[JennaJJxoxoxo]

Salam everyone
I have recently been having some pretty heated theological arguments with an ex-Muslim about the truth of Islam and I'm afraid to say, he seems to have some very good points which have put allot of doubt in my mind. I am going to post his arguments- my apologies for the length (they refer to scientific miracles in the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad (saw)) so that people can post counter arguments- and please do! I need them asap

1. He said: There was nothing 'miraculous' about Quranic embryology as similar descriptions were given by the ancient Greeks centuries earlier- paragraph quoting Galen who was born 500 years before Muhammad:

“But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (‘nutfah’). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (‘alaqa’), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’) ...
... The time has come for nature to articulate the organs precisely and to bring all the parts to completion. Thus it caused flesh to grow on and around all the bones, and at the same time ... it made at the ends of the bones ligaments that bind them to each other, and along their entire length it placed around them on all sides thin membranes, called periosteal, on which it caused flesh to grow”

As you can see, not only does Galen give an incredibly similar but more detailed account on the stages of embryological development, but he also makes the same mistake as the Quran does in claiming that the muscles form after the bones. Coincidence? I think not.
Now you may be wondering where Muhammad got this information; the most likely source of this information was an Arab physician named al-Harith ibn Khalada whom Muhammad was well acquainted with and was even recommended by Muhammad himself to treat the Sahaba.

2. I said: [23:14] "Then We made the sperm into a leech-like substance; then of that leech-like substance We made a fetus of a chewed-like substance; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be God, the best to create!"

The wrapping of the muscles around the bones happens after the muscle precursor cells begin their development into muscle - now re-read the quote taking attention to the word 'clothed the bones'
the Noble Verse Isn't speaking about which was created first, the bones or the muscles, but rather, it is speaking about the wrapping of the muscles around the bones happens after the creation of the the bones. which is why allah chose the words 'clothed'.

Again notice how when the quote is showing how time progresses - it uses the word 'then' - it is not used however to say the bones came before the flesh (read the quote) because it is not seperated by 'then' instead it accurately puts them oth in the same phrase of time to show that they happen relatively closely together.


He said: Second, your point about the use of the word 'clothed' is weak; at no point does the Quran give any indication of the creation or existence of the muscles ('lahm') until the part about wrapping them around the bones, this strongly implies that the muscles are created after the creation of the bones. Also, the Quran refers to the 'mudghah' as being made into 'itham' (bones) in the same way (using the word 'khalaqna') that it describes the 'nutfah' being made into a 'alaqah', and a 'alaqah' being made into a 'mudghah':
"khalaqna alnnutfataA Aalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman"
Therefore, we can infer from the text that the 'alaqah', 'mudghah', and 'itham" are three separate stages, meaning that the Quran describes 'bones' as being a whole stage of development, and that the entire embryo consists of bones during this stage, before being wrapped in 'lahm'. As you know, this is scientifically absurd.


There are two problems with your mode of reason regarding the use of the word 'then' (arabic thumma) and it's effect on the details of the description provided:

"Thumma jaAAalnahu nutfatan fee qararin makeenin.
Thumma khalaqna alnnutfataA Aalaqatan fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman fakasawna alAAithama lahman thumma ansha/nahu khalqan akhara fatabaraka Allahu ahsanu alkhaliqeena"

A. As you can see from the above quote, in the original Arabic, there is no 'then' (thumma) between the description of the 'clot' (alaqah) and 'lump of flesh' (mudgha), or between the mudghah and the creation of the bone (itham). So if we are to use the same logic you apply to the later part of the verse then we must conclude that the start of formation of the 'clot' or 'leech-like substance' (which isn't clear but let's assume it's the pre-embyonic stage), and the 'chewed lump of flesh' (ie. embryo) and the formation of bones and muscle all happen at the same time; this is completely incorrect - the first 3 weeks are the pre-embyonic stage, then the conceptus becomes an embryo at around the third week, while muscle and bone do not appear till between 7-12 weeks. In essence, what you're implying the Quran is saying is that what in reality takes place over 7-12 weeks occurs in a single (or very short) instance.

B. You are ignoring the use of the Arabic prefix 'fa', which means 'and then' or 'and so'. 'Fa' is used before the verb 'kasawna' ([we] clothed/wrapped) when referring to the bones being wrapped in muscle (fakasawna alAAithama lahman) and it is also used before the word 'khalaqna' ([we] created) in describing the creation of the 'mudghah' out of the 'alaqah' (fakhalaqna alAAalaqata mudghatan), as well as the creation of bones out of the 'mudghah' (fakhalaqna almudghata AAithaman). In all three instances, 'fa' is used in an identical manner, and going by the known definition of that prefix it is safe to conclude that that in all three instances the former precedes the latter chronologically (ie. alaqah, then mudghah, then itham, then lahm). If instead you choose to change the definition 'fa' to simply 'and' (which is incorrect) then you'll simply find yourself stuck with problem A.

Finally, if you are going to object to my translations, maybe you should check out a few from some well known reputable sources:

Sahih International
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators. (notice the use of the word 'and' only between alaqah, mudghah, itham, and lahm)
Muhsin Khan
Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators.
Pickthall
Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators!
Yusuf Ali
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Shakir
Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.
Dr. Ghali
Thereafter We created the sperm-drop into a clot, (Or: embryo) then We created the clot into a chewed up morsel, then We created the chewed up morsel into bones, then We dressed the bones (in) flesh; thereafter We brought him into being as another creation. So Supremely Blessed be Allah, The Fairest of creators.

3. He said: There is actually some evidence that Muhammad was experiencing simple or complex partial seizures, as part of some form of epilepsy, leading to audiovisual hallucinations. You may think this sounds ridiculous, but partial seizures don’t look anything like the violent shaking grand mal seizures often shown on TV shows; in fact simple partial seizures leave consciousness completely intact while complex partial seizures simply cause a transient loss of consciousness that often doesn’t affect muscle tone (ie. a person experiencing a complex partial seizure may lose consciousness but is still able to remain standing, or even continue walking), so others may not even notice that someone is having a partial seizure.
Simple partial seizure
Complex partial seizure

You should also know that there have been many other false prophets throughout history, all claiming to have received messages from God or angels. These aren't bad or power hungry people; they are often very spiritual and are willing to face significant persecution to further their cause. Two examples that come to mind are Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmadiyya sect, and Rashad Khalifa, founder of United Submitters International. Neither of these men were crazy, and both were branded heretics or apostates by other Muslims - effectively making them punishable by the death penalty - and Khalifa was brutally murdered at the age of 54. Should we take the fact that these men were willing to face persecution as evidence in support of the authenticity of their claims?

4. He said: About the expanding universe, let's look at the verse that Muslims refer to regarding this 'miracle':


"Wassamaa banaynahabi-aydin wa-inna lamoosiAAoon"

Sahih International
"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

Muhsin Khan
"With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof."

Pickthall
"We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)."

Yusuf Ali
"With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace."

Shakir
"And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample."

Dr. Ghali
"And the heaven (is also a sign). We have built it with (Our) Hands (i.e., Capability) and surely We are indeed extending (it) wide."

Quran 51:47

The word in question here is 'moosiAAoon', which means 'the ones who make things vast/expand' (it is a noun, not a verb). The verse does not specify that the universe is still expanding, only that Allah is the one who makes things vast/expand, including the 'heavens'. Only recently have some people such as Dr. Ghali translated 'moosiAAoon' as a verb in the present tense, meaning 'extending/expanding it'. This is incorrect, as can be seen by someone with knowledge of Arabic grammar, and as evidenced by the fact that this is a departure from the majority of previous translations.

Now, even if we suspend our disbelief, ignore all other translations, and assume that Dr. Ghali is correct, what is so miraculous about such a vague description? What 'heaven' is the Quran referring to? The word used is 'samaa', which also means 'sky'. What does 'god' mean when he speaks of how he 'built' the sky? Also, what is so grand about such a description? Anyone could look up at the sky and come to the conclusion, for whatever reason, that the 'heavens' are expanding. Add a few details and maybe then you have something worth bragging about.


Do you not see how all these 'miracles' are just vague descriptions, and are often simply invented by people who deliberately mistranslate the Quran to insert their own 'miracles' into the text? Now if God wanted to include clear scientific miracles, why didn't he include something concrete and completely unknowable at the time? Why didn't he say something like:

'verily we have created all things with energy equal to it's mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied unto itself; and God is the creator of all things'

There, completely clear and not in the least bit vague; and had it been in the Quran, not one person would be able to refute the fact that this is completely correct and completely unknowable at the time.

[cypedembeda]

This is a compilation of common arguments used by Christian missionaries to defame the Qur'an. Look up any website responding to them. Is he going to start citing 'Hagarism' or works by John Wansbrough next? How absurd. I expect he claimed that the Qur'an was 'incompatible with his vast, expansive knowledge' or something to that extent? Is he too modern to believe in Allah and his Messenger?

Do not worry yourself about 'ex-Muslims.' They are dead. Unless they return to Islam, they are dead within and once they are dead without they shall know the abject falsehood they spew to be precisely that-abject falsehood.

Refutations of the items which you speak of can be found on it-is-truth, islamic-awareness, and probably defending-islam though I haven't checked that one lately. Be well brother, and lend your ear not to these absurdities, but occupy your time with the seeking of knowledge.

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

The main thing I would like to know is: is it possible that Muhammad could have got any of the miracles in the Qur'an from Greeks who already knew e.g: details of embryology (atheists tell me he could have found out from a friend of his who was a physician).

[huylibizonoff]

The main thing I would like to know is: is it possible that Muhammad could have got any of the miracles in the Qur'an from Greeks who already knew e.g: details of embryology (atheists tell me he could have found out from a friend of his who was a physician).

No. It isn't possible.

Post your questions in this thread.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=122313221

He will have no problem answering you. And while your waiting for an answer read this
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=109235951

[cypedembeda]

The main thing I would like to know is: is it possible that Muhammad could have got any of the miracles in the Qur'an from Greeks who already knew e.g: details of embryology (atheists tell me he could have found out from a friend of his who was a physician).

How is it proven that his physician friend learned these things from the Greeks? In order for that to be true, the following would have to be true:
1) The physician in question was educated in a manner such that he was taught these things about embryology despite him being an Arab physician (this would have limited, logically speaking
2) The physician in question related these things about embryology to the Prophet
3) The relation of these things was done prior to the revelation

The physician in question was educated in Yemen. Is it likely that Yemen had received books by Galen, translated them into Greek, and then used them to teach physicians? How likely is it that a Yemeni person at the time knew Greek? Or had read Galen? I have not the slightest idea nor do I care to delve into it, to be perfectly honest, but this reading of things is just based on a series of insane assumptions (outlined above).

I again urge you to look at www.itistruth.org for facts of the embryology in the Qur'an from top doctors and scientists across the world.

Please do not take your understanding of Islam as truth from these scientific miracles. Why is this? If the foundation of your faith is these things, and then you read a single article assailing them, it is assailing the very foundations of your faith.

Do not speak with this man, as a little knowledge of Arabic makes everyone into a scholar now, you see? He is performing a tafseer and translating the Qur'an and applying his own opinion to it thusly. Do not be afraid to leave the discussion. This is a problem with the internet in that everyone is unwilling to leave the discussion. Leave him to his inner death.

[swissloveone]

Quran is not only about science. Its the command of Allah. If it was a man-made book, why doesnt someone reproduce something of the same literary caliber of the Quran. Some ppl have produces stuff, but it is in no way comparable to the literary superiority of the Quran. Quran is a miracle and it is the word of Allah the Almighty.

brother, please watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWUy_luMq0Q

[JeorgeNoxeref]

Look, brother! The Qur'an is not a book of science; such was never the focus of the Qur'an, and never will be.

Let us take out a moment to examine the personality of the messenger sallaLlahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. There are only three possiblities: [1] He was sincere, and Allah was revealing to him; [2] He was sincere yet deluded [wal-'iyadhu biLlah]; or [3] He was lying, purposefully [wal-'iyadhu biLlah, may Allah save us from believing such nonsense].

Let us commence from possibility [3]. Clearly, if he were to devote his entire life to such a persuit, he must have had his reasons for doing so, and be in a position to benefit materially from it. The authentic narrations, however, are to the contrary.

If he were looking for wealth, he did not recieve any as a result of his propagation of Islam in Makkah (instead he recieved torment, insults and alienation from society). In Madinah, the spoils from war (specifically the fifth reserved for his family) were all given away, such that it was often noted that he had no food to feed his own family. There are incedents of bedoins tugging at his shoulders, and he would give away all his wealth, sallaLlahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. In other instances, companions would visit him finding no posessions in his house besides rough skin which made up his bed, and would leave marks on his body. Clearly, his motivation was not monetary related.

If he were looking for prominence in society, the logical way to do so would not be to create a religion so contradictory to society's principals and norms that it would earn him ridicule, murder of his followers and, ultimately, expulsion from the city. He was offered (by the leaders of the Quraysh) numerous compromises (a good woman, wealth, kingship), and yet consistently refused. This is indicative of someone with certainty that matters would improve, and he was looking at the long-term. This could only be as a result of sincere faith in what he was doing.

The fact, therefore, is that he was sincere in his message that he was the messenger of Allah. Thus it could not possibly be that he was forging what he believed to be the revelation from Allah i.e. the Qur'an. As a result of these deductions, we are left with possibilities [1] and [2].

If, according to [2], he was indeed deluded, we must ask ourselves as to what exactly this entailed. We have demonstrated that he was not forging the revelation, and thus was recieving it independantly of his [concsious] self. Since it was not from himself, we know it must have indeed been revelation (from Allah), and thus he certainly was not deluded.

We are now only left with possibility [1], namely, that he was the messenger of Allah, sallaLlahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam. We therefore accept all that he came with without hesitation.

was-salam

[JeorgeNoxeref]

Please address the argument I presented in relation to the personality and integrity of the messenger sallaLlahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam; this is your first priority, but -- and this is only out of interest -- who was his 'friend' who was a physician? LOL

[neniajany]

Salam,

I remember many of these points being answered on "The Deen Show" and by Nouman Ali Khan.

[evarekataVame]

1. If the Quran is proven to be the word of God through other than scientific means, then the refutations by this ex muslim mean nothing. The Quran is proven to be true in the following argument:

http://www.theinimitablequran.com/uniquelitform.pdf

The author is easily contactable for any further queries

2. Galen made many mistakes with regards to his views on embryology, none of which are found in the Quran. If the Quran was copied from Galen's work, why aren't the mistakes included?

[truportodfa]

Assalamu Aleikum,

The arguments they post do not hold much water.
No doubt that many of these arguments already have been refuted.

I assume of course you have read an translation of the Qur'an.
Then you must know that a big theme within the Qur'an is nature. The Qur'an talks about nature as a Sign of God's existence.

The real miracle is, is that the Qur'an has not changed in the last 1400 years.
But science has, we understand the world around us a lot better. During 1400 years, our view of the world changed continuosly.
A man-made book with nature as a central theme would not have survived, no doubt about that my brother.

The real miracle here, is that the Qur'an does not mingle in with mankind's opinion about the world. It only uses man's
opinion about natural phenomenon to proof God's existence.

Supposedly, a prophet would come now, sent by God. And he would say: 'The universe is not expanding, it's shrinking and it's flat, believe it'.
No one would believe this, we already have servere doubts about his sincerity, next to that, he's claiming something that we all think is false (even if it's true).

This is the true miracle of the Qur'an, during 1400 years, it did not really intervene in man's opinion of the natural world.
Instead of the Qur'an predicting science, it reflects science. And when you are aware of this, it's mind-blowing, that the Qur'an has done this for the last 1400 years.
Some people actually use this argument against Islam, while they are not aware that they actually proved Islam.

I'll give you an example of point 4 (the expanding Universe), to make my case clear.
There are basically two different interpretations of this verse.

Maulana Syed Abul A'ala Maududi translated the Qur'an in 1979 and added also tafseer.

He translated aya 51:47 (expanding universe aya) as followed: (51:47) And heaven – We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so.
No doubt that this man was not aware of modern science. He translated the Qur'an in 1979 in Pakistan.
If he was aware, then no doubt he would have used this verse as a scientific mriacle.

But let's see what he writes in his tafseer about this verse:

The word must' (pl. musi'un) may mean the one who possesses power and means, and also the one who can extend and expand something. According to the first meaning, the verse would mean: "We have built this heaven by Our own might and not with somebody else's help, and its erection was in no way beyond Us. Then how can you ever conceive that We shall not be able to recreate it ?" According to the second meaning, it would mean: "This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation.

If we think about it, how did a man with no scientific knowledge actually say this (second meaning)?
Also see how careful and magnificent the Qur'an presents two different interpretations of this verse. It avoids putting man in a troubled position.
(The Universe is steady according to the first meaning, the Universe is expanding according to the second meaning).
It is for man too reflect, which depends on his present state of understanding the world.

[k1ePRlda]

I'm studying for exams, but in the chance I get time to answer the person's accusations in detail, I will try insha Allah. These are common and easy arguments to respond to.

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

Please address the argument I presented in relation to the personality and integrity of the messenger sallaLlahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam; this is your first priority, but -- and this is only out of interest -- who was his 'friend' who was a physician? LOL

Apparently: the most likely source of this information was an Arab physician named al-Harith ibn Khalada whom Muhammad was well acquainted with and was even recommended by Muhammad himself to treat the Sahaba.

[GohJHM9k]

Address the issue raised and do not use suppostion to divert from the original objection. I think some of the other contributer already stated the fallacie of this kaffirs objection. So why are you talking about a physician friend. Why not approach Hamza Trotsy or Adam Deen who can articulte this in english. They are easily approachable.
By the way Are you a muslim or just pretending to be one. If you are not, then this highlights onece again the nature of kuffur (who covers the truth).
Allahualam

I know this brother. Don't be harsh with him, he's a brother looking to convert he's not here to cause trouble but to instead clear some of his doubts! These are not HIS arguements but arguements put forward to him to make him doubt.

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

I think some of the other contributer already stated the fallacie of this kaffirs objection. So why are you talking about a physician friend. Why not approach Hamza Trotsy or Adam Deen who can articulte this in english. They are easily approachable. HAve you read the post no 13?
So why is he not reading the pdf. His insistant on physician is ridiculous. Generaly this approach is adoptedb by Salafist and Aithist or Evenglical pathological zionist Christian.

Allahualam

I was asked about the identity of the physician in the apostate's arguments, so I replied.

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

I'm studying for exams, but in the chance I get time to answer the person's accusations in detail, I will try insha Allah. These are common and easy arguments to respond to.

I look forward to hearing your reply

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

I know this brother. Don't be harsh with him, he's a brother looking to convert he's not here to cause trouble but to instead clear some of his doubts! These are not HIS arguements but arguements put forward to him to make him doubt.

Thanks for backing me up there bro

[Dreqsqse]

Dr. Ghali
"And the heaven (is also a sign). We have built it with (Our) Hands (i.e., Capability) and surely We are indeed extending (it) wide."

Quran 51:47

The word in question here is 'moosiAAoon', which means 'the ones who make things vast/expand' (it is a noun, not a verb). The verse does not specify that the universe is still expanding, only that Allah is the one who makes things vast/expand, including the 'heavens'. Only recently have some people such as Dr. Ghali translated 'moosiAAoon' as a verb in the present tense, meaning 'extending/expanding it'. This is incorrect, as can be seen by someone with knowledge of Arabic grammar, and as evidenced by the fact that this is a departure from the majority of previous translations.

Now, even if we suspend our disbelief, ignore all other translations, and assume that Dr. Ghali is correct, what is so miraculous about such a vague description? What 'heaven' is the Quran referring to? The word used is 'samaa', which also means 'sky'. What does 'god' mean when he speaks of how he 'built' the sky? Also, what is so grand about such a description? Anyone could look up at the sky and come to the conclusion, for whatever reason, that the 'heavens' are expanding. Add a few details and maybe then you have something worth bragging about.


Do you not see how all these 'miracles' are just vague descriptions, and are often simply invented by people who deliberately mistranslate the Quran to insert their own 'miracles' into the text? Now if God wanted to include clear scientific miracles, why didn't he include something concrete and completely unknowable at the time? Why didn't he say something like:

'verily we have created all things with energy equal to it's mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied unto itself; and God is the creator of all things'

There, completely clear and not in the least bit vague; and had it been in the Quran, not one person would be able to refute the fact that this is completely correct and completely unknowable at the time.

Salam..

What he is saying about that anyone can look at the sky and see how it is expanding is complete Bull****. How can you tell that the universe is expanding by simply looking at the sky? The only way to know that it is expanding is by using a telescope that can actually look into the deepness of space, to witness 'RedShift', which this guy has obviously never heard of. Redshift and the big bang are both mentioned in the same verse, along with another scientific statement (everything is created from water): '"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?'' [21:30].

Now to his other point about 'Musioon' being a noun not a verb. The word 'Musioon/Musaaioon' does mean 'the ones that are expanding'; it is simple logic to be able to understand that this points to the idea of the universe expanding, as the word is used in verses which mention the 'sky' or 'heavens' or 'universe'. Its like me saying 'This robot, of it i am the creator'; it is obvious what the meaning of that is; that i am the one that created the robot.

Also, just by the fact that Allah calls himself 'the ones that expand it' in a verse about the skies is a miracle in itself. Because by using 'expand' it already implies that that whatever He is talking about expands, and that He is just giving the reason as to why it does expand. So by him saying that it is simple to conclude by any normal person that the sky is ever-expanding means that everyone in history is an idiot, even the greatest European scientists, who still could not provide evidence that the universe is expanding. His points only sound clever because of the confidence he is using.

I had similar experiences with an Atheist trying to disprove the Quran, however I found that he was misusing and misinterpreting verses of the Quran as he likes. I also found him translating everything literally, and thus losing the meaning to disprove scientific miracles of the Quran. Remember hat Allah says in the Quran something to the lines of Allah allows those who want to seek knowledge to find it, but those who are ignorant and choose to be, then Allah keeps them away from Islam. I dont know the exact aya but im sure if you searched you would find it .

Inshallah when i get more time i will read the other points that he made, but i just read that bit. Hope it helped, SALAAM ALEYKUM and never lose faith in the miracles and science of the QURAN. People only start trying to disprove it because they simply dont want to believe in a God, because it means too much of their lifestyle to lose.

'We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness?
Unquestionably, they are in doubt about the meeting with their Lord. Unquestionably He is, of all things, encompassing.' [41:53-54].

p.s: this website helps when debating about science.. i didnt use it now, but maybe it answers some of the other points i have not addresed : try checking out answering-christianity.com ..

[Ikhqgvas]

The main thing I would like to know is: is it possible that Muhammad could have got any of the miracles in the Qur'an from Greeks who already knew e.g: details of embryology (atheists tell me he could have found out from a friend of his who was a physician).

Who said the miracle of the Quran is that embryology is in the Quran????

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

Who said the miracle of the Quran is that embryology is in the Quran????

http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html