Zakir Naik, Muhammad, and the Comforter: An Examination of John 14:16

One of Dr. Zakir Naik's favorite topics is "Muhammad in the Bible." Dr. Naik claims that when Jesus spoke about the "Comforter" in John 14:16, he was referring to Muhammad. But there's a problem for Dr. Naik here. Jesus said, in John 16:7, that if he goes away, he will send the Comforter. So Jesus is the one who sends the Comforter. According to Islam, however, Muhammad was sent by Allah. So if Jesus sends the Comforter, and Allah sends Muhammad, and the Comforter is Muhammad, Jesus must be Allah!

Jesus Calls Zakir Naik "Satan"!

Zakir Naik and Ahmed Deedat popularized a silly argument claiming that the "Sign of Jonah" would be that Jesus would miraculously survive crucifixion. However, when we read one of the chapters where Jesus talks about the Sign of Jonah, we find Jesus calling Peter "Satan" for claiming that Jesus would not die on the cross. If Jesus called Peter "Satan" for rejecting his death by crucifixion, how can Naik and Deedat expect us to believe that Jesus was telling his followers that he would survive crucifixion?

Zakir Naik Claims Muhammad Was a Gay Necrophile

In the Islamic hadith collection "Kanz al-Ummal," we read a disturbing story about Muhammad sleeping with a dead woman to ensure her place in paradise as his bride:

"Narrated by Ibn Abbas: 'I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib' . . . The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali."

Since the word "slept" here can refer to sexual intercourse (as in the English sentence, "He slept with her"), some critics of Islam have suggested that Muhammad had sex with a dead woman.

Whether or not that's true, Muslim apologist Dr. Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad was a homosexual and a necrophile (someone who is sexually attracted to dead people). He makes this claim by arguing that Muhammad is mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16 and that the Hebrew word "machmad" is the name "Muhammad." In this video, I point out the obvious implications of Naik's assertions.

Crazy-Talk with Zakir Naik

According to the Quran (4:34), Muslim men can beat their wives into submission. Muslim apologist Zakir Naik claims that the beating is only symbolic, done with a toothbrush or a handkerchief. But if the beating is only symbolic, how can we understand passages in the Hadith about Muhammad beating Aisha or a woman being beaten until her skin turned green? Anthony Rogers discusses the problem.

Zakir Naik Is a Joke!

I get several messages per day asking me why I don't debate Zakir Naik. The answer is simple: Zakir Naik is a coward who refuses to face experienced Christian debaters. Naik has never once faced an experienced Christian debater, and he never will.

Zakir Naik Fan Asks if He Should Behead Me

"Erick Setiawan" goes from "I have a question" to "Should I kill them?" in the space of three comments.

First, after searching for Zakir Naik videos, he watches my video "Zakir Naik Proves That Jesus Is Muhammad's God!" He then proceeds to criticize the deity of Christ and to show by his objection that he has no clue what he's talking about.

Next, "Erick" sees my "Who Killed Muhammad?" video in the sidebar. He clicks on the video, and, in response to my careful argumentation, calls me a racist.

Finally, after watching this video, he sees my video about Caliph Uthman burning all known copies of the Qur'an ("The Original Burn the Qur'an Day"), and he asks if he should behead Nabeel and me.

Pretty impressive to go through all Three Stages of Islamic Denial (criticize, pull race card, threaten) so quickly. The shocking part is that Erick didn't learn peace and tolerance from his play list, which is filled with Zakir Naik videos.

What It Feels Like Listening to a Zakir Naik Lecture

Muslims keep telling me I need to debate Zakir Naik, as if I haven't already challenged him. I must confess, however, that I can't understand why he's so popular. Here's what I feel like when I listen to a Zakir Naik lecture:

Muhammad in Song of Solomon 5:16?

The Qur'an puts Muslim apologists in a difficult position by claiming that the Bible contains clear prophecies about Muhammad (see Qur'an 7:157 and 61:6). Muslim writers, speakers, and debaters have had nearly fourteen centuries to find these prophecies, so if they can't show us where the Bible talks about Muhammad, we can only conclude that the Qur'an is wrong when it appeals to the Bible for support.

Some of the arguments our Muslim friends use seem to be based on sheer desperation. For instance, popular Muslim apologists like Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally claim that Muhammad is mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16. Zakir Naik writes:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language -im is added for respect. Similarly -im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

Shabir Ally adds:

Now what remains is for us to specify where in the Bible to find mention of our prophet. In the Old Testament there are many references. The most significant is Song of Solomon, chapter 5, verse 16. This verse mentions our prophet by name. It says in the Hebrew language Bibles "He is Muhammad." But English translations have "He is altogether lovely" instead of the real truth. You need to insist that, since it says our prophet's name in the Hebrew, the "altogether lovely" translation is nothing more than a camouflage hiding our prophet's name. Tell every Bible reader whether Jew or Christian to ask any Hebrew scholar to read the Hebrew word which appears as "altogether lovely" in the translation. You will hear that word pronounced "Muhammad." Why then hide what you should believe?

For anyone who has read Song of Solomon, this is an amazing verse to cite as evidence for Islam! Song of Solomon is a short poetic book about a loving, physical relationship between Solomon and his bride (there are a variety of interpretations, but none will help turn this into a prophecy about Muhammad). Some Muslims claim that this book can't be the Word of God, because of the way Solomon and his bride talk about each other's bodies. For example, in chapter 7, verses 1-3, Solomon says to his bride:

How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! 
Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of an artist's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle.

Solomon continues praising her body. And yet Muslims go to this book to find a prophecy about Muhammad!

Let's turn to chapter 5, which supposedly mentions Muhammad by name. In the first verse of the chapter, Solomon says:

I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered my myrrh with my spice. I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk.

Solomon talks about drinking wine. But again, Muslims go to this chapter to find a prophecy about Muhammad!

Let's read the so-called prophecy of Muhammad in context. In verse 8, Solomon's bride says to her friends, "Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you—if you find my beloved, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with love."

Her friends respond in verse 9 by asking her, "How is your beloved better than others, most beautiful of women?"

She answers them in verses 10 through 16. Let's read the passage and see if we can spot the prophecy about Muhammad.

Solomon's bride says:

My beloved is radiant and ruddy, outstanding among ten thousand.

His head is purest gold; his hair is wavy and black as a raven.

His eyes are like doves by the water streams, 
washed in milk, mounted like jewels.

His cheeks are like beds of spice yielding perfume. His lips are like lilies dripping with myrrh.

His arms are rods of gold set with topaz. His body is like polished ivory decorated with lapis lazuli.

His legs are pillars of marble set on bases of pure gold.
 His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as its cedars.

His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.

This last verse, according to our Muslim friends, is somehow about Muhammad. Why should we interpret this verse as a prophecy about Muhammad? Muslims reason that, since the Hebrew for "altogether lovely" is machmadim, and machmadim sounds somewhat similar to the name "Muhammad," the verse is actually referring to Muhammad by name. (Note: Zakir Naik claims that the suffix -im is "added for respect" in Hebrew, but this is sheer nonsense. The suffix -im is added to form the plural, which may be a plural of intensity, i.e., "altogether." But let's forgive this blunder and pretend that the word used is the singular "machmad," which is closer to "Muhammad.") So Song of Solomon 5:16 should be translated:

His mouth is sweetness itself; he is Muhammad. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem.

Notice a couple of points here. First, this is Solomon's bride talking. So if Solomon's bride is delivering a prophecy about Muhammad, then she is a prophetess, according to our Muslim friends (unless the author of Song of Solomon is merely portraying her as a prophetess).

Second, the bride is praising a man's body. This makes perfect sense if she's talking about her husband. But if our Muslim friends insist that she's talking about Muhammad, they're accusing Solomon's bride of lusting after another man (Muhammad) in a vision given to her by God.

Third, if 5:16 is about Muhammad, then Solomon's wife calls Muhammad her "beloved." But in chapter 7, verse 10, she says, "I belong to my beloved, and his desire is for me." Since Muhammad is her beloved (according to the Islamic interpretation), she declares in 7:10 that she belongs to Muhammad and that Muhammad desires her. How did Solomon's bride belong to Muhammad? Why would Muhammad desire a woman who had been dead for more than fifteen centuries?

Either Song of Solomon is an extremely troubling story about a time-traveling adulterous love affair between Solomon's bride and Muhammad, or the book simply has nothing to do with Muhammad.

But things get worse for our Muslim friends. The word machmad is used in many places in the Old Testament. It refers to something pleasing, treasured, or lovely. So if machmad is actually Muhammad's name, we need to be consistent and say that wherever the word machmad is used, it's referring to Muhammad. Let's consider two passages that use the word machmad and see what happens if we translate the word as "Muhammad."

In Ezekiel 24:16, Ezekiel's wife is called "machmad," because she's treasured by Ezekiel. So if machmad means "Muhammad," Muhammad must have been Ezekiel's wife! Is that what any Muslim believes? Of course not. So why do Muslims keep telling us that machmad means "Muhammad"?

Just five verses later in Ezekiel, God tells the children of Israel that Jerusalem will be conquered and that the temple will be destroyed. He says, "I am about to desecrate my sanctuary—the stronghold in which you take pride, the delight of your eyes" (Ezekiel 24:21). The word "delight" here is machmad. So if machmad is the name "Muhammad," God is promising to desecrate Muhammad! Is that what Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik want us to believe God is saying? (For further uses of machmad, see 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Lamentations 1:10-11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:11; Ezekiel 24:25; Hosea 9:6; and Joel 3:5.)

This is what happens when Muslim apologists try to force Muhammad into the Bible. They go to a passage in which Solomon's bride is praising her husband's body, and they expect us to believe that she's actually having adulterous thoughts about a future prophet. Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik take a perfectly normal Hebrew word and try to transform it into a prophecy of Muhammad, but in doing so they end up claiming that Muhammad was Ezekiel's wife and that God promises to desecrate him!

Since Shabir calls Song of Solomon 5:16 the "most significant" reference to Muhammad in the entire Old Testament, we can only wonder how persuasive the rest are!

For more on Song of Solomon 5:16 and its supposed reference to Muhammad, be sure to visit the following links:

• Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)
• Does Song of Solomon Mention Muhammad?
• Muhammad in the Bible
• Evidence of Shabir's Inconsistency

Refuting Zakir Naik on Jihad and Terrorism

Surah 9:5 is one of the most violent passages of the Qur'an. It reads:

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

According to popular Muslim speaker Zakir Naik, however, the verse only refers to killing enemy combatants during a time of war. But is this what the Qur'an means? Is violent Jihad simply a matter of self-defense?

In this video, we examine Surah 9:5 in its immediate and historical contexts, and we find that it means exactly what it says. Contrary to the desperate reinterpretations of Zakir Naik, the Qur'an does command Muslims to slay idolaters simply for being idolaters.

Zakir Naik Proves That Allah Is a Mouse! (Based on Song of Solomon 5:16)

Popular Muslim speaker Dr. Zakir Naik claims that Muhammad's name can be found in Song of Solomon 5:16, which reads:

"His mouth is full of sweetness. And he is wholly desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

According to Zakir Naik, since the Hebrew word translated as "wholly desirable" (machmadim) sounds like the Arabic name "Muhammad," the word should actually be translated as "Muhammad." Yet if we follow Naik's reasoning, we must conclude that since the Hebrew word for "mouse" is akbar, we should translate the Arabic sentence "Allahu Akbar" as "Allah is a mouse"! Why aren't Muslims embarrassed that their top apologists are using arguments which, if taken seriously, would prove that their god is a rodent? How desperate do Muslims have to be when their arguments are this hopelessly flawed?

Here's our discussion of Naik's argument:

For more on the claim that Muhammad's name can be found in the Song of Solomon, see:

• "Does Song of Songs Mention Muhammad's Name?"
• "Muhammad Mentioned by Name in the Song of Solomon 5:16?"

Here's a more detailed response by James White:

And here's a brief reply showing more absurdities in the Muslim argument:

Refuting Zakir Naik on Muhammad in the Bible

According to Qur'an 7:157, the Bible contains prophecies about Muhammad. Not surprisingly, Muslim apologists like Zakir Naik have searched the Bible desperately in order to find these so-called prophecies about Muhammad. Some of the most common passages Muslims point to are Deuteronomy 18:18, Isaiah 29:12, Song of Solomon 5:16, John 14:16.

In this video, Sam Shamoun and I examine Naik's arguments, showing that all of the passages he refers to actually prove that Muhammad was a false prophet. Indeed, as we demonstrate, any Muslim who takes Naik's arguments seriously must conclude that Allah is a mouse, that Muhammad stubbornly refused to listen to God, and that Jesus is Muhammad's God!

Click here for more on Muhammad in the Bible.

Zakir Naik Exposed: The Sign of Jonah

Jesus' death by crucifixion is one of the most certain facts of history, as even non-Christian historians attest. Bart Ehrman, for instance, maintains: "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann declares that “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.” John Dominic Crossan, of the notoriously liberal Jesus Seminar, says that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.” According to Crossan, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

The indisputable evidence for Jesus' death by crucifixion puts Muslims in an awkward position, for the Qur'an maintains that Jesus never died and wasn't even crucified (4:157-158). How are Muslims going to defend their position when the evidence so clearly proves that Islam is false? This is where people like Zakir Naik come in. Naik has built his career on spouting complete nonsense to an ignorant audience. Naik is so thoroughly deceptive, he draws his primary response to Jesus' crucifixion from the Bible itself, claiming that Jesus warned his followers that he would survive crucifixion in the following passage:

Matthew 12:38-40–Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

But how could Jesus have meant that he would survive crucifixion when he told his followers, repeatedly, that he would die by crucifixion (see Matthew 16:21-23; 17:9, 22-23; 20:17-19; 21:33-40; etc.)? In this video, Sam and I discuss some of the glaring problems with Naik's claims.

For more on Zakir Naik, click here.

Zakir Naik Refuted

I'll be posting a refutation of Zakir Naik in the next day or two. In the meantime, here's a video to pique everyone's interest in Zakir's arguments.

Zakir Naik Practicing Taqiyya

Suppose you ask Islamic apologist Zakir Naik, "Why doesn't Islam allow Christians to freely preach the Gospel?"

You might get two different answers, depending on where you ask the question. If you ask the question in a Muslim country, Naik will tell you that other religions are false, that only Islam is acceptable by Allah, and that Islam therefore doesn't allow the preaching of the Gospel.

If you ask the question in a Western, non-Muslim country, Naik will say that Islam promotes equal rights for all people, and that prohibitions against free speech in Muslim countries are based, not on Islam, but on governments that have strayed from the wonderful principles of Islam.

Taqiyya at its finest.

Zakir Naik Exposed on Water Evaporation

Zakir Naik has built his career using a simple tactic. When he's asked a question, he rattles off a ton of references, which rarely have anything to do with the question. The Muslims in the audience trust Naik, so they usually don't bother to look up his references. If they did, they might realize that Naik is the embodiment of Muhammad's claim that "War is deceit."

Zakir Naik: 25 Errors in Less Than Five Minutes

Ever notice that in Christianity, our top apologists are brilliant scholars with solid arguments, while in Islam, the top apologists are people who can sound good while spouting absolute nonsense?

The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe (Debunked)

The Qur’an and the Expanding Universe

The ‘cosmological expansion’ has within the last century become a theory that has broken considerable ground, I am thinking of the famous Sir Arthur Eddington and his classic ‘The Expanding Universe’ published by Pelican Books already in 1940 (which I am right now holding in my hand) to a number of modern works; particularly some of my favourites, like the numerous works of Stephen Hawking and the lesser known Simon Singh in his book ‘Big Bang’, to George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time: The Imprint of Creation, 1993: 42-65 and John Gibbin’s, Science: A History, 1543-2001, 2002: 572-612, to another magnificent written work: ‘The Five Stages of the Universe’ by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin.

Due to the popularity of the concept it ought not to surprise us that a range of Muslim exponents, have as usual attempted to create links between this modern concept and certain Qur’anic statements.

However, these are not easily correlated. If we bother studying the scientific postulate, the ‘expansion’ includes time, space and matter expanding from an almost infinite hot cosmological state of fused matter and energy, that emerged through the time-length of a 300.000 year long process from one or possible two preliminary Big Bang type events, namely: the expansion of a highly hypothetical singularity state to another highly hypothetical inflation that evolved the present universe from its pre-conditional state of an orange size chaos state.

Yet, contrary the claim of this Qur’an=Modern scientific enterprise movement, this is not the cosmological concept described in the Qur’an at all.

The Qur'anic description of Cosmological Structure

Looking at the sequences of the cosmological event described in Sura 21 and 41, we indeed find the concept of expansion, but only the expansion of matter, not space. In fact Sura 21: 30 reveals merely that the heaven was separated from the earth and verse 32 states that the heavens are placed like a roof:

‘And we made the heavens as a canopy well guarded’.

Here Yusuf Ali translates it ‘canopy’, while Pickhtal translates it ‘roof’

see Arab Gateway:

Qur’an Online, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/quran.htm#english:

‘And we made the sky a roof withheld (from them)’.

Yet nothing suggest that this particular roof is the edge of time, space and matter, which initially separated from the earth. In fact in modern science, the heavens never separated from the earth.

Sura 41: 11-2 provides us with slightly more insight, depicting the primordial heaven in a state of smoke, from which Allah creates the seven heavens.

Yet verse eleven states only that the heavens were created in two days and does not indicate expansion; certainly not continuous expansion. Hence the universe according to this passage, if it refers to the universe in its entirety as its structure, does not expand. Yet again this smoke reveals nothing as to space itself, not even the stellar matter, which only appears after the smoke has been divinely structured into the heavenly seven levels.

Hence the heavens in Sura 21: 32 may only reveal a matterlike structure. Obviously the smoke in Sura 41, which hoovers around the earth, is along with the earth already existing in a sort of emptiness vacuum. It's this particular vacuum that interests me in this article.

Hence, this is the vital point: the smoke in Sura 41: 11-12 does not apply to space but only matter; this is even in the Hadith literature since the seven heavens are referred to as stratums, as habitations of heavenly beings, including the prophets. This is, hence not related to cosmological expansion but the creation of cosmological structure via matter.

On the other hand there is a reference to ‘the raising of the canopy’ which indeed might relate to expansion of space, as referred to in Sura 79: 27-8; yet this verse becomes ambiguous, for several reasons, firstly that of contradiction, since verse 30 states: ‘And the earth, moreover hath he expanded’; which implies that the canopy was created prior to the earth, which indeed
Yusuf Ali in his footnote (5937) points out: Moreover: or more literally after that. See also 4475 to 41: 11 (The Meaning of the Hoy Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Amana Publications, 2001: 1596).

This completely contradicts Sura 21: 30-3, in which the authors depict the heaven as separating from the earth. Unless of course vacuum was brought into existence prior to matter. But Zakir Naiks famous correlation between the Qur'an and the primordial nebula are at risk.

Here in Sura 41: 11-2, the authors appear to imply that the structure of the heavens was brought into existence after the earth was made inhabitable.

Is this reference to first 1) void 2) then earth, 3) and finally the heavenly structure. I am doubt many scientists will confirm the possibility of this.

Or is it possible that the raising of the canopy merely describes the structure of the universe not the vacuum itself, but in that case we have a contradiction.

Even Kathir might be referring to this as a contradiction, in Tafsir Ibn Kathir volume 8, 2000: 519, concerning Sura 79: 27: 30:

‘So he mentioned the creation of the heavens before the earth’. As to Sura 41: 9-11, he writes: ‘Here he mentioned the creation of the earth before the creation of heavens’.

(Let me quickly summarize this, before we move on: The problem concerns the relation between Sura 79 and 41, in terms of structure and space. The possibility remains, that Sura 79: 27-6 refers to space, while Sura 41: 11-2 along with Sura 21: 30 refers to structural matter within this expanded or expanding space; but then. But then again why does Sura 41 describe the seven heavens within this context? Is it not presumable that edge of the universe was included within such a structure?)

The confusion, which the Qur’anic authors found themselves in, is obvious and highly understandable when we consider all the pre-islamic concepts he had to draw from.

If we cast aside the cosmological structure and focus on space alone, and if the Qur’an correctly is correlated to modern science and references related to space, it is probably Sura 51: 47 which becomes most significant. In the translation of Pickhtal we read: ‘We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof)’.

Some Muslim propagandist, e.g. Osama Abdallah have asserted in the article: ‘Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran that He is “Expanding” the Universe, that the passage predicts the modern postulate of continuous universal expansion.

Abdallah asserts that the passage should read:

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."

This interpretation is however disputed! Dr. Abdul-Kalaam Panglos, a writer on the humanist website Freethought Mecca (http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm) in a refutation to the claim states that the particular Arabic word moosi’oon is the plural word for moosi, which usually is translated ‘rich’ or ‘wealthy’ (see: Sura 2: 236).

In other words ‘enriching;’ while the root of the word is awsa´a, which indeed can mean expanding, stretching and enriching, the correct word for ‘expanding’ would be noosi´u and ‘continuous expansion’ would read noosi´uhaa.

Hence ‘continuous expansion’ is excluded:

The Qur’an and the Big Bang: http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/bigbang.html.

While Panglos might have a point here, there is another matter of consideration, namely that the issue of ‘space and matter’ was brought up and debated even centuries before Islam, and hence might derive from the ancient thinkers or texts that preceded the Qur’an.

Interestingly, Panglos points to the possible derivation from Jewish Old Testament sources, particularly, the book of Isaiah, chapter 42: 5:

‘This is what God the Lord says—he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life two those who walk in it’

(see also Isaiah 40: 22 and 42: 5).

This resembles Sura 51: 47-8 remarkably, both in context and terminology:

‘With the power and skill did We construct the firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space. And We have spread out the (spacious) earth; how excellently We do spread out!’

Considering the proximity and interaction between the early Muslims and the Jews, as well as Jewish converts to Islam, the particular similarity might be a clear indicator; see:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html

In his essay, Panglos points out that the Hebrew of Is.42: 5 can indeed be translated ‘continuous expansion’:

‘…the words ‘YHWH bore ha-shamaim v'noteihem’ most literally means "YHWH is creating the heavens and expanding them." For example, the verb noteh is the present tense (hoveh) conjugation of the verb lintot, which can mean stretch, bend, expand, et cetera.’

Even Henry Morris, a Christian writer on modern science who tends to object to the view of ‘cosmological expansion’ concedes that these Old Testament passages and the modern concepts of cosmological expansion could be correlated. Morris also points to another Old Testament concept that may suggest such a cosmological occurrence, the Hebrew word raqia for ‘firmament’ is correctly translated ‘expanse’ or ‘perhaps better, “spread out thinnes”’ (Henry Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, p. 154)

Furthermore, the flourishing concepts of the Greek and Roman philosophers do also show awareness of cosmological expansion and structure. Lucretius in 50 AD claimed that nature consists of the two-fold nature of matter and space which do not mix (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.42).

The ancient philosophers therefore wondered how matter could have expanded in a dimension that contained no space.

There were several possibilities: did space expand with matter? But then again did matter coexist with or create more void than it was able to regulate? This relates closer to the Big Bang theory and even Lucretius, and this was indeed the concern of Aristotle who elaborated on the correspondence between place and body (Aristotle, 1999: p. 69).

Others, such as Hesiod concluded that the chasm was put in the system prior to matter (Aristotle, 1999, p. 79); based on the above information, if Sura 79: 29-30 and Sura 51 would describe an incident or cosmological factor separate from Sura 21 and 41 (which themselves appear contradictory in their structure), the Qur’an might refer to the Cosmological process of Hesiod, who postulated space prior to matter!

However, if Sura 21 and 41 include the canopy, then we are dealing with firstly with an irreconcilable contradiction and secondly a cosmos that hardly appears to expand. In any case the Qur’an clearly from Sura 21 and 41 describes the heavenly structure which might include the canopy, e.g. space to have emerged from or after the full creation and formation of the habitable earth--which is everything but scientific!

Yet even if the Qur'an proposes cosmological expansion, this hardly reveals miracolous inspiration.

Lucretius, despite that his work also appears unclear and contradictory (e.g. Lucretius, p. 55, in which he depicts the universe as unconfined, not bounded in any direction and bottomless), seems to make a great deal out of cosmological expansion; first and most his cosmogony implies that the mass which separated from the earth, raised the heights of the heaven and composed the outer walls of the great world and all the intermediate material, such as the stars, the sun and the moon:

‘…they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world.’

(Lucretius, 1957: 184-5).

Interestingly, much like the Qur’an, Lucretius refers to the outer walls beyond the stars, sun and moon. Was this a reference to the seven heavens, referred to in the Qur’an and which the the Jews and the church fathers also referred to prior to Islam? Or is Lucretius referring to the seven orbits of the seven planets orbiting the earth, also mentioned in the Qur’an and elaborated on by the pre-islamic philosophers?

Hence as deplorable as reality might strike to these Islamic exponents, yes the ancient writers did view and depict a structured universe that expanded from the earth, much like the Qur’an, but hey, is such a concept scientifically correct anyway?

To Lucretius space appears to be a dimension created and expanding alongside the separated matter.

Furthermore, Lucretius states: ‘If there were no empty space…they could not possibly have come into existence’ (Lucretius, 1957: 37). What he means is basically:

‘if there were no space, everything would be one solid mass’ (Lucretius, 1957: 42).

In other words without space all matter would be compressed into one solid entity.

In fact Lucretius describes this solid state of the universe, a chaotic state of atoms:

At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know – nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort.’

Quite identical to early cosmological nebula, which contrary to Zakir Naik is not mentioned in the Qur'an (the Qur'an depicts earth and smoke side by side within a vaccum; while the Nebula consititutes of energy and matter compressed within the whole of existence; the earth did not exist at the time). But how did Lucretius' knowlege exceed that of the Qur'an and even prior to the Qur'an? Is it possible that Lucretius was he a prophet? No, in fact Lucretius was an atheist.

The fact is, even though Muslims were ever to find traces of modern science in the Qur’an, this would hardly accomplish anything of greater significance, any more than the ideas referred to by Lucretius 600 years earlier!

The Big Crunch and the Cyclic Universe

Furthermore, Lucretius believed in a reverse of all matter; he identifies the world as a whole, and proposes that as the sky and the earth have ‘had their birthday’ the inauguration, they also ‘will have their day of doom’ (Lucretius, 1957: 184-5). This doom is depicted as a cosmological crash, when the heights of heaven, the earth and all the intermediate material are brought to together:

‘These three bodies so different in nature, three distinct form, three fabrics such as you behold – all these a single day will blot out. The whole substance and structure of the world, upheld through many years, will crash…I am well aware how novel and strange in its impact on the mind is the impending demolition of heaven and earth…that your own eyes will see those violent earthquakes in a brief space dash the whole world to fragments…may reason rather than the event itself convince you that the whole world can collapse with one ear-splitting crack!’ (Lucretius, 1957: 174).

It remains a fact that Lucretius does refer to earthquakes and a progressive demolition of the earth, yet at the same time he suggests that ‘whole substance and structure’ of the world which has been ‘upheld’ will ‘crash’ and ‘collapse’. His terminology implies that in a brief space dash the entire world will be turned into ‘fragments’; in a ‘one ear-splitting crack’.

This was also the idea of a cyclic universe, in which the universe reverses back to its original state and repeats its creation. This was a predominant view among the pre-Islamic philosophers (see: Arthur Fairbanks: Anaximander, Plut. Strom. 2 ; Dox. 579; and Aet. Plac. i. 3: Dox. 277, 1898: 15-6. Concerning the concept of Pythagoras see description of Ocellus Lucanus in Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie’s, The Pythagorean Source Book and Library, Grand Rapids Michigan, Phanes Press, 1987: 20).

Hence it should not surprise us that the Qur’an follows the same concept:

‘The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed), –even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it (Sura 21: 104).’

Ibn Kathir purports even that creation will be repeated, much like the view postulated by pre-islamic writers:

‘…means, this will inevitable come to pass on the Day when Allah creates His creation anew. As He created them in the first place He is surely able to re-create them’ (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol.6, 2000: 506-7).

Indeed a range of Islamic authors propose the possibility of a repetitive cycle of creations:

‘After another seven hundred fifty quadrillion years, the universe will become an infinitely small point of infinite density and infinite temperature. What next? Who knows! The universe may continue to oscillate between Big Bangs and Big Crunches for all eternity. Or, the Big Crunch may be the end of everything. One thing is certain, however. If a new universe were created, it would have no memory of the old one. It could develop without regard for anything that happened before’

Mustafa Mlivo, Qur’an and Science: http://www.quranm.multicom.ba/science/1e-astronomy.htm

To conclude the expansion issue, we may conclude that the Qur’an is not clearly depicting a continuous expanding universe. Indeed the Qur’an refers to the universe has having expanded, but such hardly proposes a miraculous prediction of modern science, since such ideas flourished prior to the rise of Islam. Furthermore, the Qur’an appears to describe the heavens as having emerged from a separation from earth and the heavens, describing the structure of a seven levelled universe. This is certainly not the world of science.

It is difficult to propose from the Qur’anic text from which space itself originated, possibly, the Qur’an follows Hesiod’s view, that space was created prior to the earth, whereupon the heavens and its host were created by their matter separating from the earth, a view that also flourished among the ancient writers. But such is difficult to conclude. In any case such concepts are hardly ideas that correlate with modern science.

I would be happy to get some criticism, I am rather certain that I have overlooked some hidden details.

see more here:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/quran-and-expansion-of-universe.html

Zakir Naik on Water Evaporation in the Qur'an

Anyone ever noticed that when Zakir Naik answers a question, (1) he rarely answers the question, (2) he usually displays his awesome memory, without actually answering the question, and (3) Muslims love his answer and cheer him, despite the fact that he hasn't answered the questions? Whenever I hear people cheering for Naik, it's as if they're cheering for ignorance and deception! Anyway, here's one for the collection.



7:57--And He it is Who sends forth the winds bearing good news before His mercy, until, when they bring up a laden cloud, We drive it to a dead land, then We send down water on it, then bring forth with it of fruits of all kinds; thus shall We bring forth the dead that you may be mindful.

13:17--He sends down water from the cloud, then watercourses flow (with water) according to their measure, and the torrent bears along the swelling foam, and from what they melt in the fire for the sake of making ornaments or apparatus arises a scum like it; thus does Allah compare truth and falsehood; then as for the scum, it passes away as a worthless thing; and as for that which profits the people, it tarries in the earth; thus does Allah set forth parables.

15:22--And We send the winds fertilizing, then send down water from the cloud so We give it to you to drink of, nor is it you who store it up.

23:18--And We send down water from the cloud according to a measure, then We cause it to settle in the earth, and most surely We are able to carry it away.

24:43--Do you not see that Allah drives along the clouds, then gathers them together, then piles them up, so that you see the rain coming forth from their midst? And He sends down of the clouds that are (like) mountains wherein is hail, afflicting therewith whom He pleases and turning it away from whom He pleases; the flash of His lightning almost takes away the sight.

25:48-49--And He it is Who sends the winds as good news before His mercy; and We send down pure water from the cloud, That We may give life thereby to a dead land and give it for drink, out of what We have created, to cattle and many people.

30:24--And one of His signs is that He shows you the lightning for fear and for hope, and sends down water from the clouds then gives life therewith to the earth after its death; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand

30:48--Allah is he Who sends forth the winds so they raise a cloud, then He spreads it forth in the sky as He pleases, and He breaks it up so that you see the rain coming forth from inside it; then when He causes it to fall upon whom He pleases of His servants, lo! they are joyful.

35:9--And Allah is He Who sends the winds so they raise a cloud, then We drive it on to a dead country, and therewith We give life to the earth after its death; even so is the quickening.

36:34--And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it.

39:21--Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs, then brings forth therewith herbage of various colors, then it withers so that you see it becoming yellow, then He makes it a thing crushed and broken into pieces? Most surely there is a reminder in this for the men of understanding.

45:5--And (in) the variation of the night and the day, and (in) what Allah sends down of sustenance from the cloud, then gives life thereby to the earth after its death, and (in) the changing of the winds, there are signs for a people who understand.

50:9--And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped.

56:68-70--Have you considered the water which you drink? Is it you that send it down from the clouds, or are We the senders? If We pleased, We would have made it salty; why do you not then give thanks?

67:30--Say: Have you considered if your water should go down, who is it then that will bring you flowing water?

There you have it. Zakir Naik is asked where the Qur'an discusses water evaporation. He quotes a bunch of verses which say, in effect, "Rain comes from clouds" (which every civilization in history has known), he doesn't actually answer the question at all, and Muslims stand in awe at the non-existent miraculous scientific insights of the Qur'an! If I were a Muslim, I would be embarrassed by such deception. But it just doesn't seem to bother Muslims. As long as Dr. Naik is winning converts with his deception, Muslims will cheer him.

Of course, I could do this with the Bible (using passages such as the following, which are actually far more impressive than the passages quoted by Naik), but I'm not that desperate.

Job 36:26-28--Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know Him; the number of His years is unsearchable. For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly.

Amos 5:8--He who made the Pleiades and Orion and changes deep darkness into morning, Who also darkens day into night, Who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the LORD is His name.

Zakir Naik Defends Muslim Hypocrisy

James White Refutes Zakir Naik

Perhaps Zakir Naik will one day agree to debate an experienced Christian debater like James White. Unfortunately, Dr. Naik refuses to face experienced debaters at the podium, which forces men like James to refute his claims in YouTube videos.

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE