stole this idea from the ancient Greeks, without giving them any credit for it.
J. Needham, an author who specialised in Embryology, in his book “A History of Embryology” states the importance of Ancient Greek, Indian and Egyptian Embryology, says that the Koran’s Embryological claims were simply:

“a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda”

- It appears more and more so, that the Koran is simply a collection of religious dogma attempting to claim the forethought of secular science as espoused by great minds like Aristotle, as its own. It is similar to when a girl in my Politics seminar tried to claim that Christianity invented Democracy. Religion trying to latch onto human advancement, and claim it as its own, should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

To summerise, the Earth is not flat, mountains do not hold the Earth down preventing it from shaking, and humans do not start out as bone, slowly fleshed out over time. A God who presents so many vague statements is bad enough, but an omniscient being presenting his creation with what seems to be drunkenly erratic commentaries on certain aspects of the World and humanity which turn out to be entirely false on the most basic of examination, is a God that not only should not be taken seriously, but should never have any sort of political power over the workings of society, and should be challenged by every free thinking human being, at every possible opportunity. That is how humanity advances beyond primitive dogma.

There is absolutely no scientific credibility laying in the pages of the Koran.

About these ads

17 Responses to The science of the Koran

  1. Hanna says:

    :) You are not commenting the Quran, but on a translation. The Quran is in the original Arabic form.

    If you are like me, who have English as a second language, then you will understand (more) that between languages can’t be totally translated word per word. In my own mother tongue (not Arabic!), there are a lot of words that cannot be fully translated to English, or there is no word like it, so it must be substituted with something close to it.

    You need to analyse it from the original Quran text. How about you make another post like this one, and analyse it like how this man analyses the recitation from the original form?
    Here is the lecture: Being the Best to Our Parents. This video is also a gift from me, since in a previous post you said you were kind of homesick (this is my own impression of your previous post about living in Australia, sorry if I’m wrong).

  2. The problem with the “translation” thing, is that those who do speak Arabic will, when they are presented with an argument against their doctrine, will say “oh….well the translation is wrong”. They will claim a word can be translated to mean many different things, and so the passage becomes even more vague.
    I think the fact that it is only in one language, is testament to its man-made origins. If Allah had meant for the World to listen, he wouldn’t have stuck to one language, which a minority of the World speaks. It would be translatable. As it is, it is apparently so untranslatable, that only people who speak Arabic are able to fully comprehend it? That seems a little bit messed up to me.

    Thank you for the link by the way :) I have to say though, I thoroughly disagree with a lot of what is said in it.

  3. Hanna says:

    So, you don’t care about your parents?

  4. That absolutely isn’t what I said.

    But to say you should respect your parents regardless of how they treat you, simply because “Allah” (who in my estimation, doesn’t exist) commands it, is a gross manipulation of the emotions of people who have been abused by their parents. Telling Fritzl’s children to love and respect their father after being imprisoned and viciously beaten and raped for 20 years, because an imaginary entity in the sky told them they must, is a disgrace.

  5. Hanna says:

    Aah… actually that post was about the children’s side to always try to be the best to their parents. Not everyone is a Fritzl.
    But, there is also the part about the parents to also earn and try their best to their kids so that their kids will learn to understand this love and respect. For example the Prophet been kissing his two grandsons, and a guy said that he had 10 children but he never kissed anyone of them. The prophet said, “Would you like it if all your children loved you?” (there are other sayings and verse in the Quran saying this)
    Implying that the actions of the parents will also have a part in their child’s attitude towards them. They will taste the fruit of their labor.

    By the way, I saw a writing on the beach, “Sally was here. 080911.” I think the waves made it… seriously, wow…

  6. So what is he actually trying to say?
    Because it sounds very ambiguous again.
    On the one hand, we should respect our parents no matter what (without any exclusions, which means people who suffer abusive parents still must respect their parents) but on the other hand, we should only respect them if they earn it?
    Saying “impying that the actions of the parents will also have a part in their child’s attitude toward them” is 1) not what that guy said, he specifically says we should respect them no matter what they do to us, and 2) common sense. I don’t need religion to tell me that how someone acts toward me will shape my opinion of them, that;s obvious.

    I’m not sure what your last point is trying to get at? If you’re trying to suggest that something so perfect couldn’t just come about randomly, you clearly do not understand the beauty of natural selection. I always tell people who question natural selection and random genetic mutations, to never ever go to a hospital when they get sick, because the entire study of modern medicine and biology is built on Darwin’s principles. It isn’t built on religious nonsense. So, if you ever get sick, don’t go to the hospital, pray instead. I’m sure that’ll work.

  7. Hanna says:

    About doing good to your children part, its not in that video :P. xixixixi… ;D (sorry for confusing you. Didn’t mean that)
    :) About the medicine part, I’m guessing that you are thinking the way church doctrine is. Just pray-pray-pray and that will solve all problems. Islam isn’t based on that. We don’t believe in sitting in a room praying would solve any sickness–or any problems if any.
    Except for this guy who made a skeptic’s prayer, I don’t know… Dr Brown.

    Last one…
    :) Nice knowing you.

  8. Jerry says:

    First of all, Allah is not a “he”. It’s an “It”. Secondly, Hanna is correct in her assumption that the Koran’s translation to English, a less poetic and more simplistic language than Arabic or, say, Turkish, will be limited in its interpretation of the text.

    You have two options to make an educated post rather than this extended drivel: Either you learn Turkish or Arabic. Turkish is a close translation to the original text, therefore I am certain you will learn a lot. In most English translation, I have noted a hidden agenda which does not even come close to the actual verses.

    It is really amazing how everyone with an opinion has a website now and they spread their ignorant views to the already ignorant masses. What happened to educating ourselves before speaking? It seems the ignorant are always the loudest… and now apparently make websites and blogs. The only text with “vicious hatred” I see is yours. It’s a bunch of garbage you gathered from reading some poorly translated version of the Koran that has an agenda, which Westerners love to use as a weapon against religion.

    It seems to me you have problems. Personal problems. They are so deeply embedded in your brain for whatever reason that you are letting ignorance and your personal issues cloud your sense of openness. Here is an idea: Sit down. Study different sects of Islam. Study the science within the books without just limiting yourself to readings from ridiculous websites of fundamentalists or extremists.

    I highly recommend you read about the Sufi sect. It’s really beautiful. May I recommend some poetry to you from famous Sufis? Rumi is one of my personal favourites.

    Pardon my rudeness. I get so tired of reading garbage it clouds my good nature.

  9. Nice little tantrum. Thanks.

    There seems to be an essence to Islamic apologeticism, which is to say that if anyone criticises in any way; they must be ignorant. Then, refer to the fact that they can’t speak Arabic, and then insist that they themselves are the hateful ones. It follows the same pattern every time. It is simply a reflection of Islam’s own insecurities. Islam is not very good at dealing with criticism. We see overreactions all the time for any sort of speech, purposely hateful (like the EDL) or just legitimate criticisms (like Hitchens was great at). For Islamic apologists to claim that anyone who simply uses words to criticise their religion are the “vicious hateful” ones is so ridiculously hypocritical, if it weren’t so disgusting, it’d be funny. One only has to look at the recent history of Islamic reaction to any form of criticism; be it Danish cartoons, Salmon Rushdie’s book, or any sort of suggestion that ownership of Jerusalem should not be subject to which fairy tale is better; then expect a fatwa, threats, and burnings. It seems that you, like all religious apologetics are under the impression that unless we come to the conclusion that that religion is wonderful, progressive, a benefit to civilisation and very peaceful and welcoming; then we must be ignorant. The arrogance is astounding. “This is how it is. You are not allowed to form your own view. If you don’t agree, you’re ignorant”. I suppose it’s a step forward from “If you don’t agree, we’ll kill you.”

    There is no ‘science’ within the Koran. Absolutely none. But if you wish to point out where there is science within the Koran that we had no knowledge of prior to the Koran, then i’m all ears.
    Let me repeat an example used in my article, which you choose to ignore in favour of just calling me ignorant, saying I have personal problems, and insisting that everything I said is garbage (without actually providing reasons for your claims):
    “The word used for blood clot, is alaqa. This word has been translated into ‘blood clot’ by Maulana Muhammad Ali, in 1951, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan in 1971, the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon in 1980, Hamidullah in 1981, and Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs in 1984. It’s pretty obvious that Alaqa is best translated to mean blood clot. The problem with this is, there is no stage in human development where the fetus is a clot of blood. It is just false science.”
    – Please explain this. Given that i’m ignorant, and you are all knowledgeable, please, enlighten me…..

    Also, much of the disputed ‘science’ in my article, centre on the claims of Hamza Totzsis, when I went to see him speak. Not some version of the Koran with a Western ‘agenda’ (would you care to elaborate on what you mean by an agenda?). Tortzis spoke of the ‘blood clot’ and the mountains as ‘pins holding the earth together’ and then made ludicrous interpretations of those phrases, which have no bearing on science whatsoever. Hamza Tortzis is not an extremist. It’s ridiculous that you have the nerve to refer to me as ignorant of the meanings behind these sentences, when it seems that you and fellow apologists like Tortzis can’t actually agree on what they mean. He was reading them in English, and was adamant that the description in the Koran of the growth of a fetus was correct. He was of course massively wrong, as is the Koran. So maybe you guys on the same side should get your stories straight between yourselves, before you start telling the rest of us that we’re ignorant of the facts.

    To be ‘open’ does not mean to accept automatically. I am open to Islam’s claims on truth and science, I just dismiss it all as unsubstantiated and dangerous dogma, I dislike the way Islam reacts to criticism, and I resent the fact that it manipulates history to suggest that it has some sort of scientific knowledge that was not already widely available anyway. I dislike how it treats homosexuality, it’s stone age justice system, and its anti-modern stance on essentially everything. I dislike how I’m represented as worthy of horrific death and eternal torture just for being an unbeliever. I absolutely have no respect for such a putrid system of belief. I find it fascist by nature, expansionist by any means necessary and it always amazes me when Muslims insist on referring to the US, or the West as “imperialistic” given the history of Islam within the middle East (one look at the constitutions of both Fatah and Hamas show an inclination to believe they have some sort of right the entire fucking region), and the history of Indonesia’s claims on East Timor; to which great humanitarians have died trying to free from the clutches of such a crazy religion. For some reason, we are supposed to respect it. I don’t.

    My particular favourite bit of utter tripe you have just forced out, is:
    “The only text with “vicious hatred” I see is yours. It’s a bunch of garbage you gathered from reading some poorly translated version of the Koran that has an agenda, which Westerners love to use as a weapon against religion.”
    – Where’s the vicious hatred in my text? It would seem that every defender of faith, in a World where faith is quite obviously responsible for massive injustices, quite like to point the finger of blame at the rest of us merely for criticising. When we criticise, we use words. When Muslims criticise, they burn flags, and put fatwas on writers, and threaten death to Danish cartoonists, or insist that Jerusalem is there’s by any means necessary, or fly planes into buildings, or blow up embassies. So forgive me if I am not exactly convinced that it is Atheists and our criticisms that are the sole bearers of ‘vicious hatred’ in this. When Christians criticise they burn abortion clinics or kill doctors or try to get the law changed in their favour or campaign against gay marriage. On the subject of homosexuality, both Islam and Christianity should be utterly ashamed of their hate fuelled positions. In the 1930s the biggest threat to global stability was fascism with a political face. Now, it is fascism with a religious face. You can try to justify it however you wish, but let’s call it what it is; tyrannical, totalitarian, and fascist.
    Do I hate Muslims, and Christians? No. They’re people. They haven’t wronged me as individuals, and I don’t mind where or when they choose to pray, as long as it isn’t forced onto the rest of the World (which is exactly what religion does, when it has the scent of political power). Do I hate the actual religions? Absolutely. They disgust me. The religion you sought to defend today, makes my skin crawl. They way its defenders attempt to promote it as something peaceful and a positive influence on humanity, despite its obvious deeply held fascist principles, and the way you and other defenders of Islam try to insist on linguistic barriers to true understanding of a faith and a book that is conquest driven, anti-anyone who isn’t Muslim, scientifically incorrect, or simply stealing scientific advancement already well established, and a war manual, is laughable at best, and mortifying for its dangerous implications at worst.

    I have read Rumi. I have three books on Sufism, one being Sufism and Islam by Keller, one being ‘The Key to Salvation’ and ‘The Heart of Islam’. Please do not assume that I have just watched a clip of 9/11 and decided I dislike Islam for that reason. I dislike religion in principle, I dislike Islam for reasons on top of the initial principles for my dislike of religion in general. And (whilst i’m sure you have all the facts, and are the bearer of truth and wisdom), there are a lot of muslims who wouldn’t class the Surfi sect as Islamic at all.

    Religions are perfectly fine, until they start threatening freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and freedom of thought (all of which, Islam is great at threatening). When that starts happening, they need to be fought against, ridiculed, and argued against at every possible opportunity.

  10. I have illustrated some of these points in videos http://youtube.com/therationalizer

    Also I have interviewed a number of scientists who were misrepresented to give the impression they were amazed by the Quran: http://youtube.com/thisisthetruthuncut

    Some of these are still being quoted in a printed Quran by QuranProject.org despite having a reprint after knowing they were fake approximately a year in advance.

  11. Zed says:

    Honestly your pretty stupid there is science in islam but your just to ignorant and self righteous. Muslims believe that your soul travels out of your body when you sleep and yes my dear dumb bastard this what science calls astral projection. Ive heard the islamic term before i was fimiliar with astral projection

  12. Zed says:

    Hello there you dumb idiotic bastard the science is islam is given step by step meaning it was compilled into what science is today like shaping a mould of clay a perfect example of it is this embryo that you were too stupid to take notice And there is a sect where the quran says the salt waves and water waves dont mix this is when humanity had no knowledge of it idiot dumb fucker

  13. Zed says:

    What you see of islam today is by no means what it was back then do remember that Muhammad preached peace and yes he fufilled it back then prisoners men and women of other religion were freed after wars this is what they did with the templars and crusaders instead of sadistic christianity killing and wiping the muslim population off back then

  14. Astral projection is not a scientific concept, and existed a long time as a spiritual concept a long time before Islam.

  15. The Qur’an on Embryology is perhaps the least impressive and most ambiguous section of nonsense in the entire book of ambiguous nonsense.

  16. Reblogged this on The Syed Atheist and commented:
    The science of the Koran: Debunking the myth that Koran contains scientific miracles. Good read.

  17. Anwar Bilal says:

    Regarding embryology, see this detailed refutation of the Islamic pseudo-scientific claims

    http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/

    Quoting from its conclusion,

    ” Consider what an Arab in the 7th century could easily observe; they would observe that the semen enters a woman and 9 months later a human infant is born. The newborn undoubtedly consists of blood, flesh and bones which would suggest that had to develop over the course of pregnancy. Add the trivial knowledge that a mother carries her baby in her womb to the above observation and one is presented with all the information provided in the Qur’an, in Sura 23:13-14

    “Then We placed him as semen in a firm lodging. Then We made the semen a clot of blood, and We made the blood clot a piece of flesh and We made the piece of flesh, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.””

    So easily debunked yet this is what is hailed as one of their best evidences. It would have been funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,732 other followers

%d bloggers like this: