World's Greatest Jester - By Suhail Khalid

In response to Ali Sina’s artic= le “The World’s Greatest Showman”<= /p>

“World's Greatest Jester”=

Suhail Khalid

Some points for the readers:<= /o:p>

1.=      Please watch the full debate betwe= en Dr. William Campbell and Dr. Zakir Naik on the topic “THE QURAN AND= THE BIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF SCIENCE”.

2.=      You can download the following deb= ate from Ali Sina’s site: = http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm#content<= /o:p>

3.=      Afterwards, read Ali Sina’s article “World’s Greatest Showman” for which links are provided down below in my paper.

Are Miracles Real?

Ali Sina:      =

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Right from the onset…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)

…grammatical errors of his book.

Answer: = ;

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! First of all it is very inane to solicit a proof of an event or a miracle t= hat had occurred in the past. We could only find such claims in history or in books. We cannot carry out those miracles in modern age in order to defend = our claims. The only imperative thing for Ali Sina to discern is people practic= ing major religions have faith in miracles. Also he does not have any proof to = show that miracles were not transpired in the past but just only to provide what= his minuscule mind deems and what science has to say. I am posing him a counter question if he can endow me with a proof where he can illustrate us that miracles were not happening in the past. I would advise him just not to utt= er straight that miracles are nothing but fairy tales without any “EVIDENCE”.

=             &nb= sp;      Secondly, miracle may not be an assessment if a person is authentic or not since they were performed by loads of people in many religions like Hinduism, Christia= nity and Islam. Similarly, how can one verify a person, genuine, if he is perfor= ming miracles?

=             &nb= sp;      We Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) performed many miracles. However, we do not boast about them since the only verification we can provide you, are from the Holy Scriptures upon which people like Ali Si= na do not have reliance. The only living miracle we boast about is the Holy Qu= ran. And I will not ask him to outdo the Quranic challenge of producing a some w= hat similar chapter like Quran, because I do really think that he is not compet= ent enough. However, challenge is still open for the whole humanity. =

=             &nb= sp;      Christianity and Islam are the two major religions in the world and they both have their beliefs in miracles, and from some where in the dark, populace like him rol= l up alongside and start disseminating in opposition to miracles. Isn't it fooli= ng enough that he is negating something on "NO EVIDENCE" in hand. Let him produce the proof if he is authentic. Prove me miracles do not exist?

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    I will later rebut his article on “Muhammad disclaimed being able to perform any miracles.”

=             &nb= sp;

=             &nb= sp;      Insha Allah, I will ascertain Quran to be the word of Allah by His blessings and grace in this paper.

=             &nb= sp;

=             &nb= sp;      Yet again that is Ali Sina’s postulation that non-Muslims do not aver Qur= an to be the finest Arabic literature and he supposed that if they believed in this why they don’t convert. For example; if I declare that King James Version of the Bible has the very best English Literature, does it mean I believe in Christianity or I am a Christian? Answer is “NO”. An= d it is true that I take pleasure in reading King James Version and in my outloo= k it is much superior in terms of literature than any other versions of the Bibl= e. Similarly the non-Muslim Arabic speaking people can find Quran to be the be= st Arabic Literature. What so astounding about it? We are not imposing them to adapt Islam first and then testify the Quranic Literature. That’s mere stupidity from Ali Sina.

=             &nb= sp;      And on what scale he is concluding Quran to be not the best of Arabic Literatur= e. Does he have any other High-Rank Arabic Literature available from where he = can judge Quran’s Arabic? If he produces such a book he will be able to trounce the challenge of Quran where it inquires for a some what similar chapter like it’s.

=             &nb= sp;      If he has it, then present it? Because of some imprudent non-Arab non-Muslims allegedly found some grammatical mistakes in Quran, he is pronouncing that Quran does not have best of Arabic Literature. That’s mere idiocy aga= in from Ali Sina.

=             &nb= sp;      I am posting here a few quotations from non-Muslims admiring Quran to be of t= he best Arabic Literature.

-&nb= sp;        Goethe – quoted in T. P. Huges “Dictionary of Islam”, page 526:<= o:p>

&n= bsp;            = ; “It soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence... Its style= , in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand - ever and always, tru= ly sublime - So, this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence."

-&nb= sp;        G. Maragliouth in his Introduction to J. M. Rodwells - `The Koran`, New York - `Everyman’s Library, 1977, page VI:

&n= bsp;            = ; “The Koran (Qur'an) admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though it is the youngest of the epoch making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has creat= ed an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It fir= st transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of Muslims world wide which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the E= ast have to reckon with today."

-&nb= sp;        Dr. Steingass quoted in T. P. Hughes - `Dictionary of Islam`, pages 256-257:

&n= bsp;            = ; “A work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotio= ns even in the distant reader - distant as to time, and still more so as mental development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance which he may be= gin its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admirat= ion, such a work must be a wonderful production...
indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of the destinies of mankind."

        &= nbsp; “Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measur= ed by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countryme= n.

If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to = weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created= a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old w= arp of history"

-&nb= sp;        Dr. Maurice Bucaille – author of `The Bible, the Quran and Science` 1978, page 125:

&n= bsp;            = ; “It is impossible that Muhammad, peace be upon him, authored the Qur'an. How co= uld a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?
How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human-being could possibly have developed at that time, an all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"<= o:p>

-&nb= sp;        Arthur J. Arberry - `The Koran Interpreted`, London: Oxford University Press, 1964, page x:

&n= bsp;            = ; “In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly= the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pain to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest litera= ry masterpieces of mankind..
This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony', as the belie= ving Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to te= ars and ecstasy' has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original.."

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! I will pose the same argument as mentioned above. Ali Sina and his disciples managed to have allegedly found only 18 grammatical mistakes out of thousan= ds of verses. Wow, what an achievement. Parenthetically, this is not the theme under discussion. I will certainly reply some other time regarding all the grubby things he has stated above (insha Allah). In future, my counsel to h= im is to affix to the topic and do not go astray.

=             &nb= sp;

=             &nb= sp;      Regarding scientific errors, readers can find my replies further down the document.

Einstein’s Religiosity:<= /o:p>

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    (Dr. Naik) let us analyze whether the Quran is compatible…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)

…which is a blind religion that opposes science.

Answer:

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! Yes, Ali Sina is right over here. Albert Einstein was not speaking a propos= to Islam when he avowed this citation. Neither did Dr. Zakir Naik connote Islam when he presented Einstein’s quotation. It is Ali Sina who is hypocri= te and dupe by relating Einstein’s quotation to Islam. He does not seem = to be able to judge the hidden truth.

=             &nb= sp;      Dr. Zakir Naik was just merely presenting a quotation of Albert Einstein and it= can be referred to any religion. Solely, it doesn’t have to be Islam. He = was just revealing people the relation between religion and science in the word= s of Albert Einstein.

=             &nb= sp;      Regarding other craps Ali Sina inscribed in his arguments where he mocks Islam in relation to Science, I will deal with it in this discussion insha Allah.

Big Bang in the Quran?

=             &nb= sp;

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    (Dr. Naik) As far as Qura’n and modern science is…=

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)

…and both are scientifically wrong.

Answer:

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! How can be the story of Adam and Eve false if Big Bang theory is true? I ag= ain sense hoodwink in Ali Sina’s arguments. Again story of Adam & Eve= is out of this discussion, however, I am still retorting subjects like Evoluti= on and Big Bang in this dialogue as they were also stated by Dr. Zakir Naik in= his speech.

=             &nb= sp;      It seems his concept is pointing towards the theory of evolution. If I disprove theory of evolution then by design (as set by Ali Sina) Big Bang and story = of Adam and Eve befall to be true. This is what I assumed from what he had wri= tten in his post.

=             &nb= sp;      If he is really using theory of evolution to prove the story of Big Bang and A= dam & Eve, then please bear in mind that he can nevertheless prove it by putting himself as an example; because he deems like an ape and he comports himself like an ape. And confidently he could start from his good self a new evolution of people with brains like apes.

=             &nb= sp;      In order to prove his testimonies he has to answer following questions:

1.     Prove “Theory of Evolution”= ; as a universal fact?

2.     Prove that how complex living cells transform to high-order species by random mutation as postulated by Darwin = and his followers?

3.     As DNA is unique for each type of a li= ving species, prove that how can it be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species?

4.     Prove how the living cells of a species spontaneously combine to form the more complex organized structures such as= a single DNA molecule?

=             &nb= sp;      Chemically, amino acids and other basic compounds cannot be artificially organized into= the smallest unit of DNA. DNA, unique for each type of a living species, cannot= be manipulated to produce the DNA of another species. Any such manipulation co= uld only interfere with its functioning but not with its identity. Hence, genetically, evolution is basically impossible.

=             &nb= sp;      Thermodynamically, all matter, if left alone, tends to get more disorganized. Hence, chemical molecules could not, on their own, combine to form the more complex organiz= ed structures such as a single DNA molecule. Similarly, the living cells of a species cannot spontaneously evolve into a more complex organized species. =

=             &nb= sp;      Natural selection, one of the pillars of the evolution myth, cannot produce a higher-order species from a simpler one. If a species fails to adapt to its surrounding environment, this would either lead to extinction or to modification of its behavior and function, but could never change its ident= ity to another.

=             &nb= sp;      This tarnished theory is greatly applauded by atheists and materialist cultures which is a dogma far from being a possibility and is much less a scientific fact. Disguised in attire of science and propagated by populace like Ali Si= na and his disciples who tend to conceal its frailties until it permeated into= the intellects of population.

=             &nb= sp;      It’s lucid that Ali Sina’s approach to prove something is so obscure and perplexing to the readers in finding out the truth. He seldom endows eviden= ces when lay allegations against Quran. If some how he quotes a verse thinking = that it will defend his intellect, then he only produces his self-crafted smeared terminologies as proofs that just do not make any impression usually. Or ma= y be he lacks knowledge of Holy Scriptures, their eloquence and exquisiteness of lexis and how they should be inferred.

=             &nb= sp;      If he destined evolution in his inquiry with the intention of deterring the th= eory of Big Bang and Adam & Eve, I be inclined to tell him that I have proven evolution to be a sham and thus alongside also proven the story of Big Bang= and Adam & Eve to be veritable.

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! Concerning Quranic verse 21:30 and Genesis verse 1:6-9, Ali Sina alleged th= at this Quranic verse has rehashing of the Genesis. It’s like he is alle= ging the notion that Quran in many places states “not to kill innocentR= 21; and Bible also refers the similar idea, and subsequently he concluded strai= ght away that Quran has really plagiarized the verse from the Bible. It’s specious. Like for example;

“And slay not the life which Al= lah hath forbidden…” (Quran 17:33)

“…Do not kill…̶= 1; (Mark 10:19)

=             &nb= sp;      There is a high possibility that Bible has a few verses which can be analogous in Quran also. That does not make Quran fallible. If bible is aiming to a corr= ect scientific fact or terminology, so does Quran too.

=             &nb= sp;      Similarly, there are numerous verses in Quran that portray alike occurrences in differ= ent ways as judged against Bible. Like for example the birth of Jesus, Quran explains the birth of Jesus this way:

"O my Lord! How shall I have a s= on when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth w= hat He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it i= s! (Quran 3:47)

=             &nb= sp;      And Bible gives you a diverse perception of the birth of Jesus Christ:

“And the angel answered and sai= d unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35 – KJV)

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! I expect you perceive the disparity now. Quran speaks about How Allah has c= reated Jesus, “He w= ills it and thing comes into being”. And in Bible’s words, Holy Ghost (a.k.a God) sired Marry. (Astaghfurullah)

=             &nb= sp;      How sightless Ali Sina is in faith that he cannot not even perceives the creati= on of Jesus as mentioned in the Bible, is so in exact opposite those of Quran = and populace still allege Quran to be forged from the Bible. How can Quran rule= out such a grand testimony of the Bible upon which the whole “Christian-dom” lays? Quran is not the by-product of Bible, Ali= Sina; I am pronouncing again Quran is not made-up from the Bible.

=             &nb= sp;      Readers! As said by Ali Sina that Quranic verse 21:30 has a rehashing of Genesis 1:6= -9. Evidently, no where in Genesis Chapter 1 (Whole Chapter)= has an allusion that heavens and the earth were “joined together&#= 8221; and they were “separated” later. Let’s read verse = 1:

“In the beginning God created h= eaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

=             &nb= sp;      Whereas the Quranic verse 21:30 clearly states that heavens and the earth were join= ed together and Allah separated them; this harmonizes with science. How can th= is be a rehashing of Genesis 1? The truth is distinct and if Ali Sina still ca= nnot perceives it then he must have a serious problem with his intelligence.

=             &nb= sp;      Ali Sina said, “The Quran is full of legends borrowed from the Bible and fables of Pagan Arabs”. He put forth no evidence but just only myths of ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Canaanites, etc. I want him to show me evidence of such myths in Quran. I do not know why he wrote such my= ths in his arguments and how did he link them with Quran. This is just only his daydreaming and distraction.

=             &nb= sp;      Of course both the “stories” are precise. Ali Sina appears like a lunatic in the statement he made about two stories. There are several modes according to my insight to probe these two verses.

Condensing:<= /p>

Let’s read verse Quranic 41:11:<= o:p>

“He directed Himself to the hea= ven when it was smoke (or gas), so He said unto it and unto the earth: Come ye together (or both), willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come in willing obedience."

It is not therefore difficult to distinguish that if it was Gas = then coming together means condensing. This harmonizes with Astronomical Theory.= It is wonder that the critic does not take the words literally and object to t= he heaven and earth replying in Arabic. Willingness in the above implies that = they obeyed their own nature rather than having external coercive force acting on them.

Obedience:

Readers! You can also predict that prior to Big Bang when heaven= was a smoke; earth still subsisted in the divine knowledge of Allah. Hence, in = this verse Allah is only inquiring their submission mutually to His command, and they both replied certainly. This is an alternative way of understanding. (= Allah indeed knows the best).

Ali Sina is such hoodwink. I want him to show me where this verse reveals that heaven and the earth were apart and Allah commanded them to co= me toward each other to be “together” or to be “joined” (as mentioned by him in his post). “Together” also means “= ;In somebody’s company”.

Come in to being:

Translation by M. Asad literally states the creation of the Universe:

“And He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, which were [yet but] smoke;= and He [it is who] said to them and to the earth, Come [into being], both of yo= u, willingly or unwillingly! – to which both responded, We do come in obedience.”

Explaining this passage, Zamakhshari observes: "The meaning of God’s c= ommand to the skies and the earth to ‘come’, and their submission [to = His command] is this: He willed their coming into being, and so they came to be= as He willed them to be and this is the kind of metaphor (majaz) which is call= ed ‘allegory’ (tamthil). Thus, the purport [of this passage] is bu= t an illustration (taswir) of the effect of His almighty power on all that is wi= lled [by Him], and nothing else." (It is obvious that Zamakhshari’s reasoning is based on the oft-repeated Quranic statement, "When God wi= lls a thing to be, He but says unto it, ‘Be’ - and it is.") Concluding his interpretation of the above passage, Zamakhshari adds: "= ;If I am asked about the meaning of [the words] ‘willingly or unwillingly’, I say that it is a figurative expression (mathal) indicating that His almighty will must inevitably take effect."

Now we analyze Quranic verse 21:30:

"Do not the unbelievers see that= the heavens and the earth were joined together, then we clove them asunder . . ."<= /p>
<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;color:red'>Therefore the heaven and the earth were fused mutually (as mentioned by Ali Sina) and afterward Allah detached them. This is what unerringly Big Bang theory states in a nutshell.

<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;color:red'>Readers! This time I will present diff= erent acuity of these two verses. As you are aware that Big Bang is an establishe= d scientific fact as posed by Ali Sina in his article as well, and Quranic verse 21:30 clearly cites the course in a nutshell. Right now the question arises that = what was prior to the Big Bang? What was before when heaven was a smoke? These questions were asked from several renowned scientists and they provided the following answers:

-         Nobel Prize winning Physicist Leon Lederman said; = “Well, the first thing is there's no 'before.' Because time itself, as far as we understand time, was generated—and space—at the Big Bang.” (Taken from http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID= =3D7)

-<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>      =    D= r. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at University of Chicago said; “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we're still looking for the match," (Taken from an article written by Dennis Overbye in New York Times, May 22, 2001 - http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/before_the_big_b= ang_there_was__.htm)

-<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>      =    K= aren Masters, PhD from Cornell and now a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Harvard Smithsonian Center<= /st1:PlaceType> for Astrophysics said; “We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore the= re was nothing before it.” (Taken from http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?numbe= r=3D364)

-      =    C= raig Hogan at the University of Washington said;= “No one could really know. A= ll memory of that time is lost, everything from then is forgotten. That was a period of such catastrophic instability that it just doesn't remember what = came before it. We probably could never find out, either. There just isn't any information left over from it." (Take fro= m http://www1.cac.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march= 96/universe1.html)

Here, I have quoted authorities who are stumbling in finding what was there actually before Big Bang. They have no clues and no routes from w= here to initiate in order to decipher this mystery until this time. If we situate Quranic verse 41:11 ahead of Quranic verse 21:30 in the course of creation process, then there is no way Ali Sina can prove that Quranic verse 41:11 is contrary to established scientific fact, since, there is not a record regar= ding what was there earlier than Big Bang and when heaven was smolder. May be th= ere were planets before big bang, then they were joined together and afterward Allah separated them. Who knows? However, Allah indeed knows the best.=

Therefore, lay the sketch of creation of universe this way "heaven was a smoke (Quranic verse 41:11), and earth was existed in Allah's divine knowledge, and He inquired both of them for their compliances (in taking form), which they acknowledged, and afterward He separated them (Quranic verse 21:30 - Big Bang)."

Let’s beat Ali Sina more with his own stick. If he discard= s M. Asad’s translation of Quranic verse 41:11 and acquires the words literally, then he has to tell me where does in the verse stated that Allah= has actually declared the creation of Universe (when it referred to) concerning heaven and earth to come together? He is creating his own suppositions that Allah has referred to the creation of the Universe in this verse. Again he = is deceiving himself and other people. According to my understanding Allah is = only speaking about state of the Universe as a gas in the first part of the vers= e. (Allah knows the best). And the second part pursued by Quranic verse 21:30 = both are explain by Dr. Maurice Bucaille in his book; “The basic process in the formation of the universe . . . lay in the condensing of material in the primary nebula followed by its division into fragments that originally constituted galactic masses. The latter in their turn split up into stars t= hat provided the sub-product of the process, i.e. the planets" (p.149). Thus, Ali Sina= has to direct me now, should I trust French Scientist Dr. Maurice Bucaille of great repute or a nut-head like him?

<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;color:red'>I am giving him an opportunity to cont= rovert me. Show me any established scientific fact that can put in plain words what was there prior to Big Bang? If he couldn’t come across anything then= he has to accept Quranic verse 41:11 as it is, because if he cannot ascertain anything logically then he does not have any authority to negate it. <= /o:p>

Does the Quran say the Sun and the = Moon Revolve Around Their Own Axis?

Ali Sina:

(Dr. Naik) When I was in school…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp3.htm)

…rea= d any of his filthy books”.

Answer:

The Quranic verse in question:

“And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.” (Quran 21:33)

Readers! The Arabic word referring to a movement with a self-propelled motion is the verb sabaha (يسبحون "= ;yasbahun" in the text of the verse). All the senses of the verb imply a movement = that is associated with a motion that comes from the "BODY IN QUESTION"= ;. If the movement takes place in water, it is ‘to swim’; it is ‘move by the action of one’s own legs if it takes place on land= '. For a movement that occurs in space, it is intricate to see how else this m= eaning implied in the word could be rendered other than by employing its original sense. Thus there seems to have been no mistranslation, for the following reasons:

-<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>      =    The moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it revolves around the Earth, i.e. 29.5 days (approx).

-<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>      =    The Sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis.

Let’s scrutinize the translations Ali Sina quoted from different authors: Every translation mentions that they are either floating, swimming, traveling, gliding, or moving in their OWN orbit, rounded course, celestial spheres, sky, axis or orb. An object can move in two different wa= ys, one; when it is advancing forward on a defined axis and actually revolving = in a circular fashion, second; when it rotates on a single point or axis with its own motion. The latter is what the word ‘yasbahun’ and translat= ion stand.

Here is another proof; the Arabic word utilized in this verse is= فلك<= span dir=3DLTR>, which connotes "just rounded" and not "ci= rcular course", attesting that Quran is not conversing about circular motion = around a body, however, speaking about rounded motion of a body on its own axis.

Ali Sina said, “The word here implies that the Sun a= nd the Moon rotate in circle; i.e. around the Earth and not around their own <= /u>axis”. This time I will draw a different approach and ascertain my point yet again. For the sake of argument, I will assent that this precise Quranic verse (purportedly) represents that the Sun and the moon rotate in circular cours= e; however, where does it states that they rotate around the earth (as brought= up by Ali Sina)? He is planting his own words in Quran. Next time, Ali Sina sh= ould concretely establish his supposition by producing evidence devoid of any obscure and erroneous implies of his lewd intellect.

Surely he cannot accomplish that, and surely this verse doesn't state that Sun and the moon rotate around earth in circular motion. Likewis= e, no where this verse states the Arabic word for Earth i.e. ارض, yet again confirming that he is hypocrite.

Sill we Muslims and forever can bear out to facilitate this vers= e is scientific. However, he cannot prove it to be against established Science e= ver, as they (non-Muslims) do not posses any supportive facts and wiles in opposition to Quranic verse 21:33.

Therefore, Alhumdullillah, the Quranic verse 21:33 fittingly poi= nt out the movement of the Sun and the moon on their own axis on the word of t= he established scientific fact.

Now, it was not Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), on the con= trary, it is Ali Sina who distorts the terms and manipulates them so that they can= fit in his minuscule wits. If he cannot comprehend the Quran then it does not portend that Quran is in error, it is due to his deficiency of erudition and understanding of the scriptures. He has on no account given Quran recogniti= on and gratitude as it should be given, however it was given by populace, and = they are still giving.

Ali Sina demanded, why the Quranic language is not so clear and = why all the miracles attributed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) are not clear? = This is another topic and it is not allied to what we are conferring over here. I will riposte under some other topic.

Readers! Do not imply that I cannot counter; however, it seems he has an infirmity of going off trail of what is being discussed in the subje= ct. If you consider the other face of it, it is a very fine tactic of bewilderi= ng and deceiving readers. It is like burdening and bombarding the readers on a= nd on with irrelevant facts and terminologies, making eventually the original subject matter goes astray and readers start thinking about new stuff and totally forget about what was being discussed at initial. My counsel to Ali Sina is to stay on the topic and not to fool around. I will deal with his allegations some other time insha Allah.

Does the Quran say the Universe is Expanding?<= /b>

Ali = Sina:

(Dr. Na= ik) It was Edvin Hubbel who discovered…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)

…To = us it looks very small.

Answer:

Translation of Qur= anic verse 51:47 by M. Asad:

“AND IT IS We who have built the universe with our [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.” (Quran 51:47)

This translation is adequate to shut Ali Sina’s befoul mou= th once and for all. However, if he requires some more information a propos to this verse then he should stop at this site for an in depth response of his inane inquiry. His discretion is required here as he is been offended and embarrassed as the ignorant of the Arabic language in the following article= .

= http://www.bismik= aallahuma.org/archives/2005/does-musiun-means-expanding/

Excerpts from above link which is written by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi:

“It has come to our attention that Avijit Roy, webmaster of the Mukto Mona webs= ite, wrote an article titled “Does the Quran Have any Scientific Miracles?” One portion of the article on the subject to Sura’ Az-Zaariyaat is worth commenting on, as it is an exhibition of some of the common problems with non-Muslims critiques of Muslim arguments over the Internet. These would include an unjustified confidence with the relevant subject matter, a poor understanding of the arguments involved and a possib= le tendency to bluff with the hopes that no one else notices.

What is at issue here is the fact that the word =

<= ![endif]>
musi’un

in Sura’ az-Zaariyaat 51:47 can be translated as “expanding”, thus some Muslims have argued that this is a Quran= ic reference to the expanding of the universe. Whatever the soundness of that position, Mr. Roy’s attempt to refute it included some statements that were so ridiculous that one could not simply let them pass.

Deceit or Since= re Ignorance?

One of the first statements that raised a red flag was one that attempted to lean on the arguments of Denis Giron. Mr. Roy writes:=

Denish [sic] Giron also explained in= one of his wonderfully written pieces that the verb from which the Arabic word (m?8217;un) is derived cannot mean ?expand?

Then Mr. Roy cites Giron’s article entitled Expansion of the Universe in the Bible and the Qur’an: Comparing Isaiah to Soorat az-Zaariyaat.

The first problem is that Giron’s article blata= ntly contradicts Mr. Roy’s claim. In fact, Giron’s article explicitly states that “the verb from which this word is derived can mean expand.”

One has to wonder: did Mr. Roy even bother to read Giron’s article? The simple fact is that Mr. Roy’s argument says that the word cannot be translated as “expanding”, yet he calls= to witness an article that gives a rather clear argument for why it can be translated as “expanding”!

After that, Mr. Roy calls to witness an article by Ali Sina. In this case, Mr. Roy actually manages to c= ite a person who agrees with him, but Sina’s argument is simply ridiculou= s, to put it mildly. Roy’s mentioning of this article is appreciated, however, as it can serve as a pr= ime example of Sina’s total ignorance regarding the Arabic language. Mr. = Sina argues as follows:

The word used here is moosiAAoona = which drives from word vaseun. It means vast. It has nothing to= do with expanding. When you say al rezwano vaseun (the garden is vast). It does not= mean that the garden is expanding.

While this may seem like a case of belaboring a minor point, it might be worth noting that most people who employ a double-A (”AA”) in their transliterations of Qur’anic words or phr= ases over the net are probably novices who merely lifted the relevant transliter= ation off one of the websites which provide this odd symbol as designation of the presence of the Arabic letter ayn. Regardless, Sina’s attemp= t to prove that m?8217;un cannot be translated as “expanding̶= 1; betrays a rather pathetic ignorance on his part regarding the Arabic langua= ge, and thus Mr. Roy’s decision to call him to witness is a true example = of “the blind leading the blind”. Most ironic of all, the article = by Denis Giron itself refutes Ali Sina’s ridiculous claim."

Water Cycle in the Quran?

Ali = Sina:

(Dr. Na= ik) In the field of ‘Water cycle’…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)

…Onl= y in these few verses we found at least six.

Answer:

Ali Sina alleged "I don’t know which commentator said such a thing but if anyone has, he is mistaken". I will provide him a translation of Quranic verse by Pickthall. He had cross-check= ed every translation of Quran in posting his last statement where he addressed= about ‘expanding universe= 217;, but it looks as if he had deliberately filch Pickthall’s translation = of Quranic verse 86:11 in his argument, since it bequeaths the word ‘rain’ itself. The reason is in this way he would be proven dishonest and the readers will take it for granted what ever he is saying. Here’s the translation:

“By the heaven which giveth the returning rain.” (Quranic verse 86:11)

Ali Sina referred to the translation by Yusuf Ali where he wrote “which returns (in its round)” and the populace like Ali Sina w= ould in fact impose that why Yusuf Ali did not translate “to return back rain”, identical to Picktall.

Readers! In response to that, you will find here the commentary = of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. He says in his tafsir (Tafheem ul Quran):

“The words dhat ar-raj`e have been used for the sky. Literally رجع<= span lang=3DAR-SA> raj`e means to return, b= ut metaphorically this word is used for the rain in Arabic, for rain does not = fall just once, but returns over and over again in the season and of season as w= ell. Another reason for calling the rain raj `e is that vapour from the oceans of the earth and then falls back as rain on the sometimes out water rises as the same earth.” (Taken from: http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle=3DAT+-+TARIQ&sno= =3D86&tno=3D1744)

This wor= d can also be interpreted as “cyclical”; in Quran’s translations also has meaning of “sending back” or “returning”. = As it is acknowledged at present that the Earth is encircled by atmosphere that consists of several layers. Each layer acts an important valuable purpose f= or life. Research has revealed that these layers have the function of turning = the materials or rays; they are exposed to, back into space or back down to Ear= th. Now let us scan with a few examples of this “recycling” functio= n of the layers encircling the Earth. The troposphere, 13 to 15 kilometers above= the Earth, enables water vapor rising from the surface of the Earth to be conde= nsed and turn back as rain.

The ozone layer, at an altitude of 25 kilometers, reflects harmful radiation and ultraviolet light coming from space and turns both back into space.<= span lang=3DAR-SA dir=3DRTL>

The ionosphere, reflects radio waves broadcast from the Earth back down to different parts of the world, just like a passive communications sa= tellite, and thus makes wireless communication, radio, and television broadcasting possible over long distances.

The magnetosphere layer turns the harmful radioactive particles emitted = by the Sun and other stars back into space before they reach the Earth.=

The fact= that this property of the atmosphere's layers, that was only established in the recent past was pronounced centuries ago in the Qur'an, once again demonstr= ates that the Qur'an is the word of God.

Now I    &nb= sp;     will give the translation of Quranic verse 86:11 by Shakir;

“I swear by the raingiving heavens,” (Quran 86:11)=

Again, Shakir has mentioned the “the returning” enti= ty as rain and not the sun, moon, star or anything else. If Ali Sina cannot ev= en grasp the translation of Quran then how can he comprehend the Quran itself?= He implied in this particular verse that firmament is the object which is returning in its rounded like stars, moon, sun etc, however this is not the case, since it’s actually the firmament which is returning “RAIN and other beneficial materials”. I hope this explanation fits in his teeny-weeny brain. And it is he who is entwining the meaning in order to satisfy his craving. So, my counsel to him is to deem million times before = he howls anything against Quran.

Ali Sina said, “The word used is ‘sama̵= 7;. It means sky/heaven and it can also be interpreted as firmament but it can’t be translated as rain.” Readers! “PROFESSOR= OF ARABIC” Ali Sina misinterpreted the whole verse. As I said above that= the Arabic word used for “rain” is “raj’e”= and NOT “sama”. He rightly said that “sama̶= 1; is used for firmament.

Now regarding all the verses (which are not in the question right now in this discussion) that he has cited in his post and he said that the entire chapter (Surah) is gibberish; insinuating again his sickness of going out of track and confounding readers. Actually it’s his gutter mind filled with filth that is making him suffer and he is not able to comprehend the truth. Each and every verse is explicable; however, it is not the insta= nce and venue to refute his allegations because they are out of the subject. I = will deal with them later insha Allah.

Ali = Sina:

(Dr. Naik)= Dr. William Campbell who knows Arabic…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp4.htm)

…Don= 't make this too easy for me.

Answer:

Readers! I have already provided evide= nce above by the grace of Allah that Quranic verse 86:11 also points out evaporation. This verse is translated by four translators differently (difference is in choice of words). For example;

Yusuf Ali translates:

“By the Firmament which returns (in its round),= 221;

Pickthal translates:

“By the heaven which giveth the returning rain,= 221;

Shakir translates:

= “I swear by the raingiving heavens,”

M. Asad translates:

“Consider the heavens, ever-revolving,”=

As you can see, the translations of Yu= suf Ali and M. Asad are some what similar and can surround other beneficial mat= ter and energy in their connotations. Likewise, translations of Pickthall and Shakir are some what similar and they are specifically enuncia