There are no scientific miracles in the Qur’an – PT 01
Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
File Size: 9.07MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
Salam Alaikum brothers, sisters and friends. Welcome to a new episode of The GVM show the global Tao movement show. On this week's show we're here with brother Hamza salat, WA Alaykum wa rahmatullah.
Zero, same likewise. So we're very special show planned for you guys this week. And next week is going to be a two part show. And it's to do with the scientific miracles in the Quran. Yes. The narrative that we see out there, which is that there are miracles in the Quran, that's the science proves the grant, and so on and so forth. We'll be discussing this and I have some very interesting questions I have lined up for you. Can you break this down? Thank you and to share the truth basically, with the people, right? Yes. So the first question I'm gonna ask you to go straight into this is, what are the scientific miracles of the Quran? Okay, Miss smilla Rahmanir Rahim. The
scientific miracles of the Quran claim
is usually articulated in the following three ways. And I have these written down number one, the prophet Mohammed upon whom VPS did not have access to the scientific knowledge mentioned in the Quran, therefore, it must be from God. Number two, another way of putting it is no one at the time of Revelation, which was the seventh century had access to the necessary equipment to understand or verify the scientific knowledge in the Quran. Therefore, it must be from God. And number three, the Quranic verses were revealed at a time where science was so primitive, no human could have uttered the truths mentioned in the Quran, therefore, it's from God. Right. So that's the kind of way many
of the Muslims at different levels in society, particularly a case for the right, Okay, excellent. So before we go into the whole narrative, the first thing I want to ask you is for you to give us a bit of a background, and why we can't claim a miracle, a miracle that the scientific mentioned in the ground, okay, there are three major milestones to what I'll call this kind of science and movement. Yeah. The first one is based on the book that was written by Dr. Morris buco called the Bible, the Quran in science It was written in 1976. And as you can imagine, this book, basically said, the Quran is aligned with modern science, the Bible isn't Muslims took this translated in many
languages, I believe it was some people memorize more of this book than they did of the Quran, right? It became a it was a movement. Even some academics have called this movement bokeelia ism. Okay, there are some journals that basically talk about this movement and referred to as bokeelia ism. The second milestone was something called Commission on scientific science in the Quran and Sunnah, which was a commission in the 80s that produced a video called This is the truth. And this was run by Chef abdulmajeed Zindani. Now what they did in the 80s, I believe was 1981 or 1982, that they invited scholars scientists from the west to Arabia, and basically somehow got them to do some
special things about them. But we now know this is not true. The majority of those scientists have retracted those statements who have said that we have a quote mind, or whatever the case may be. The third milestone for this movement is the popularizes. You had the likes of Dr. Zakir Naik and Chef use of esters and many other corners to Islam, who basically have articulated this case, even myself many bad things about three, four or five years ago, I articulated something very similar, not not as strong as this. But we have found out now that it's actually an incoherent and not very robust way of of showing up the question is true. And the reason for that just to end on this point to
answer this question. The main reason we can't pay miracles, and we're gonna discuss many other reasons, is because of the knowledge of what science is as a method. And science is as a as a philosophy, meaning the philosophy of science. So if you go to the works of goetsch, and soba, Rosenberg, status, she lost another philosophy of science and others, you see that science is limited, for example, is based on induction, not only an induction, but let's take induction as an example, induction is a limited thinking process where you have a limited set of observations where you conclude for an unseen next observation, or an entire
set of observations known as weak and strong induction. As you can see, that's probabilistic reasoning is not going to be 100%. Certain, it's always going to range from 0% to 99%. Because there's always a possibility of a future observation going against your previous conclusions, which were based on previous observations. And his way of looking at is using a crude example using sheep. So I go to Wales, and I want to find out what kind of sheep I count 1000 sheep, they will happen to be white. So using induction, the next instance of sheep is going to be what color why exactly, but that doesn't mean that's true, because it might be black. And because there are black sheep, right,
exactly. We should sing in nursery rhymes, Baa Baa Black Sheep. So the point is, it just shows that concluding from limited observations, doesn't give you certainty, right. Okay. And that's the beauty of it.
Science, it's supposed to change based on new observations, new understanding new discoveries. And that's the beauty. Now understanding this about science, and we've mentioned this in previous DDM shows, we would see that you can't not apply this to the chronic claim miracle, because you have to prove, or you have to show that the science that you think is factual is never going to change. That's absolutely impossible for many things. Like, you know, this, this philosophy of science. And the scientists themselves say that science is revisable.
And the other thing that you have to do is that the meaning you've chosen for a particular word in the Quran, is the meaning intended by God. How do you know? Yeah, if you don't have any Hadees to explain it, you don't have a consensus to explain these these words, then you have to rely on the Arabic language and you have many layers of meaning for particular word, that's how rich the Arabic language is. So how do you This is the meaning that is intended by God, basically, digging yourself into a hole is all because what you're saying is if science changes in 10 years time regarding a scientific fact, which you say is in the Quran, then what are you going to do? You're stuck Exactly.
Imagine the 19th century Muslim.
Use this narrative. Yeah. The scientific fact of the time was steady state theory, the universe didn't begin. But the crisis the universe began, the causes began. So what do they do? reject the Quran or reject the science? Yeah, and this is why in the second show, we're gonna give you a really robust method on how to show how the Quran is timeless, and how you can reconcile these issues in such an amazing empowering way. Excellent. Now, I think that in itself is enough to make the point that we don't need to use the scientific miracles approach. However, the next thing I want to move on to issues like chef Akram nadwi, may Allah preserve him, he says, Don't bring things to the
Quran, let the Koran speak for itself, that we we we superimpose an empirical scientific paradigm with a client, how do you know it's renamed to an empirical paradigm, it could be a spiritual paradigm, it could be an existing existential mode, it could refer to so many different things, allow the crown to speak for itself. And you there is a paper on this, which we're going to link to in the video description is NSA going further and study for sure. So the next thing I want to ask you, or touch upon is previous civilizations. Now, there is this, this idea that we have as Muslims is that, you know, the professor said, um, you know, that he was the first one who mentioned some of
these things, this, this knowledge wasn't present on the face of this earth before the Prophet sallallahu. And if that's not true, so yeah, that's it. Yeah. So the question is, what you're saying. So I do want to? Well, I'll say the quit the question being
Before the professor said, well, that's the point. It was, and that and that's why we need to learn our history. And I'm quite saddened that we even wrote an essay about this a few years ago, did webinars and try to create a narrative, people still not adopting this because they're still adopting a false historical narrative? Because people are saying, no one knew this information at the time in this century. That's not true. Let me give you some examples. Consider the setting down of iron in the Quran in chapter 57, verse 25, the Quran says, and we sent down iron, yes, this is relatively true that in some meteorites, you have iron. All right, so iron was sent down from that
perspective. Does that mean it's a scientific miracle? No, because you had the ancient Egyptians 1400 years before the preferred of the Prophet Mohammed upon me peace, they described iron as Ba, n pet, which means iron from heaven. This was like over 1000 years before the promise of Saddam, so you can't claim miraculousness here. Yeah. We're not saying the Quran is wrong. We're not saying the crown board from these civilizations? No, right. Okay, because the CRAN, as we're going to discuss next week,
uses words that have different layers of meaning that addresses different civilizations, different understandings, because the whole point of these verses for them to conclude for us to conclude that God deserves worship. So he wants a seventh century man to think about space in a seventh century way to think about nature in a seventh century way to conclude that God deserves to be worshipped. But the Quran is so timeless that it does it in such an amazing way and we're gonna discuss this next week. Well, that's gonna be a very powerful show. But well, another example. So there's more examples. The moon being abroad, like the Quran says in chapter 10, verse five, it is he who made
the sun is shining light in a moon, a derived light neuron means derived light. Let's ignore how the word shining light and neuron are interchangeable in the Qur'an. Just ignore that for a minute. This is picked stick to the topic, that some Muslims use this word neuron to show that the moon doesn't have its own light, because it reflects the light of the sun because neuron means like a borrowed light. Yes, that's true. But 500 years, BC, 1200 years before the prophethood before the Quranic revelation thalis said the moon is light from the sun and not the Greek anaxagoras. In around the same period, he asserted, the moon doesn't have its own light, but
light from the sun. What about for example, the Big Bang? The Quran says chapter in chapter chapter 21 verse 30, have not those who disbelieve know that the heavens and the earth were one piece, then we parted them. Yes is very ambiguous. We don't know the wholeness and the kind of integrate details. That's not the point of this verse. The point is to for us to be in in all and for us to say that God deserves to be worshipped. But this doesn't really refer to the Big Bang, because what Big Bang, there are 20 different models more than 20 models, maybe maybe also the quantum fluctuation model or selection model, the Friedmann Lemaitre model all these models, what model
we're choosing here, and these are not even hardcore facts and science anyway. And not even that you have Sumerian literature in the Epic of Gilgamesh that reflects this kind of narrative. It says, when the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens when the theme of mankind had been established. And the Quran says, when the heavens and earth were one piece, and we parted them similar kind of narrative, doesn't mean the carbon copy doesn't mean the Quran borrowed. But you can't claim miraculousness here because it was already known by primitive civilizations. Does it mean it's wrong? No. But what it does mean, though, is we
shouldn't read too many things into another crowd to speak for itself, which we're going to discuss next week. Okay, so another question that follows on from this is that the profits are the lowest. What is it that's out there that he couldn't have had access to this information from other civilizations? no way he could have had access. He wasn't learned he didn't have. He wasn't around other civilizations, and so on and so forth. We know this isn't the case. Is that correct?
Yes, that that assertion is wrong. They can't claim, oh, even if there was an accurate, primitive understanding of science at that time.
available, the prophet Mohammed upon release couldn't have access to the Torah. Again, I'm sorry, this is this is this is false. It denies established history of Arabia. And it denies the prophetic traditions are authentic. For example, in say Muslim,
which is an authentic compilation of the prophetic traditions, the prophet Mohammed upon the peace, he actually took medical knowledge from the Romans and Persians,
which shows us a beautiful teaching that when it comes to medicine and the sciences, you must share knowledge with your fellow human being, this is beautiful encourages the kind of cultivation of the sciences in the in the kind of sharing of knowledge. For example, I'm going to quote the Heidi for you the prophetic tradition for you directly. The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said, I intended to prohibit cohabitation with the suckling women. But I considered the Roman emperor and peasants and I saw that they suck with the children. And this thing, meaning the gravitation does not do any harm to them. This is an authentic tradition, which shows the process of them had
knowledge of other civilizations, namely, the Romans and the Persians. All that also, we have to understand that there was an exchange of cultures at the time, look at the trading that they'll go to China to trade. What do you think they went through for a teleportation system, vowed months of silence and then picks the goods and went back without speaking to anybody? No, they weren't like horse and camel and go, and they would exchange cultures and discuss. And this is why we even have concepts of linguistic boring coaches share different languages because of this interchange of cultures. So the point here is, it's highly bizarre for us to make such a claim that you can have
access to knowledge. That's not true. Especially when in Egypt in Iran, I think the sixth century, they already had in Alexandria believe translations of Greek medical documents. I mean, it's not that far, they went to China forget Egypt. Yeah. So to make such a claim denies our own Islamic history. And it denies the prophetic tradition. So for example, if you look at the historian era and Lapidus in his book, a history of Islamic societies summarizes this, he says, By the mid sixth century, as heir to Petra and Palmyra Mecca became one of the important caravan cities of the Middle East, the Meccans carried spices, leather, drugs, cloth and slaves, which had come from Africa or
the Far East to Syria, and returned returned money, weapons, cereals, and wine to Arabia. Okay, excellent. So I think you've summed it up very, very good. I think it's very clear that, you know, we shouldn't be arguing scientific miracles in the Quran is not the right approach. We shouldn't be doing that. There are many more miracles we could talk about. And at the same time, we need to really emphasize that as Muslims, yes, we know that the Quran has reviewed the progress that salami came from, Allah, everything it contains is from Allah. And it's just the truth, it's accurate and so on and so forth. But what we're saying is don't impose narratives onto the Quran itself, right
and don't use a flawed methodology because I would discuss science is transient is time bound and using a time bound limited transit methodology to prove something that you believe is timeless. Yeah, that's the most it's flawed. Absolutely. And there's nothing wrong with something currently now scientifically contradicting the big deal. Where has come from understand its philosophy, its method how scientists derive
knowledge from empirical data. And if you understand that you see where you might change next week, they may say they may see this in one month, this in one year this. And we've seen this when you look into the history of science, right? Take human evolution, evolution has evolved as well in terms of the scientific understanding what evolution is from that perspective. So we need to relax and take a chill pill. However, the reason where we're adamant in producing this narrative is because we need to change the narrative and the dour in calling people to Islam, because frankly, it has create a lot of doubts, and it's created a lot of what I call apostasy is because people have
left the religion of Islam, because the only thing we gave them was scientific miracles. And then when they understood what science was, and understood that actually, you know what, there was knowledge at the time, there was exchange of cultures, it decreases the so called miracle cleaner. Now, I had a conversation with a student of knowledge saying, Yeah, but I knew this Arab speaker, he did the linguistic analysis and was amazing. And it currently to what the scientists are saying, now I'm like, wow, and I just had one thing, the reason you find it so amazing, because you already have eemaan, you already have faith that you know is from Allah, give them that basis first. And then you
could talk about these things if you want from a tablet or pondering perspective. But you can't claim it's a miracle because I said, answer these two questions. Number one, is the size that you're trying to relate it to? Absolutely true. Can you prove that can you prove you won't change next year in two years time? Can you prove that we have all the number of observations we require for particular phenomena to conclude that this is an absolute fact? No, you can't even claim that about many things in science, right? Number two, the meaning you've chosen for that particular word in the verse in the Quran? Is that the meaning intended by God? Yeah. How can you prove such a thing,
because when you don't have the prophetic traditions to explain, you don't have the enjoyment of the scholars consensus of the scholars, and all the other bits and pieces that are required for understanding the Quran, then you have to read on the Arabic language. Arabic language is very rich, it has many layers of meaning, which one is the one intended by God, they should claim all of them all, then that would support a narrative, which we're going to discuss next week and just introduce the narrative before we end it, which is very important. The narrative that we're going to talk about is beautiful. We're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we're saying the Quran is
multi leveled, and multi layered. What does that mean? The words used to describe natural phenomena are things that appear to be natural phenomena or science. These words have many layers of meaning. And these layers of meaning, address different mindsets, civilizations across time, definitely formal, it's very profound, because the Quran doesn't have a language that represents a seventh century language. It's a language that is timeless, yes, there may be some things that may be unscientific, but those are things that are to encourage us to do more science and do more investigation, because the crime is not a book of science, the book of science, because the the main
purpose of these verses
is to show that look, you came from a blood clot or something that looked quite bloody right? Or look at the orbits look at the celestial objects and then seem to be swimming in the universe, they're floating, or whatever the case may be, that should give a seventh century does an Arab essence of all and wonder thinking, who has done this, who created the physical causes in the universe to enable this to happen, he deserves to be worshipped. That's the conclusion deserve to be wishing not there's all these scientific miracles and details. It's not the verses are quite ambiguous from that perspective deliberately to make you think the Quran wants you to think about
the most profound conclusion that he deserves to be worshipped. Not that you know, you have the embryological process in the Quran. That's not true. So we're gonna discuss this new robust approach, and I think allows the crowd to speak for itself, we don't impose an empirical paradigm. And I hope people listen to you. I think it's been very profound. I think you've covered all the points very, very clearly. The next show is going to be a really, really amazing show, you know, which is going to basically give you something instead which is far more powerful. Yes, far more greater than anything else we've done previously regarding the scientific miracles and it doesn't
limit the Quran in any way. We're gonna show how timeless the Quran is how profound the Quran is. And the examples I'm going to give you are going to be mind blowing. Be vanilla insha Allah so stick with us next question. Yeah, so just going here for watching. Hopefully this is beneficial. Please make sure to like the video, share the video, subscribe to the channel. Until next time, Islamic