Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

htm 1

Does the Qur'an Have any scientific Miracles?

10 Top-most Scientific Myths about the Qur'an
By Avijit Roy

Part 2 of 2

"My only wish is to transform friends of God into Friends of man, believers
to thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work, candidates of
hereafter into students of the world, Believers, who by their own
admission, are "half animal-half angel" into persons, into whole persons." -
Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach, (1804-1872)
For quite some time we are bombarded in myriad e-forums, web sites, videos and books
with the assertion that Islam is a very scientific religion. Diehard Islamic scholars are
eager to prove that many modern-day scientific discoveries were accurately predicted in
the Qur'an. In fact, in recent years, soon after Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Keith Moore's
(in) famous book came into limelight a number of "Islamic Scientists" have claimed that
there is credible evidence of modern science in Islam as revealed in their miraculous
Holy book, the Qur'an.
My two-part article has been written to expose the fallacy of that claim. In the first part of
my article I provided a critique of five contemporary claims that the Qur'an miraculously
supports the recent developments in science. In this part, I will refute five more such
claims and argue that science makes a strong case against "Islamic Science" and
"miraculous nature" of the Holy Qur'an.
I shall start this part with an excerpt from a book written by a famous Bangladeshi
religious scientist, Professor Shamsher Ali, the Chairman of the Committee on Science
in Al-Qur'an, Islamic Foundation, Bangladesh. He also teaches in the Physics
Department of the Dhaka University. This is what this Bangladeshi scientist says:
"Anybody having the faith in this absolute truth is welcome to use the Qur'an as a
test for our scientific principle and not vice versa. Incidentally it may be mentioned
that Maurice Bucaille in his book, The Qur'an, the Bible and Science already
asserted: There is not a single verse in Holy Qur'an which is assailable from
scientific point of view". Our present work fully support this assertion" [1]
This is a real irony--an extraordinary claim from a scientist I must say! The author, even
being one of the renowned celebrities in scientific community in Bangladesh, puts the
Qur'an as an authentic tool to test science, and NOT vice versa!
A true scientist will never follow this approach, as he should know, science is not faith; it
accepts a theory as a tentative truth--only if it explains the observations of reality better
compared to the elucidation based on logic and evidence. For example, if a new
scientific hypothesis or theory is put forward it is rigorously scrutinized, experiments 2

done, observations made and if all the results correspond to the theory, it is accepted
until it is refuted by later observations and tests. All the methods lay well within the strict
domain of science. No sane person can legitimately claim to test science against a
religious holy book.
A religious book, to be precise, preaches absoluteness and infallibility of its claim of the
perceived truth, which is nothing but a dogma. Dogma does not admit any possibility of
its being wrong—thus ruling out any revision or correction. Then, how can a dogma be a
tool to test science? I wonder what our students will learn if such a capricious definition
of science, formulated by Dr. Shamsher Ali is taught in our Universities. This is one of
many examples to show how our education system is faltering.
Recently, another author of Islami-scientific book proclaimed that the Qur'an itself is
enough to reveal the scientific mysteries of nature; rest are all redundant and
superfluous [2].
If we really have such a super-scientific book in our hand who needs Brian Greene's
The Elegant Universe, Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time or Steven Weinberg's
The First Three Minutes to explore mystery to common people? Forget about popular
science series, why did Newton wrote his famous Principia? —This I can’t comprehend
either. Indeed, this claim means every single scientific invention is supposed to be as
claimed in the Qur'an--and the rest are redundant. Does not this mean if the entire room
is illuminated by 1000 watts of light who will look for a candle?
Anyway, here are some more rebuttals of scientific prophecy of Holy Qur'an:

6. Qur’an tells us “the Sun is the source of light and the Moon a deflector.”
Nowhere in the Qur'an it is mentioned that the Sun is a source of light and the Moon
acts as a deflector. The apologists usually quote the following ayat of Sura YUNUS from
Qur'an to prove their biased argument.
Huwa allathee jaAAala alshshamsa diyaan waalqamara nooran
waqaddarahu manazila litaAAlamoo AAadada alssineena waalhisaba ma
khalaqa Allahu thalika illa bialhaqqi yufassilu al-ayati liqawmin
English translation:
YUSUFALI: It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon
to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might
know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create
this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in
detail, for those who understand. 3

PICKTHAL: He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a

light, and measured for her stages, that ye might know the number of the
years, and the reckoning. Allah created not (all) that save in truth. He
detaileth the revelations for people who have knowledge.

SHAKIR: He it is who made the sun a shining brightness and the moon a
light, and ordained for it mansions that you might know the computation of
years and the reckoning. Allah did not create it but with truth; He makes
the signs manifest for a people who understand.

If a reader reads the above verse carefully he will notice that there is no allusion of
"source of light" or "deflector" in this verse. It simply says: the Sun is a shining
brightness ("splendour and glory of brightness") and the Moon a light!

From their daily observation right from the ancient period people knew that the Sun had
strong and bright light and the Moon had cool and softer light that illuminates and helps
in the darkness of the night. In Bangla we commonly say and in
the same manner in English we use "Sunshine" and "Moonlight". This means ancient
Bengali/Englishmen also realized that the Sun is more shinning/bright/hot than the
appealing Moon just the way an ancient Arab could observe the same phenomena. In
fact, it is so simple even to an infant. Here I quote the two words that Qur'an uses [3]:

• (diya) Sun shine

• (noor) Moon light.

Dr Bucaille, however, in his book proclaimed loudly [7]:

The Sun is a shining glory (diya') and the Moon a light (nur). This
translation would appear to be more correct than those given by others,
where the two terms are inverted. In fact there is little difference in
meaning since diya' belongs to a root (dw') which, according to
Kazimirski's authoritative Arabic/French dictionary, means 'to be bright, to
shine' (e.g. like a fire). The same author attributes to the substantive in
question the meaning of 'light'.
The above explanation of Dr Bucaille may be correct. However, any rational person can
perceive that such an explanation need not pertain to any extraordinary miraculous
claim when we consider the historical context of the ancient Arabs. For readers’ interest
the next part of the verse is quoted below: 4

And the moon a light, and ordained for it mansions that you might know the
computation of years and the reckoning.

This portion is not miraculous at all. The ancient Arabs used the Sun and the Moon to
measure location and time. Pastoral people quite commonly use the lunar months and
the lunar years. Interestingly, now a days, science has advanced so far that we do not
need to use the Moon to measure time. Curiously, on this recent development, the
"miraculous" Qur'an could not provide the slightest indication beforehand.

7. Qur’an tells us modern scientific fact known as “The Atom.”

Wama takoonu fee sha/nin wama tatloo minhu min qur-anin wala
taAAmaloona min AAamalin illa kunna AAalaykum shuhoodan ith
tufeedoona feehi wama yaAAzubu AAan rabbika min mithqali tharratin fee
al-ardi wala fee alssama-i wala asghara min thalika wala akbara illa fee
kitabin mubeenun
English Translation:
YUSUFALI: In whatever business thou mayest be, and whatever portion
thou mayest be reciting from the Qur'an,- and whatever deed ye (mankind)
may be doing,- We are witnesses thereof when ye are deeply engrossed
therein. Nor is hidden from thy Lord (so much as) the weight of an atom on
the earth or in heaven. And not the least and not the greatest of these
things but are recorded in a clear record.
PICKTHAL: And thou (Muhammad) art not occupied with any business and
thou recitest not a Lecture from this (Scripture), and ye (mankind) perform
no act, but We are Witness of you when ye are engaged therein. And not
an atom's weight in the earth or in the sky escapeth your Lord, nor what is
less than that or greater than that, but it is (written) in a clear Book.
SHAKIR: And you are not (engaged) in any affair, nor do you recite
concerning it any portion of the Qur'an, nor do you do any work but We are
witnesses over you when you enter into it, and there does not lie
concealed from your Lord the weight of an atom in the earth or in the
heaven, nor any thing less than that nor greater, but it is in a clear book. 5

The scientific Atomic theory has nothing to do with this Quranic Atom. This atom is used
in the Qur'an to denote small particles. When the Arabs tried to talk about small particles
they could not find a suitable word to describe them; the only appropriate word they

could use was "zarah" (dharra) which means the dust particle, or a mustard seed
or the small ant [3]

Particularly, Ibn Kathir's tafsir on "zarah" (Q10:61) can be reader's interest :

Neither you do any deed nor recite any portion of the Qur'an, nor you do
any deed, but We are Witness thereof when you are doing it. And nothing
is hidden from your Lord (so much as) the weight of a speck of dust on
the earth or in the heaven. Not what is less than that or what is greater
than that but is (written) in a Clear Record.
If the Qur'an really talked scientifically about atoms and molecules we should have some
indication about electrons, protons and neutrons. But there is no real indication of them
in the whole Qur'an.
If any scientist claims that the Qur'an really talks about Atomic physics then he must
show us where we may get the scientific idea of Nuclear structure, how can one observe
Rutherford scattering, how can one acquire the knowledge of Static properties of
nucleus, such as angular momentum, parity, size shape, magnetic multiple moments,
electric multiple moments etc., and how about the Dynamic properties; such as nuclear
reaction etc.? Neither do we get any idea from the Qur'an about the Strong Interaction
model and the Weak Interaction model, nor can we develop, using the Quranic principle,
any well-established model: such as Fermi degenerate gas model, Alpha particle model,
Liquid drop model, Shell model, Optical model, Collective model or compound nucleus
The Qur'an could only imagine, very ambiguously, small particles as speck of dust and
small ants. While the Islamic scientists try to prove that the Qur'an is super-scientific
they usually try to explicate the words out of its context [5].
Again, if someone's prediction on something implying that that would be an evidence of
divine inspiration and an aura of supernaturalism then we must bestow that credit to
Epicurus (341-270 BC), who predicted, in his poetic summary ‘De Rerum Natura’, in far
less ambiguous terms than anything purportedly present in the Qur'an, the existence of
atoms and the molecules (the binding of two atoms to produce a different chemical) [6].
Following the principles of the Islamic scholars should we then consider Epicurus a
Prophet or his book a divine scripture? Even before Epicurus, around 440 BC,
Leucippus of Miletus originated the concept of atom. Later, he and his pupil, Democritus
(460-371 BC) of Abdera, refined and extended this idea. There were five major points to
their atomic theory at that time. Epicurus, to be precise, developed the work of
Leucippus and Democritus and had made their ideas widely known. 6

From ancient history we also learn that Indian philosophers made significant
contributions. Long before Muhammad was born, Kanada, the founder of the Vaisesika
system of philosophy expounded that all matters in this universe consists of atoms. The
Tamil word for atom is “anu” (in Bangla we also use the same) which is an ancient word,
mentioned in Tamil literatures in 600 AD or even earlier [24]! So there is absolutely no
valid reason to claim that the Qur'an, written in later period, solely and miraculously
predicted certain assertions on atom now established by modern science.

8. Qur’an reveals accurate information about the solar system

Dr Bucaille, in his book states the following about our solar system [8]:
"The Earth and planets rotating around the Sun constitute an organized
world of dimensions which, to our human scale, appear quite colossal. The
Earth is, after all, roughly 93 million miles from the Sun."
Dr Bucaille perhaps puts some scientific data about our solar system to make his book
attractive and scholarly. However, critical review of the Quranic verses indicate a totally
opposite notion. It may be fair to mention that at the time the Qur’an was written the
Christian world, at least, was aware of the shape of the earth.
The flat earth, expounded by the church fathers and monks, such as Cosmas
Indicopleustes was giving in to Ptolemy’s sphere-based view [10]. In this respect it would
be quite natural to find a spherical view of the earth in the Qur’an. Nonetheless, the fact
is, not a single verse in the Qur'an supports the spherical view of the earth [11, 12]--let
alone more modern theories such as Copernicus's Heliocentrism etc. How can then
Qur’an be treated as a divine inspiration? --I really wonder.
In fact, a painstaking search of the entire Qur’an does not show a single verse anywhere
in it that supports the scientific reality of the rotation of earth [12]. According to Allah, the
earth is motionless--completely static.
In Sura An-Naml (27:61) it is stated clearly:
Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in
the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier
between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of
them know not!
In the same vein, Sura Al-Rum (30:25), Sura Fatir (35:41), Sura Luqman (31:10), Sura
Al-Baqara (2:22), Sura An-Nahl (16:15) exhorts the Allah’s decree that the earth is
completely immovable. Once in one of my articles, I humbly requested an Islamist to
show me a verse, just a single verse in the Qur’an, that states that the earth moves
round the Sun or that the earth rotates on its own axis, at the least [12] : 7

In Arabic "ARD" means the Earth and "FALAK" is rotation/movement. Can

any one show me any of the verses from the Qur'an that contains these
two words one after another?
Some progressive websites duly published that essay, and one rationalist site even
threw a challenge to the fundamentalist Mullahs under the heading, ‘Avijit Roy
challenges the fundamentalists.’ This challenge still stands in the cyber world [13]. So
far, no Islamic scholar could refute my assertions by citing the appropriate verses from
the Qur’an.
Qur'anic solar system can be visualized more accurately by the following picture, which I
used in some of my previous articles:

The picture shown above depicting the Qur’anic concept of our solar system, even
though quite self explanatory, misses some very scientific realities, and, therefore, is
incomplete in some respect —to say the least.
According to the Qur'an our Earth is flat (which I discussed in detail in the 1st Part of this
article) and to be more consistent with the Qur'anic view the picture of the flat Earth
must be much bigger and the Sun and the Moon are to be much smaller. As per the 8

Qur’an they are “lamps” hanging from the ceiling of the sky supported in turn by invisible
columns. Allah also described the heaven (sky) made of seven layers and placed
(wrongly) the stars in the lowest layer i.e., lower than the Moon:
Q. 37: 6
”We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,...
Q. 67: 5
“And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps,...
The Qur'anic solar system also contains the invisible Jinns. These Jinns, according to
Qur'an are made of fire and they climb over each other’s shoulders and reach the
heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of the “Exalted Assembly”. Let us read the
following verses from the Qur'an:
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted
Assembly but be cast away from every side.
Q. 72: 8-9
“And (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We had sought the
heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors. And we
used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listeneth now
findeth a flame in wait for him;"

But the most interesting part is that Allah believed that the shooting stars and the
meteors are the missiles thrown at the eavesdropping Jinns. Here is what the Qur’an
Q. 67: 5
...and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil
Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire. ...
The universe, as envisioned by Muhammad/Allah belongs to nothing but on the realm of
fairy tales. It is not that Mr. Bucaille, while writing his famous book The Bible, the Qur’an
and Science was unaware of such nonsensical stories as 'projectiles for the stoning of
‘demons’ (5: 67), or 'guard against every rebellious evil spirit' referred in verse 21: 32
and verse 41:12, etc.; however, he cleverly tried to avoid the topic saying, "All these
observations seem to lay outside the subject of this study" [9] for obvious reason.
The author also said that scientific data were unable to cast any light on a subject that
went beyond human understanding but conveniently forgot to tell us which scientific data
satisfied him when the Qur'an said that the Sun also must arise from the muddy waters
and must enter the murky waters just as Dzul Qaranain had witnessed (Q18:86, 18:90).
There is also a location in sky for the throne of Allah (Q2:255, 13:2, 25:59, 32:4, 57:4,
40:15) that Dr Bucaille seems to forget. The throne, according to Hadith, is over the
waters (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 414) and the Sun has to prostrate in 9

front of the throne and ask the permission of Allah to rise the next day (Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421).
In his book, Bucaille repeatedly claimed, "there is nothing in the text of the Qur'an that
contradicts what we know today," but the above citations from the Qur'an and Hadith
about modern cosmology reveals the truth which are nothing short of scientific heresies.
Despite the desperate attempt of Bucaille and some Muslim apologists [14] to re-
interpret and find some esoteric meaning hidden within these vague verses, their
obvious contrast with science, logic and common sense is enough to realize that Qur'an
is not founded by any divine inspiration.

9.Qur’an foretells about the “Water Cycle.”

Dr Bucaille also claimed in his book that the Qur'an has the foreknowledge of the water
cycle, by which, water:

(1) Evaporates from the seas and the earth;

(2) Becomes clouds; which
(3) Give rain; which
(4a) Causes the land to bring forth, and
(4b) Replenishes the water table that reveals itself by gushing springs and
full wells.

Abul Kasem has already pointed out in one of his article [4]:
If one reads Dr. Bucaille's discourse on these topics, it does not take
much intelligence to note the twisted logic and his clever selection of only
those verses that serve his purposes. One striking point however is that he
only elucidates a natural phenomenon as described in the Qur’an and
interprets that natural phenomenon as the scientific explanation in the
Qur’an. This is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who has the slightest
idea what scientific knowledge is all about.
Let's see how Dr William Campbell refuted the Qur'anic science of Bucaille [15] :
Dr Bucaille declares that until the late sixteenth century "man held totally
inaccurate views on the water cycle'', and considers that several
statements in the Qur'an which reflect a knowledge of the water cycle
could not therefore have come from any human source. 10

He quotes verses 50:9-11, 35:9, 30:48, 7:57, 25:48-49, and 45:5, as the
verses which include steps (2), (3), and (4a) above. As an example, we
shall look at the late Meccan Sura of the Heights (Al-A`rúf) 7:57,
''(God) is the One Who sends forth the winds like heralds of
His Mercy. When they have carried (2) the heavy-laden
clouds, we drive them to a dead land. Then we cause (3)
water to descend and thereby (4a) bring forth fruits of every
kind. Thus we will bring forth the dead. Maybe you will
To demonstrate step (4b) above he brings verses from Suras 23:18-19,
15:22, and the late Meccan Sura of The Crowds (Al-Zumar) 39:21 which
''Have you not seen that God sent water down from the sky
and led it through (4b) sources into the ground? Then he
caused sown fields of different colours to grow.''
These verses are accurate, of course, but the question is do they show
any special foreknowledge and thereby prove Divine Revelation? The
answer must surely be "no." Every man or woman, even those living in a
city, could describe steps (2), (3), and (4a). And every person in contact
with farmers during a drought will hear them say that their wells and
springs have dried up, thus showing common knowledge of step (4b) that
rain is the source and origin of underground water.
But what of step (1)? – The evaporation as the source of rain clouds. This
will be more difficult to understand by simple observation only, and, it could
not be evident to the ancient people when the Qur'an was revealed. But
does the Qur'an have any verse to clarify the evaporation process?
Unfortunately, there is not a single verse to support such claim.
It can be pointed out that there is no end to the strange miracles Muslim scholars are
claiming. If one visits the prominent Islamic sites [14], one will find hundreds of such
inane arguments.
Currently, I have no time to rebut all those wild claims and declare myself a victory. The
good news is that many of my skeptic friends, working in parallel are doing a wonderful
job in the Net. For example, Richard Carrier debunked Dr Mansour Hassab-Elnaby's
claim on the speed of light [16]; Ali Sina refuted Harun Yahya's claim on atmospheric
layers [17], Abul Kasem and Syed Kamran Mirza debunked the claim on mountains [18,
19], Dr. Alamgir Hussain refuted the Qur'anic prophecies on Pharaohs [25]….etc. I will
rest my case analysing another miracle which has been frequently quoted in Islamic
web-sites in recent days. 11

10. Qur’an foretells about “Red Star Nebula.”

In recent years many Islamic

websites [20] have been propagating
one particular example of the
miraculous scientific knowledge of
the Qur'an, supposedly proven by a
picture from the NASA Hubble Space
Telescope on January 11, 1995, but
had reached the attention of the
Muslims apparently when it was the
featured image at the NASA web site
on October 31, 1999. Starting from
that date, some Muslims discovered
that this may make a good Qur'anic
miracle. They spread the news that
this phenomenon is tagged with the
following verse of the Qur'an:
“And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red
hide.” (55:37-38)
This verse, unfortunately, has nothing to do with any Red Star Nebula. Actually, in this
verse Islamic Allah (through his obedient Prophet) was just trying to scare people with
tales of blazing fires and dreadful actions. The above verse is, therefore, another
example of Prophet's scare-mongering verses, when we realize that the sentence ‘sky
opens and becomes red (with fire)’ does not connote to any scientific miracle
A closer chronological observation of the verses from 55:26 to 55:38 gives us an
impression that the author is trying to frighten people about the so-called Judgment Day
[21]. Let's quote from the Qur'an:
Everyone that is thereon will pass away; There remaineth but the
Countenance of thy Lord of Might and Glory. Which is it, of the favours of
your Lord that ye deny? All that are in the heavens and the earth entreat
Him. Every day He exerciseth (universal) power. Which is it, of the favours
of your Lord that ye deny? We shall dispose of you, O ye two dependents
(man and jinn). Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that ye deny? O
company of jinn and men, if ye have power to penetrate (all) regions of the
heavens and the earth, then penetrate (them)! Ye will never penetrate
them save with (Our) sanction. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that
ye deny? There will be sent, against you both, heat of fire and flash of
brass, and ye will not escape. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that
ye deny? And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like
red hide -Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that ye deny? - On that 12

day neither man nor jinni will be questioned of his sin.

From the citations above, these two particular verses could be our interest because
Allah clearly declares his future motivation to settle our affairs (on the Judgment Day):

YUSUFALI: Soon shall we settle your affairs, O both ye worlds!
PICKTHAL: We shall dispose of you, O ye two dependents (man and jinn).
SHAKIR: Soon will we apply ourselves to you, O you two armies.
YUSUFALI: On that Day no question will be asked of man or Jinn as to his
PICKTHAL: On that day neither man nor jinni will be questioned of his sin.
SHAKIR: So on that day neither man nor jinni shall be asked about his sin.

Thus any rational person can conclude that there is no relation with red star nebula if we
consider the context. However, Muslim scholars wishfully matched this up with the
subject of astrophysics.
We all know that there are many Nebulae very far away from our planet. If we look at
them with powerful telescopes they will appear to be red because it is going away from
us. All stars are going away from us because the universe is expanding and therefore
they are red. This is the famous Red Shift that Hubble discovered. We, however, cannot
see this with our plain eyes; we can only see it through the most powerful telescopes.
The reddish colour of this particular Nebula shown in the picture above, however, is not
the cause of expansion of space as explained previously. The NASA Hubble Space
Telescope of the “Cat’s Eye Nebula”, an explosion of a supernova that took place 3,000
years ago, took this particular picture. This is a glass-hour explosion seen from the top.
Actually, NASA took these photographs in infrared or X-ray spectrum. In this particular
picture NASA added false colours using colour algorithm at the time of releasing. NASA
allotted the red colour to this picture, but they could virtually have given any colour they
liked. So the whole argument of relating this with Qur’anic dicta -"rosy like red hide"
becomes completely meaningless [22].
Aparthib [23] also has written quite a number of articles refuting such Islamic pseudo-
scientific claims i.e., the attempt to relate vague verses of the Qur'an with scientific
inventions. I remember in response to an apologist’s claim of such vague "miracle",
Aparthib once wrote:
"I see an attempt here to link planetary nebulae with a religious verse. This
is a flawed attempt that is often made by apologetics of all religions, some
more than others. If one likes to see science in anything they can see it 13

anywhere. Some Joe may have said, "All is relative" before Einstein's
theory of relativity. By this stretch of imagination that Joe can legitimately
claim that he already knew about relativity and claim originality. Any vague
phrase, pun, quote etc. by humans, scriptures etc. can be customized and
made to fit any scientific principle which also have been phrased in a very
general way for popular consumption hiding the underlying precise sense
of these principles. Its an insult to science and the scientists whose
painstaking research has helped unravel the complex workings of the laws
of nature and reality. None of these scientific revelations were inspired
from, dependent on, or utilized any of the religious revelations. If religious
revelations could not and did not lead to any of these scientific truths in a
stand alone way then by any criterion and logic they cannot be used to
corroborate science. There are many unanswered questions in the basic
understanding of the universe. Why can't the verses of scripture throw any
light on them? For example we don't at this time know for sure if the
universe is closed, open or flat. No body dares to make a prediction based
on any revelation. But if it is ever found out by science I am sure one can
dig out some vague words of a verse from some book of some religion and
claim to "see" the answer that science has finally managed to find. It’s
always AFTER the fact that these semblances are found. It has never
been found BEFORE the scientific discovery. Is that a coincidence?"
Then Aparthib went on, saying -
"Nobel laureate Physicist Dr. Abdus Salam warned against people trying to
explain Big Bang using verses from Koran, saying that the current version
of Big Bang is the best known scientific explanation for the creation of the
universe. What if a better scientific explanation than Big Bang is found
tomorrow? Should the verses be changed to accommodate the new
scientific view? Religion can never vindicate or falsify science.
The truth or falsity of a scientific principle lies within science itself.
Religious scriptures cannot speak of any scientific principle. Religious
revelations are absolute directives and narratives for humans to follow as
faith unquestioningly. Many revelations clearly contradict many accepted
scientific principles. No scientist of any repute has ever tried to
substantiate scientific principles by religious beliefs.
Most scientists and theologians would rather not mix faith with objective
and rational field of science. Koran/Bible/Gita etc are not books of science.
Any coincidental vague semblance between a verse and a popular
phrasing of a complex scientific principle is solely due to the very general
and vague wordings admitting of any interpretation that one chooses to
impose on it.
All one needs is some vague reverse fitting argument to connect the two.
One can find Quantum Mechanics in Tagore's poems, or relativity in the
Buddhist Monk Nagarjun's writing. Just seeing what one likes to see 14

because of a preset belief in a favoured belief system doesn't make it so

by any objective criterion. My purpose is not to disrespect religion or its
revelation, but to question the attempt to reconcile the two in an illogical
way. They can be irreconcilable and yet can continue and thrive as
separate ways as long as one does not get in the way of the pursuit of the
While debating in many Bangladeshi Internet forums [26] I have noted that the modern
educated Muslims love to cite many such fuzzy scientific miracles from the holy Qur'an
to promote the divine origin of their faith. In this two-part essay I have debunked top ten
of these claims. I hope my attempt will provide a better understanding that no
supernatural supreme being handed any kind of scientific information to Muhammad.
Those alleged miracles in the Qur'an simply fail to offer any reasonable rational
argument to support any claim of divine source for the Qur’an. No sensible person or
freethinker should be swayed by such phony divine assertion.

[1] Dr. Shamsher Ali et al, Scientific indication in Holy Qur'an, Islamic Foundation,
Bangladesh, page: xiv
[2] Momtaj Doulatana, Al-Qur'an ek Moha-biggyan, Gyankosh Prokashoni, Bangladesh
[3] Athanasios Abdulrahman, Responses to the Claims of the Muslims,; CroMagnon on FFI,
[4] Abul Kasem, How Western Scientists Discovered $cience in Qur’an, Mukto-Mona
[5] Interestingly, when the freethinkers and skeptics of Islam quote violent verses from
the holy book, such as - Qur’an tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find
them (2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (9:123), slay them (9:5), fight with
them (8:65 ), to strike off their heads (47:4), strive against them with great endeavor
(25:52) etc., apologists and Islamic scholars instantly pronounce, "You have quoted out
of context". The "out of context" scenario certainly should now backfire to those Islamic
scholars who desperately search modern science in scattered quotes, vague verses of
[6] Richard Carrier, Predicting Modern Science: Epicurus vs. Mohammed, Secular Web.
[7] Dr. Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qu'ran and Science: The Holy Scriptures
Examined in the Light of Modern Knowledge, Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an; 7th ed (2003).
[8] Ibid, pp 149.
[9] Ibid, pp 165. 15

[10] Shlomi Tal, The Platygaean Qur’an: Exposition of the Flat-Earth Cosmology of the
Qur’an, Metaphysical Naturalism Pages
[11] Abul Kasem, Allah's Flat earth and His Cosmos, Mukto-Mona
[12] Avijit Roy, Super-Scientific Religious Scriptures! and Does the Noble Quran support
"The Earth moves around the Sun" theory?, Mukto-Mona.
[14] ; etc.
[15] Dr. William Campbell, The Qur'an and the Bible in the Light of History & Science,
Middle East Resources, 2002.
[16] Richard Carrier, The Koran Predicted the Speed of Light? Not really., Secular Web
[17] Ali Sina, Layers of Heaven FFI.
[18] Abul Kasem, Mountain Building---Allah’s Style?, Mukto-Mona
[19] Syed Kamran Mirza, Koran on Mountain, Mukto-Mona
[20],, http://www.answering-, etc.
[21] The one all-encompassing theme of the Qur'an is the inevitability of Judgment
Day/Kiyamat/Doomsday. Muslims believe that this world, created by Allah, will eventually
be brought to an end by Him, and that it will be followed by a new world (so called "Roj
Hashorer Moydan") in which all people will be resurrected and brought to account for
their deeds.
[22] Ali Sina, Miracles of Allah, FFI
[23] Aparthib's Article Page, Mukto-Mona
[24] Dr. Jeyam Kannan, an Obstetrics and Gynecologist from Chennai, wrote a series of
articles in a Tamil Magazine called Mangaiyar Malar, about the amazing references to
human embryology in Thirumandiram, an ancient Tamil Saiva Siddhanta classic of the
6th century AD. In July 1999 issue, (page 132-134), Dr. Kannan, refers to some mantras
that refer to atom
[25] Dr. Alamgir Hussain, Story of Pharaoh in Koran - A Miracle?, Mukto-Mona
[26] Mukto-mona, Vinnomot, NFB, banglarnari, MuktoChinta etc.