Scientific miracles in the Quran Analysis of Zakir Naiks claims

Author:

The Masked Arab

Keywords:

Zakir Naik (Organization Founder),Quran (Religious Text),Quran And Miracles,Koran,Prophet,Muhammad,Big Bang,Aristarchus,Aristotle,Eratosthenes (Astronomer),Muslim,Islam,Miracle,Hubble,angel,demon,devil,satan,The Masked Arab,refuted,exposed,TMA,Science and Quran,Quran science,There is No Clash

Subtitles:

What's going on here? Some guy with trousers too small for him is picking up leaves at a public park in the autumn. Keeping everything neat and tidy. Well, well.. who do we have here.. It's Dr. Zakir Naik! One of Islam's top proselytizers and adored by millions of easily impressionable Muslims. He makes claims that the Quran is scientific and therefore can only be explained as a book with divine authorship. In this clip here, he is asking Muslims to give their Zakat to his TV channel so he can proselytize and spread what he calls "the solution to humanity". Zakat is Muslim charity that usually goes to the poor and needy, but I am sure God doesn't mind it going to line this man's pockets instead so he can make more people Muslims. I often get asked by Muslims I debate, who cannot rebut my arguments to watch his videos as they consider him to be one of their most knowledgable televangelists. The topic of this video is: How to do dawah to an atheist? So I decided to listen to him and see whether he can finally convince me that I need to repent and return to Islam. Let's get going! Most of the atheists, we realize, have become atheists because they believe in science and technology. These people think that science advanced so much, we don't require any scripture, we don't require any religion etc. The first question I ask to the atheist is, that: Suppose there is an equipment There is a machinery, which no one in the world has ever seen before. If it's brought in front of you, if it's brought in front of the atheist, and if we ask the question to him that Who will be the first person who will be able to tell you the mechanism of this machinery or this object? What can be his reply? What can he reply? Suppose a machinery who no one in the world has seen - if it's brought in front of the atheist and he is asked the question Who will be the first person who will tell you the mechanism of this machinery, or object? The reply the atheist will give you is The first person who will tell you the mechanism is the manufacturer. Well, personally if I had bought a new device I would inspect it closely and possibly used trial and error to see how it works. But the analogy you give us here only works if you considered that there isn't more than one manual. The Hindus give me a manual and tell me it's from the inventor of the machine The Scientologists say "the Hindus are lying" and only they have the original manual from the machine inventor. The Mormons, the Muslims, the Sikhs and so on.. all claim to be the only ones with the real manual. I have a lot of manuals and I need to decide whether any of them is a genuine manual for this machine. Since they all contradict each other, only one can be correct. But there is also a strong chance, since so many people are lying about this manual, that none of them are correct and no one has ever met or spoke with the person who made the machine. I look into all the manuals and if they are referring to components which do not appear on this model, or if they order me to put my hand in, near sharp moving mechanisms, I will not go along with the manual and conclude it's not the genuine manual. In the end, I may just have to figure out how to use this machine using common sense and trial and error. Then ask him this question, that How did our universe come into existence? So the atheist will tell us that initially there was a primary nebula then there was a Big Bang, there was a secondary suppression, which gave rise to galaxies the Sun, the Moon and the earth on which we live. This, we call as the Big Bang. When did you come to know about this creation of the universe? So he will tell you: "About thirty/forty years back, the scientists discovered this." You ask him the question: But what you are talking about the the Big Bang is already mentioned in the Quran, in sura Anbiya, chapter number 21, verse number 30 which says [in arabic] "Awalam yara allatheena kafaroo" - "Do not the unbelievers see" "anna alssamawati waalarda kanata ratqan fafataqnahuma" - "that the heavens and the earth were joined together and we clove them asunder." What you're talking about the Big Bang is already mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago. Who could have mentioned that? So the atheist will say: "Maybe it's a fluke." No problem. Don't argue with him. You continue. No. I wouldn't say it was a fluke at all. I would tell you that you are either being dishonest in your preaching or you don't understand the scientific theory of the Big Bang. See, the verse you quoted is saying the earth and the heavens were together and then separated. Since the earth only began existing nine billion years after the Big Bang, your verse is clearly not referring to the Big Bang. The more sensible explanation of the origin of that verse is that Islam borrowed mythology from the ancient religion of the Sumerians. In their faith the heavens and the Earth were together, but then separated by a god named Enlil. Incidentally this Enlil god also ordered a global flood when he was fed up with humans. OK, Doctor Naik, what other scientific miracle do you have in the Quran? The light of the Moon - is it its own light or reflected light? So the atheist will tell us that previously we thought the Moon has its own light. Recently we have come to know in science, recently means 100 years back, 200 years back, we have come to know that the light of the Moon is not its own light but a reflected light. The Quran mentions 1400 years ago, in sura Furqan, chapter number 25, verse number 61 that blessed is he who had placed the constellation in the sky and placed therein a lamp, a Sun, having its own light and Moon having a reflected light, or borrowed light. The Arabic word used for Moon light in the Quran is muneer or noor, meaning reflected light or borrowed light. Who could have mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago that the light of the Moon is not its own light but a reflected light, which we have come to know recently? The atheist may say: "Your prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, maybe he was an intelligent man." Don't argue with him. Continue. OK. I'm beginning to notice a pattern here, you are clearly lying once again. You claim no one knew that the Moon's light was reflected back then. Well, Aristarchus of Samos knew the Moon reflecting the Sun's light nearly a thousand years before Muhammad was even born. So this is not an information we have only known for 100 or or 200 years, as you claim. But I'm not going to be too tough on you for being ignorant of scientific history, when speaking about this subject. Moving on to your claim that this is mentioned in the Quran. Again - it's not mentioned in the Quran. I can't believe you have the nerve to pretend that the word noor in Arabic means reflected light or borrowed light. It most certainly does not. Noor means light. Plain and simple. The word noor or muneer appears 39 times in the Quran and I list all references in the description below. I challenge anyone to find a verse using the word noor to clearly mean "reflected light". Nowhere at all does it appear to be talking about a reflected light. Let's read a couple of verses with the word noor in them and see whether your definition of the word makes sense. "Allah is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the reflected light." "They desire to put out the reflected light of Allah with their mouths" "Allah is the reflected light of the heavens and the earth" Chapter 24 in the Quran is also called surat an-Noor. Show me any Quran which calls this chapter "The chapter of reflected light". On top of all that, we have this verse in surat al-Qiyama, chapter 75, verse 8 telling us the Moon will lose its own light on judgement day. I've looked at all the major Sunni exegeses - Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, At-Tabari and Tanwir al-Miqbas and all of them say clearly that the Moon has its own light extinguished. No reference at all to reflected light. The world that we live on: What's the shape of this earth, on which we live? The atheist will tell you "It is spherical". When did we come to know? So he will tell us "It was 1597 when Sir Frances Drake, when he sailed around the Earth that he proved that the Earth was spherical. But the Quran says 1400 years ago in sura Nazi'at, chapter number 79, verse number 30, "Waalarda baAAda thalika dahaha" "And thereafter we have made the earth egg-shaped." The arabic word dahaha, one of its meaning is the earth is in expanse, the other meaning is derived from the arabic word duhya which means an egg. And it doesn't refer to a normal egg, it refers to the egg of an ostrich. And we know the world is not completely round like a ball, but it is geospherical in shape, it is flat from the poles. and if you analyze the shape of an egg of an ostrich , that too is geospherical in shape. Who could have mentioned 1400 years ago that the shape of the earth is geospherical? Again, the atheist may say: "You know your prophet, maybe he was super-intelligent." - Don't argue with him. You can continue. Once again you are way off with historical dates of discovery. Our friend Aristarchus of Samos knew the Earth was spherical nearly a thousand years before Muhammad was born but he wasn't the first. Aristotle knew Earth's shape before him. and there are indications that Pythagoras, who died over a thousand years before Muhammad existed, was the first to understand the Earth's shape. Aristarchus observed the Earth's shape by looking at a number of lunar eclipses and seeing earth's round shadow cast onto the Moon's surface but another greek scientist Eratosthenes who lived about 950 years before Muhammad existed not only knew the earth was spherical but measured the circumference of the Earth using the Sun shadow at noon in two nearby Egyptian cities and then calculated the distance between them. He was accurate to the true figure we know today to roughly 1%, which is astonishing. I'd say that is far more impressive than someone 800 years later saying it was egg-shaped. But again - did Muhammad actually say the earth was egg-shaped? Or is Dr. Naik making up the Arabic language as he goes along? Well the Quran clearly states the earth is flat, like a carpet or a wide expanse in 18 quranic verses. Zakir Naik ignores all these verses, then goes to one verse, where he claims there may be two meanings for the word and one of them is ostrich egg. Let's see if dahaha actually means what Zakir Naik claims. At-Tabari's exegesis, one of the most thorough in islamic history cites 18 different hadiths relating to an explanation of the verse.. Not a single hadith says it means the Earth is spherical. If you actually understood Arabic, you would know dahaha means extending. It isn't even the name for an ostrich egg. The only reason it's mildly associated is because an ostrich produces an expanse, with a small bit of the ground, where it lays its eggs. So even with this meaning the word is referring to the place where an ostrich egg is laid, and has nothing to do with the egg itself. When I was in school, I had learned that the Sun was stationary. It revolved, but did not rotate about its own axis. You learned the Sun revolved and did not rotate around its own axis? Well, Galileo discovered the Sun rotates around its own axis in the 1600s So you definitely went to a bad school. I think that kind of explains a lot. But the atheist will say: Is that mentioned in the Quran? I said no, that is what I learned in school and I passed my school at 1992, approximately 12 years back. I learned the Sun was stationary, it did not rotate about its own axis. But the Quran says in sura Anbiya, chapter number 21, verse number 33 "Wahuwa allathee khalaqa allayla waalnnahara" - "It is Allah who has created the night and the day" "waalshshamsa waalqamara" - "the Sun and the Moon" "kullun fee falakin yasbahoona" "each one traveling in orbit with its own motion." So the Quran says, that besides the Sun revolving, it even rotates about its own axis. Who could have mentioned this in the Quran 1400 years ago? And the atheist will be silent. There will be long pause. Don't wait for the reply. You can keep on continuing. The verse you just cited makes absolutely no mention of the Sun spinning on its own axis. Not a single exegesis in Islam makes this claim either. The Quran is clearly geocentric. Idiotic yet honest clerics who don't try to change the meaning of verses in the Quran agree. Allah says And the Sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the wise. So a believer has to believe what the Quran says and believe it putting aside thinking deeply about the issue. The Quranic verse is clear about its motion when it tells us the Sun runs to its resting place. So you have to have faith in the Quran and believe it. The question is asking about this verse: And the Sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him. That is the measuring of the mighty, wise. Does the Sun orbit the earth ? Without a doubt! That's what the Quran says.. The Sun runs (orbits).. They claim the Sun is fixed and the earth orbits it. But this is opposite of what we see in the Quran Abraham said to Nimrod: God brings out the Sun from the east so bring it out from the west . The infidel was perplexed. A Muslim must not abandon the Quran and follow modern scientific theories. A Muslim has to follow the Quran. Today, science tells us that the universe is expanding, which is mentioned in the Quran 1400 years ago in sura Dhariyat, chapter number 51, verse number 47 Here Zakir Naik is actually right. He is honest. Nah.. I'm just kidding.. The way he makes this claim is by changing the Arabic word in the Quran to mean something entirely different to the original. This is evident once again if you look at all translations pre-1920s and when Hubble and science made this discovery and not the Muslims, for some reason. Which would be a surprise if they genuinely had this in their book to give them such a big clue, however what occurs here is a subtle change to the Arabic word mousi'un into muasi'un. The original says: God created the heavens and he is surely capable of doing so. When it's changed to mean wide expanse or extending. It's a subtle change to the original word, but it conveniently changes its meaning to try and deceive. The Quran speaks about the water cycle, which we learned in school. It was sir Bernard Palissy in 1580 who first discovered the water cycle. How does the water evaporate from the ocean, forms into clouds moving into the interior, fall down as rain. This water cycle is spoken about in great detail in the Quran in several verses! In sura az-Zumar, chapter 39, verse 21. in sura ar-Rum, chapter number 30, verse 24. In sura Hijr, chapter number 15, verse 22. In sura Mu'minoon, chapter number 23, verse number 18. In sura Noor, chapter number 24, verse number 43. In sura ar-Rum, chapter number 30, verse 48. In sura A'raf, chapter number 7, verse number 17. In sura Furqan, chapter number 25, verse 48-49. In sura Fatir, chapter number 35, verse number 9. In sura Ya Sin, chapter number 36, verse number 34. In sura Mulk, chapter number 67, verse number 30. In sura Tariq, chapter number 86, verse number 11. There are hundreds of verses in the Quran which only speak about the water cycle, which science has discovered recently. In case those verses were too quick, let's just check a couple of them out. One here seems entirely irrelevant to water altogether. It doesn't actually mention anything related to water. And this one here is probably the most detailed out of the bunch. As you can see, it's certainly not miraculous knowledge. The ancient Greeks knew a lot more about the water cycle and even the Bible has verses that are more accurate, like this one. You can go on talking about the scientific points. There are more than a thousand verses in the Quran which speak about science. After every scientific fact, you ask the question: Who could have mention that in the Quran? The only reply the atheist can give you is: The creator, the cherisher, the manufacturer, the inventor, the producer.. This creator, this manufacturer, this producer, this inventor, we Muslims call him as Allah. That's the reason Francis Bacon, a very famous philosopher, said: "Little knowledge of science takes you away from almighty god. In-depth knowledge of science makes you a believer in god." That is the reason today scientists are not eliminating god, they are eliminating models of god. La ilaha ila allah. Hope that answers the question. OK, even that is wrong. As I've just shown, you clearly have little knowledge of science, yet you are not an atheist. You are on the religion of your forefathers and you use plain lies and deceit to try and re-inforce your own confirmation bias and that of others, while at the same time misleading non-Muslims who may not be familiar with your tactics and unwittingly assume that you are credible. I'm hoping I made clear, that you should stop citing these examples as miracles of the Quran's divinity. You only make yourself look silly. But I guess, in the end, credibility isn't a concern of yours as long as the money keeps rolling in and you can find ignorant masses to nod along to your nonsense. That's it for this video. Please share and subscribe and follow me on social media. The links are in the description below. Until next time, Adios!