Atheism vs. the Quran

[downbeatplumb]

Hitler was good to his dog until he tested the cyanide capsule on him that is.

[Rayaan]

This is a variation on the "liar, lunatic or lord" canard that has been offered as "proof" of Christianity.

So what is Muhammad then? A liar or a lunatic? And how do you know this?

And secondly, your picture doesn't relate to Muhammad (pbuh) because never masqueraded as a God. He was only a messenger of God.

To further address the claims of scientific accuracy within the Quran... Embryology in the Quran

Still, there's no good reason to think that Muhammad would plagiarize from Greek writers because (1) he was not able to to read Greek language, (2) there is no report that he went to libraries to find gather all of these scientific information, and (3) why would he lie and fool people into thinking that this is the word of God just to start a whole new religion? I mean, why would he risk his own life by lying? If we assume that he lied, then he would be cursing himself in his own book, and people would've killed him if they found out that he lied. Why? Because there is a verse in the Quran which says:

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby." (Surah 2:79)

[Thor]

It's not rudimentary knowedge for people who lived 14 centuries ago ...

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

A single scientific error? I count FOUR!

1) People are not created "out of 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!

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

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

This is your example of "scientific knowledge" in the Koran?

[Lethe]

"O mankind! If you have a doubt about the Resurrection, (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a morsel of flesh, partly formed and partly unformed, in order that We may manifest (our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term, then do We bring you out as babies, then (foster you) that you may reach your age of full strength." (Surah 22:05)

If the Quran was invented by men who lived in such a primitive age, then, shouldn't there be at least a single scientific error in the verse above?

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". 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.

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. To your question as to how he acquired his information:

Given that so much of what the Qur'an says is based upon Galen's beliefs, it is particularly significant that some 26 books of his work were translated into Syriac as early as the sixth century AD by Sergius of Resh' Aina (Ra's al-Ain). Sergius was a Christian priest who studied medicine in Alexandria and worked in Mesopotania, dying in Constantinople in about AD 532 [33]. He was one of a number of Nestorian (Syriac) Christians who translated the Greek medical corpus into Syriac; others included Bishop Gregorius, al-Rahawy, al-Taybuti, the Patriarch Theodorus and al-Sabakti [34].

[...]

According to Muslim historians, especially Ibn Abi Usaybia and al-Qifti [37], the most celebrated early graduate of Jundishapur was a doctor named al Harith Ibn Kalada, who was an older contemporary of Muhammed. "He was born probably about the middle of the sixth century, at Ta'if, in the tribe of Banu Thaqif. He traveled through Yemen and then Persia where he received his education in the medical sciences at the great medical school of Jundi-Shapur and thus was intimately acquainted with the medical teachings of Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen." [38]

He became famous partly as a result of a consultation with King Chosroes [39]. Later he became a companion of the Prophet Muhammed himself, and according to the Muslim medical traditions Muhammed actually sought medical advice from him [40]. He may even have been a relative of the Prophet and his "teachings undoubtedly influenced the latter" [i.e., Muhammed] [41]. "Such medical knowledge as Muhammed possessed, he may well have acquired from Haris bin Kalda [sic], an Arab, who is said to have left the desert for a while and gone to Jundi Shapur to study medicine...On his return Haris settled in Mecca and became the foremost physician of the Arabs of the desert. Whether he ever embraced Islam is uncertain, but this did not prevent the Prophet from sending his sick friends to consult him." [42]

(3) why would he lie and fool people into thinking that this is the word of God just to start a whole new religion? I mean, why would he risk his own life by lying? If we assume that he lied, then he would be cursing himself in his own book, and people would've killed him if they found out that he lied. Why? Because there is a verse in the Quran which says:

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah” to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write and for the gain they make thereby." (Surah 2:79)

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. 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.

"The inability of any person to produce anything like the Qur’an, due to the uniqueness of its language, is the essence of the Qur’anic miracle. A miracle is defined as 'events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature'. The argument posed by Muslim Theologians and Philosophers is that if, with the finite set of Arabic linguistic tools at humanity’s disposal, there has been no effective challenge to try and imitate the Qur'an, then providing a naturalistic explanation for the Qur’an’s uniqueness is not sufficient. This is because the natural capacity of any author is able to produce the varying expressions known in the Arabic language. The development of an entirely unique expression is beyond the scope of the productive nature of any author, hence a supernatural entity, God, is the only sufficient comprehensive explanation."

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.

As to the Quran's literary merit and supposed depth, there really should be a Law of Fives fallacy, but if there is, I'm unaware. For those who don't get the reference, it's a law contained within the Principa Discordia: The Law of Fives states simply that: All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5. The Law of Fives is never wrong.

[DeistPaladin]

So what is Muhammad then? A liar or a lunatic? And how do you know this?

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.

My point is that the trilemma oversimplifies a question about someone's character. It is possible for me to imagine a rascal who lies about being a god or speaking with a god but then utters some words on morality or even acts on occasion with compassion. The movie, "The Road to El Dorado" features a character who is rogue enough to claim to be a god and yet, his idealistic side comes out as the movie progresses and he tries to use his "divine influence" for good ends. It's not hard for me to imagine a possible character like him who continues to lie about being a prophet and yet be idealistic enough to think that influencing things for the better justifies this means.

Just to be understood here, I am not saying that such behavior is good or even justified. I'm saying that the dichotomy that he is either a demon or a saint with no middle ground is a false one.

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. 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?

There are also degrees between rock-solid sanity and gibbering-insanity. A prophet might be crazy enough to think he hears the voice of God and yet be sane enough to organize a church and speak some coherent platitudes. Jim Jones and David Koresh were likely crazy but that didn't prevent them from organizing a religion.

The trilemma is basically an effort to work toward a desired conclusion by strawmanning the other possibilities.

And secondly, your picture doesn't relate to Muhammad (pbuh) because never masqueraded as a God. He was only a messenger of God.

Same principle applies.

[Ashendant]

[Rayaan]

[DeistPaladin]

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

To be generous, here are the sum total of historical "facts" we know about Jesus, although it's controversial among skeptics:

Annals of Tacitus, written in the second century, briefly mentions the founder of Christianity as "the anointed one" (not even naming Jesus) and provides no details except a second hand story of how he was crucified (which Muslims claim isn't even true).

So the bar is pretty low, there.

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.

So artists can't be crazy then?

So the question is, how could he be not sane, if he was doing all these activities without having any problems at all?

If you'd read my post, you'd know I've already said there are different levels of sanity. There are some people who are crazy in specific areas and yet lead normal lives otherwise. Ever seen the story about Harvey, the invisible bunny rabbit?

So how about my musings on whether or not he lied?

[Thor]

[Lethe]