Refuting "Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists."

By: Ousman Ahmad

The critic's allegation: He first starts of by claiming there's nothing new in the Quran, as many Greeks influenced Arabs in the past, thus assuming the origin of the Quran was from Greek sources.

 Firstly, this claim that there's nothing new in the Quran (regarding science) is false. For example, Quran describes in 23:14 is man is created from alaqa (leech like substance, clot of blood & suspended thing). The same verse also says humans are created from mudahga (chewed substance). None of the Greek mentioned prior to the Quran about leech like substance. One can refer to the embryologist's book: (Prof. Keith Moore - The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions" - 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah And WB Saunders). The shape & appearance of alaqa and mudgha during the embryological stages are accurate. For proof, watch this. So, Quran is original here.

Secondly, Muhammad was known as an honest man both before and after claiming Prophethood (i.e. see here, here, here, here and the middle of this shows even non-Muslims attesting that he was sincere). He was even honest with his enemies, hence given the title "Al-Ameen" (Mashhad Al-Allaf - Mirror Of Realization: God Is A Percept, The Universe Is A Concept - M. Al-Allaf, 2003 - Page 102). Therefore, it is difficult to imagine such an honest man would plagiarize & also very improbable.

Additionally, if plagiarized text could become such a masterpiece in Arabic to astound the world, why was not anyone during Muhammad's time or during the past 1400+ years and counting able to produce something similar to it (as challenged in Surah 2:23-24,17:88)? Arabic was at it's peak when the Quran was revealed, so if the Quran was plagiarized, it would've been historically highly probable for Arab non-Muslims to reproduce a Surah similar to the Quran. But this never occurred, which disproves plagiarism occurred. An expert of classical Arabic says regarding the plagiarism allegation:

"There's no evidence to it , and the coherence of the Quran, the cohesion of it as a text is the ultimate proof to the contrary." (Nouman Ali Khan - Time Slice 28:05-28:12 - Source).

(Note: Arab Christians today are trying to complete this challenge, but in fact they are plagiarizing from the Quran to fulfil this challenge. Watch this & read this).

Also, more arguments are as follows:

"The day-to-day life of the Prophet was an open book for all to see. In fact a revelation came asking people to give the Prophet (pbuh) privacy in his own home. If the Prophet had been meeting people who told him what to say as a revelation from God, this would not have been hidden for very long. The extremely prominent Quraish nobles who followed the Prophet and accepted Islam were wise and intelligent men who would have easily noticed anything suspicious about the way in which the Prophet brought the revelations to them - more so since the Prophetic mission lasted 23 years. The enemies of the Prophet kept a close watch on him in order to find proof for their claim that he was a liar - they could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret rendezvous with particular Jews and Christians." (Source).

Also, Greeks made mistakes in their works which Quran doesn't mention (i.e. Sun revolves around the earth, sun is centre of universe, earth's shape is flat, etc). If Muhammad copied, he surely would have included these errors, yet we don't see them. Critics argue back by claiming there are errors in Quran, but they mistranslate & misinterpret Quranic verses, and don't bring forth reliable sources to back up the the claims.

The critic then claimed that it's almost certain Muhammad could've learned how to write & our historical documents are murky at best. This is a completely bogus argument, as our historical documents (i.e. Hadiths) go through stringent principles knows as the science of Hadith. Using this detailed system, we are not only able to find out what is early, but what is early AND authentic. Secondly, virtually all historians attest to the fact Muhammad was an illiterate (i.e. Karen Armstrong, Ibn Ishaq, etc). The Prophet even said:

Sahih Bukhari, Book 31, Number 137:
"Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, We are an illiterate nation; we neither write, nor know accounts. The month is like this and this, i.e. sometimes of 29 days and sometimes of thirty days."

So, critics need to produce proof that Muhammad did learn how to read and write. Since they can't, their allegations regarding the Prophet's illiteracy can be dismissed. The critic then quoted a Muslim site that agreed Surah 41:11 teaches the universe originated from a gaseous material. However, majority of scholars don't hold that opinion. This refers refers to the increase of cosmic dust.

"Verse 41:11 is generally taken by Muslim scholars to refer to the collection of cosmic dust into the various celestial bodies present today, specifically the heavens and the earth." (Source).

This is more the correct view, when analyzing at various translations of the Quran. The critic then goes on to say that Greeks already knew astronomy before, which is already refuted above. He then states how Quran doesn't use complex scientific terminologies, therefore it's hopeless. The problem is with this critic's ignorance, as the Quran wasn't just meant for this age, but it was also meant 1400 years ago. Had Allah inspired Muhammad to use these complex scientific terminologies which we have recently discovered, people back then would not be able to understand what Muhammad said. As a result, some could have doubted Muhammad, mocked him even more that they already did & reject him. But, since Muhammad was meant for the whole of humanity & not just for his people (Surah 21:107), the terminologies used in Quran can be understood by people of all ages. It can satisfy scientists & laymen.

The critic went onto to claim the Arabic "dhukan" used in 41:11 doesn't mean gas. We will cite scholarly lexicons showing want the word dhukan (دُخَانٌ) means:

Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007:
"smoke, fume, vapor."

WordReference Dictionary:
"gas."

So, it doesn't only mean smoke. He then goes on to state that it's not a perfect analogy of gas and particles in suspension, and the gasses being hot. Not all scientists agree with this. Example:

"A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the 'smoke' that was the origin of the whole universe." (The Space Atlas, Heather and Henbest - Page 50).

"Professor Kozai said that because that smoke was hot, we cannot describe it as "mist". Dukhaan is the best descriptive word that can ever be." (Source).

So, it could have been possible that smoke was the origin of the universe. (Note: Islam could teach is, assuming Surah 41:11 refers to what the heavens were in the past, not during when they were asked to come willingly together). The neophyte then claimed the whole section contradicts known science, which we will refute below.


He said:
"The Koran repeats throughout that Allah created everything in six days (e.g. 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, 25:59, 50:38, 57:4), just as the Old Testament says, and here we have those six days broken down into three units of two, and placed in chronological order. Though attempts to "reinterpret" the word "day" in ways that fit scientific knowledge never work (inserting any uniform duration into the story is still incapable of fitting the facts), we will put that aside here and address what is irrefutable."

Reply:
We are not misinterpreting the word, because unlike you, we study the meanings of the word in the original Arabic text. The Arabic used in all the verses the critic gave is "ayam" (Source) which is the plural of the singular: yawm (Source). The Arabic yawm means:

Sakhr Dictionary:
"point of time, period, time."

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, Page 318:
"day, era, time, today, this/that day, age/period of time."

The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, Page 1110:
"age, era, time, day."

It can easily refer to 6 periods of time, because the word has this meaning.
 

He said:
"Verse 41:9 states in no uncertain terms that the earth is made "in two days," and this is the first two days in the list. Verse 41:10 describes the next two days of creation, completing the first "four days equal," in which mountains and plants are made. Thus, we are seeing a clear temporal order: for mountains and plants could not be made before the earth is made, thus 41:10 follows 41:9 in time, so it is only reasonable to conclude that 41:11 and 41:12 continue the temporal progression--which makes sense, since the one heaven could not have been separated into seven heavens and adorned with stars before it was smoke."

Reply:
Classical scholars have held that 41:10 includes the two aeons mentioned in verse 41:9. There's no chronological markers in verses 9-10 which would suggest that 41:10 does not include the two aeons mentioned in verse 41:9. We agree with the critic that: "mountains and plants could not be made before the earth is made," but how does this mean that the 2 aeons in 41:9 cannot be part of the aeons mentioned in 41:10? It doesn't. The mountain could've been placed on the earth the same aeon (i.e. aeon 2) as when the outer crust of the earth was finished.

Moreover, verse 41:10 following in time gives us more information on what was created on the first 2 aeons. It's possible nourishment on aeons 1-4 are included in verse 41:10, so unless there are chronological markers in verses 9-10 indicating a a chronological order, the critic cannot prove his case. With the above interpretation of 41:9-10, verses 41:11-12 would be referring to the next 2 aeons (with chronological marker used as 'then').

Another interpretation is that 41:9-10 are 6 aeons in total, while in 41:11, the word "thumma" is taken as "moreover" or "And," which doesn't denote a chronological order. With this interpretation, the 2 aeons in verse 41:11-12 are the same as the last 4 in 41:10. The critic then tries to refute the idea that 41:11 doesn't speak about the universe originating from smoke. But as states above: majority of scholars don't hold that opinion. This (41:11) refers refers to the increase of cosmic dust.

He said:
"Verse 41:12 describes in no uncertain terms the last two days of the six days of creation, since it says in these two days creation was "completed," yet it is only then that stars, the "lamps," adorn the sky. This completely reverses scientific reality: earth could not possibly have existed before stars adorned the sky--no planet could. We know that as a matter of firmly-established fact: for only stars can produce the heavy elements of which planets like the earth are made. Yet the Koran says, with no ambiguity and beyond any shadow of a doubt, that stars appear in heaven after the earth."


Reply:
Can the critic show us where the verse say stars first appeared after the earth? No. No Quranic verse of Hadith says stars only first appeared after the creation of Earth. Let us read the Quranic verse in question again:

Surah Fussilat 41:11:
"So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge."

We see here that 'lights' refer to stars: "And We adorned the lower heaven with lights." Does this mean mean "And it was only then that We adorned the lower heaven with lights."? No, the verse doesn't mean this. It merely says that the lower heaven were adorned by lights (stars). There's no mention whatsoever as to whether or not this was the first time stars appeared. An analogy may help one to understand better: Suppose while someone is painting a huge picture, the painter stop & goes to buy purple paint. Does this mean it is only then he bought purple paint, and not before? No. So, no-where does the verse say that it is only then stars were created/came into existence.

He said:
"For example, one Muslim tried the usual fundamentalist tactic of abusing and twisting language contrary to all sense and reason, telling me that the word translated as "then," thumma, in verses 41:11 and 41:12 means "and also" or "moreover" and thus does not denote temporal order, and so 41:9-12 is just a conceptual list given out of chronological order (for no particular reason, of course). But this argument is false, for thumma can in fact mean a chronological "then," and as I have shown the context makes no other interpretation logically possible."

Reply:
The critic has ignored lexicons and conveniently stuck to his own interpretation.

ArabicLookup.com:
"at that time; after that or therefore."

1. then
2. moreover
3. simultaneously (Source).

Lanes Lexicon, Volume 1, Pages 390-391:
"to pick up, collect, repair, heap up (thing in a place). thamma - over there, here, in that direction, there in, thither. thumma - then, afterwards, moreover, mostly used as a conjunction indicating a sequence in line or order to be rendered as then/thereafter, also used as a more simple conjunction - and."

Similarly, one of the meanings given in: (Sakhr Dictionary - 2006/2007) is: "moreover." It can be translated as "moreover" in Surah 41:11, as the context doesn't strictly make it impossible. So, how are we twisting the language, when lexicons are presented? Does this guy even know Arab as a language? Probably not. Yet, he wants to come along and ignore what scholars plus lexicons say, because he thinks he knows Islam.

 

Additionally, his interpretation doesn't make it impossible that it can only mean thumma, because Verse 41:9-10 do not give chronological markers. This has already been refuted above in more detail.

The critic then then stated that if there in chronology with these verses, that means that the claim that the universe originated as dhukan isn't in the Quran. Now, this is depending on the translation of verse 41:11 & the assumption that 41:11 does speak of the origin on the universe. Some translations of 41:11 say "and it had been dhukan" while others say "and it is/while it is dhukan." There is no sure way to know whether or not the verse is stating that the heaven was dhukan before God command the heaven & earth to come willingly, or only during this period. As a result, it is not clear that this verse informs us that the origin of the universe was (denoting past tense) originated from dhukan. But as stated above: This (41:11) refers refers to the increase of cosmic dust & majority of scholars don't the opinion that the verse refers to dhukan being the origin on the universe.

The critic then ended his paper with more plagiarism allegations, which have already been refuted. So, we encourage this greenhorn that if he even thinks about seeking Islamic knowledge, he should go to the scholars & classical tafsirs. He won't do this of course, because it would be too "fundamental" for his liking. One can notice in his bibliography that he's quoted no tafsirs & no lexicons, but he had the nerve to talk about a language he doesn't know, and try to interpret a book he's never critically studied scholars under.