Atheism vs. the Quran

[Rayaan]

1) People are not created "out of dust".

1. Scientists have found that there are organic materials present in tiny grains of stardust that are floating in the galaxy. Therefore, it makes sense to say that life came from dust.

2) People are not created "out of sperm". People (and any other creature that reproduces sexually) are created when a sperm and an ovum join. And, actually, this kind of statement is EXACTLY what I would expect from people IGNORANT of how reproduction works! People could see the male ejaculate and assume that this is what produced a baby. They COULDN'T see the ovum! So, your attempt to demonstrate "scientific knowledge" in the Koran actually shows the COMPLETE OPPOSITE!

The correct translation of the word "nutfah" is not actually a sperm, but it is simply a fluid-drop.

In a different verse, it describes the nutfah as a mingled fluid:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

The nutfah (or a fluid-drop) is being described here as mingled fluid (amshaj), which consists of combined mixtures, not just the sperm alone. So, this fits with the scientific finding since the zygote is a mixture of male chromosomes and female chromosomes.

3) "A leech-like clot"? This describes a developing embryo to you? But a miscarried embryo would certainly look like a clot!

If you look under a microscope, yes, that's how an embryo looks like at the initial stages of its development.

The embryo is similar to a leech because the embryo appears to be hanging or sticking onto something as a leech does (hence the word "alaqah" is used, because it means anything which clings or sticks onto something).

4) Neither a zygote nor a fetus is "a morsel of flesh".

Yes, neither a zygote nor a fetus is a morsel of flesh. The Quran doesn't say that.
Rather, the Quran is only saying that the morsel of flesh (which is partly formed) begins to grow after the nutfah (a fluid-drop) and alaqah (leech-like) stages. That's all.

Well, there's the claim that humans are created of dust, and the fact that it's certainly a stretch to translate alaqa to "leech-like clot" as opposed to "clot".

1. Everyone is made of recycled stardust. Even Carl Sagan used to say that we are all "star stuff." And this could be the dust that the Quran is speaking of.

2. The word "alaqa" can be used for anything which has a sticky property. That's the reason why some translators like to put the words "leech-like" before the word "clot."

Here's a clear definition of what "alaqah" means:

"Alaqah is also described in similar terms in Hans Wehr’s Dictionary of Arabic (1961: Ref: 8D) and in the great classical dictionary Lisan Al`Arab (Ref: 4D). So the real meaning of the word, from an analysis of all the meanings stated above, is anything that sticks to or hangs with something else. The word was used for blood, because of the well known property of blood (or Dam in Arabic) being sticky, as soon as its starts to dry out. The word was used for mud, because of its obvious property of sticking to the hands. The word was used for unending hatred or love, because such emotions stick to one's heart. The word was used for a small insect which sucks blood (leech), because it sticks to its prey. The word was also used for that part of the tree, which is in the reach of grazing animals, because the animals stick to that part of it."

Because Muhammad had multiple wives, he undoubtedly was familiar with miscarriages, this would explain why he thought early in development humans were clots, as that's how they appeared, though this is obviously incorrect.

1. How do you know that he was undoubtedly familiar with miscarriages? Are there any such reports from his wives, companions, or anyone else?

2. And it's not incorrect because the word "alaqa" doesn't mean a clot of blood, but anything which is sticky, and that's why some translations of the Quran use the word "clot."

See this for more info:
http://www.thisistruth.org/truth.php?f=CreationOfMan

That aside, a zygote isn't made from a single gamete, but from two gametes, sperm and egg. As pointed out in the source I provided earlier, the Quran added no new accurate medical information.

Yes, a zygote is made from a sperm and an egg. And the Quran doesn't contradict that, because the word "nutfa" simply means a "small amount of fluid" or a "drop of water." So, it could be referring to the sperm, egg, or both. This is supported by another verse in the Quran, which refers to the nutfa as a combination, or a mingling (amshaj), of two or more different things. From this, we know that the word "nutfah" is not referring to the sperm alone.

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight” (Surah 76:02).

To your question as to how he acquired his information:

That is not a conclusive argument at all. There are many differences between the Greek writings and the Quran. The guy who wrote the article is only creating lies about the Prophet (pbuh).

After reviewing the ancient Greek ideas about embryology in more detail, summarising their main features in the above tables, and comparing them with the Qur’an, it becomes perfectly obvious, even to the casual reader, that the embryological works of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen etc. are completely different to that of the Qur’an.

The fact is that the Qur’an discusses many different aspects of embryology as summarised in Tables 1 & 2 using terms and expression which have no comparison in the other ancient literature. A further point to bear in mind is that the Qur’an has its own unique style. The Arabic language of the Qur’an is very poetic and rhythmic, whereas we do not find the ancient Greeks discussing embryology in any particular form or poetry.

In conclusion, the Qur’an, is totally different in terms of style, subject matter and accuracy. Hence the accusation that the Prophet and Messenger Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) plagiarised ancient Greek ideas is not based on any credible evidence or sound reasoning but is the result of biased and subjective interpretation. The claim is thus utterly refuted.

Full article: http://www.quranicstudies.com/articles/m...ology.html

And a Muslim response: http://www.answering-christianity.com/na...yology.htm

Since I've already addressed the first two objections, here goes my thoughts on the third: why did he lie? I can't say for certain. Power, prestige, admiration, lunacy, I don't make any claims of certainty.

Well, I can say for certain that he didn't do all this just for power and admiration. He had many enemies as well, and many people started to hate him after his prophethood, and he was mocked and ridiculed by the disbelievers (just like many people are doing today). Also, he was financially wealthier before his prophethood. Yet, he didn't ask for money and he still gave charity even though he became poorer. He used to wear simple clothes and he lived in a simple house. He used to eat on the floor with the poor. After knowing this, how is it logical to think that he just wanted power?

The prophet never claimed that he had any special powers of his own. He even warned people not to praise him. Instead, he said that all the praises should be given to God alone.

As to people killing him if they found out he lied, probably, but not because of a then unwritten book preached by a known liar.

1. The Quran was written while Muhammad was still alive. This was done by one of his scribes named Zaid ibn Thabit.

2. Is their anyway statement that he was "known" liar? I mean, was anyone ever able to prove this? Was he ever caught to be lying?

That sounds awfully familiar to I Corinthians 14:30: "If to anyone something better is revealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God's Word, then the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place." This translation was one of Luther's.

Sounds somewhat familiar, but not awefully. And either way, similarities do not always entail that one work was plagiarized from the other, does it?

I don't know Muhammad any more than I know Jesus. That's the first problem I have with the trilemma. We have nothing to go on in our evaluation of the character of either individual except for what amounts to, at best, folklore and, at worst, mythology.

The life of Muhammad is recorded in history, it's not mythology nor folklore.

Also, there are a lot more authentic historical facts about Muhammad than about Jesus (peace be upon them). Even google.com knows that.

Similarly, questions of sanity are just as complex as questions of character. Could Muhammad have had an "episode"? Could meditation in a cave by himself for an extended period have had an impact on his psyche that caused an episode (as indeed such things are possible)? When I was a little child, I thought I heard a ghost in our basement.

No, Muhammad could not have had an episode because he was receiving these verses for a span of 23 years. It's not possible for someone to be deluded for so long and yet hear specific words being recited to him in such a poetic fashion as the words in the Quran.

The verses came to him in many different places and times, not only in the cave. He heard these messages when he was at home, when he was praying, when he was fasting, when he woke up from sleep, when he was speaking to a crowd, when he was eating, walking, standing, etc. So the question is, how could he be not sane, if he was doing all these activities without having any problems at all?

Also, here's a passage from an article which shows the absurdity of the idea that Muhammad was delusional or that he had epilepsy:

Other people who reject the Prophethood of Muhammad agree because of the historical evidence of Muhammad’s impeccable character and truthfulness that he would not have deliberately fabricated the Qur’an and his Prophethood, so they allege for some reason that he either had epilepsy or was delusional and actually believed that he was a Prophet.

Firstly, again keeping in mind that Muhammad is perhaps history’s most well documented man, there is absolutely no evidence from his life to support this claim, and all evidence suggests that Muhammad lived a normal and sane life all the way up to his death at about the age of sixty (60). However in spite of that, we will nonetheless demonstrate that this claim is false and malicious.

Secondly, even some Orientalists (non-Muslims who have achieved considerable status as authorities on Islam) have rejected these claims of epilepsy as false and ridiculous. Daniel commenting on the claim of epilepsy said:

“…epilepsy as applied to the Prophet was the explanation of those who sought to amuse rather than to instruct” Khalifa, Mohammad The Sublime Qu’ran and Orientalism p. 13.

Since we live in a modern age, I can conclude it was just childhood imagination. In a more primitive time, I might still believe in what I thought I heard. Does it mean I'm crazy because I had this one hallucination? Would it mean I am crazy if I lived in a superstitious, more ancient time and continued to believe what I heard was real?

Thinking that you heard a ghost in the basement is not the same thing as hearing a stream of clear, distinct words for a span of 23 years. That, is a horribly bad comparison.

Opening pregnant women, or the other difference opening pregnant animals(since there are many similarities between all types of animal pregnancy and human pregnancy).

Muhammad was not a scientist or a doctor that he would open up pregnant women to see how a fetus develops. If he did that, then people would've known this and his mission of prophethood would come to an end once and for all.

You know that Muhammad didn't wrote the quran(you're talking about the prophet right?), also writing something better is a matter of opinion to me, works of fiction are written better when they are stated as a work of fiction so to me the quran sucks.

To you, the Quran sucks. But to knowledgeable people who have studied the Quran, read about it's history, and has looked at its linguistic eloquence, it's a miracle that proves the existence of God. Also, there are many people who read the Quran with an open mind and some of them even converted to Islam after reading it.

That's because the original source of the Quran was destroyed right after it was written, and is kept in one single language and didn't migrate, unlike the Bible.

1. How do you know the original source was destroyed? Where's the evidence?

2. The Quran was originally written in Arabic and now it's also availabe in many other languages. Also, it has migrated to all parts of the world just like the Bible.

The Quran is a book written by followers of the prophet after he died on his deeds, like the bible is the biography of a prophet, with his opinions plastered all over it, interpreted by other people, if either the god or the author as a self glorified painting of itself the book is horrible because it contains a mary sue.

No, it is unanimously agree by all the scholars of Islam that the Quran was completed before the death of the prophet (pbuh). This is a historical fact. If you think that it was written by his followers after his death, then you have to support that statement with historical evidence and/or sources which support that claim.

See this for an introductory lesson on the Quran: http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/b0040p0000.aspx