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 enunciating about "returning rain".

Therefore, Alhumdullillah this precise Quranic verse is swathing all the aspects what had said by Dr. Zakir Naik.<= o:p>

There are some other verses also in Ho= ly Quran that explain the occurrence of evaporation in a nutshell. They are as follows:

“And We send down from the sky water in measure, a= nd We give it lodging in the earth, and lo! We are able to withdraw it&= #8221; (Quran 23:18)

Readers! You educate me now, to where = Allah is withdrawing water in the above verse? It surely depicts the idea of evaporation. If it is something else then Ali Sina has to produce evidence.=

“It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they = raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments, until thou seest rain-drops issue from the midst thereof: t= hen when He has made them reach such of his servants as He wills behold, they do rejoice!-“ (Quran 30:48”

In this verse it is quite clear that A= llah propels airstreams that enclose water vapors (evaporation) and THEY mold clouds. If Ali Sina needs further information he can visit the following li= nk that will augment his inadequate intelligence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor=

“It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a land that is dead, make rain to desc= end thereon, and produce every kind of harvest therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead: perchance ye may remember.” (Quran 7:57)<= /i>

In this verse, what heralds of glad ti= dings are carried by the winds? And then they are advancing aloft to haul the hea= vy clouds and Allah coerces them to a land that is barren and formulates the r= ain to pour on it. Readers! Can you see the interlinking of all these avowals of the verse to the fact that the glad tiding can also be the water vapors (ev= aporation) which are lugged by the winds, then construct the clouds, which pours it do= wn in the manner of rain yet again, which is vital for farming.

“And We send the winds fertilizing, and cause water to descend from the s= ky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.” (Quran 15:22)

Readers! Please elaborate what this wo= rd “fertilizing” means over here? And why repetitively there is mention of wind and rain or water in these verses? For the people who have common sense, for sure, clutch that there is something in the winds which is instigating water to pour down from the sky, yet again proving evaporation.= For the people like Ali Sina, lacking common sense at all, please do not press = your brains as their boundaries are already defined by Allah in this verse.=

"And so, the parable of those who re bent on denying the truth is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in= it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason." (Quran 2:171)

Ali = Sina:

(Dr. Naik) Regarding what he said about the Bible…

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

…= The Quran is a book of asininity and not of mira= cles.

Answer:

Ali Sina jot down “Let us = quote these verses and see if there is anything miraculous about themR= 21; Readers! Dr. Zakir Naik already riposted his question in his speech when he conferred the reference of philosophy of Phasofmillitas in 7^th century B.C where “he thought that the spray of the ocean was picked = up by the wind, and send to the interior as rain.” The same concept was counterfeited by the Bible. And it was categorically a miracle when Quran revealed the correct water cycle 1400 years ago. Doesn’t he perceive that? This is also one of the substantiations that Quran was not plagiarized from the Bible.

Well I am jovial to hear that Ali Sina= liked the “performance” of Dr. Zakir Naik. And I am aware that he was taunting on him out of envy that Doctor outperformed Dr. William Campbell in every aspect of the topic. Be sure that it was an aid from Allah that assis= ted Dr. Zakir Naik in delivering the truth.

Again he bared his illness by going ou= t of track, regarding Muhammad (Peace be upon him) forgetting that the Quran is supposed to be the word of Allah and Allah should not refer to himself in t= hird person. I will not comment here in this discussion and will leave it for a reply later on since it is out of area under discussion.<= /p>
Readers! Now I will discuss all the ve= rses that were mentioned by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech regarding water cycle a= nd then stated by Ali Sina with his grimy description in his publication, in details. I will reply to the depictions of those verses only where he has p= ut forth his mucky comments.

= “Art thou not aware that it is = God who causes the clouds to move onward, then joins them together, then piles = them up in masses, until thou can see rain come forth from their midst? And He i= t is who sends down from the skies, by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds] charged with hail, striking therewith whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, [the while] the flash of His lightning well-nigh deprives [men of their] sight! (Quran 24:43)

Ali Sina asked what is so miraculous a= bout it. I will put in the picture what so astounding about this verse. Most of = us are familiar with the water cycle from our classes in middle school, where = we had been educated on how a drop of sea water evaporates, then becomes a dro= p of rain water, and then finally returns to the sea via rivers or underground channels. The first person in modern times to identify this process was Ber= nard Palissy who portrayed it fittingly in 1580. Prior to him, the majority of t= he primordial Greeks and Roman scholars had diverse imperfect or erroneous speculations on the water cycle (Plato, for example, held that precipitation eventually descended in to the abyss called Tartarus and from there it fed = in to the oceans.

In Quran there are few precise referen= ces to specific stages. Perhaps the most fascinating of these references is the ve= rse mentioned above.

Scientists have studied cloud types an= d have realized that rain clouds are fashioned and shaped according to definite systems and certain steps connected with certain types of wind and clouds.<= o:p>

One kind of rain cloud is the cumuloni= mbus cloud. Meteorologists have studied how cumulonimbus clouds are formed and h= ow they produce rain, hail, and lightning.

They have found that cumulonimbus clou= ds go through the following steps to produce rain:

“…it is God who causes the clouds to move onward,” (Quran 24:43)

Cumulonimbus clouds begin to form when= wind moves some small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds) to an area where these clouds converge. (See figure 1 & 2 below)

Figure 1: Satellite photo showing the clouds moving towards = the convergence areas B, C, and D. the arrows indicate the directions of the wi= nd. (The Use of Satellite Pictures in Weather Analysis and Forecasting, Anderson and othe= r. Page 188.)

Figure 2: Small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds) moving tow= ards a convergence zone near the horizon, where we can see a large cumulonimbus cloud. (Clouds and Storms, Ludlam. Plate 7.4.)

“…then joins them together,” (Quran 24= :43)

"Then the small clouds join t= ogether forming a larger cloud". (The Atmosphere, Anthes and others. Page 268-= 269, and Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson. Page 141.) (See figure 2 & 3)

Figure 3: (A) Isolated small pieces of clouds (cumulus clouds). (B) When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase, so the cloud is stacked up. Water drops are indicated by ·. (The Atmosphere, Anthes and others, p. 269.)

“…then piles them up in masses, until thou c= an see rain come forth from their midst?” (Quran 24:43)

When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase. The updrafts near the cent= er of the cloud are sturdier than those near the edges. These updrafts cause = the cloud body to grow vertically, so the cloud is stacked up (see figures 3 (B= ), 4, and 5). This vertical growth causes the cloud body to stretch into cooler regions of the atmosphere, where drops of water and hail formulate a= nd begin to grow larger and larger. When these drops of water and hail become too heavy for the updrafts to support them, they begin to fall from = the cloud as rain, hail, etc.

Figure 4: A cumulonimbus cloud. After the cloud is stacked u= p, rain comes out of it. (Weather and Climate, Bodin. Page 123.)<= /p>

Figure 5: A cumulonimbus cloud. (A Colour Guide to Clouds, Scorer and Wexler. Page 23.)

"Meteorologists have only rec= ently come to know these details of cloud formation, structure, and function by u= sing advanced equipment like planes, satellites, computers, balloons, and other equipment, to study wind and its direction, to measure humidity and its variations, and to determine the levels and variations of atmospheric pressure." (Taken from: Ee’jaz al-Quran al-Kareem fee = Wasf Anwa’ al-Riyah, al-Sohob, al-Matar, Makky and others, p. 5= 5.)

The preceding verse, after mentioning = clouds and rain, speaks about hail and lightning:

“…And He it is who sends down from the skies= , by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds] charged with hail, striking therewi= th whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, [the while] the f= lash of His lightning well-nigh deprives [men of their] sight!” (Quran 24:= 43)

"Meteorologists have found th= at these cumulonimbus clouds, that shower hail, reach a height of 25,000 to 30= ,000 ft (4.7 to 5.7 miles)", (Taken from: Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson, p. 141.) like mountains, as the Quran said, = “...And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky...” (See figure 5 above).

This verse may raise a question. = Why does the verse say “its lightning” in a reference to the hail? Does this mean that hail is the major cause in fabricating lightning? Let us see what the book entitled Meteorology Today says about this. It says that "a cloud becomes electrified as hail falls through a re= gion in the cloud of super cooled droplets and ice crystals. As liquid droplets collide with a hailstone, they freeze on contact and release latent heat. T= his keeps the surface of the hailstone warmer than that of the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes in contact with an ice crystal, an impor= tant phenomenon occurs: electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object. Hence, the hailstone becomes negatively charged. The same eff= ect occurs when super cooled droplets come in contact with a hailstone and tiny splinters of positively charged ice break off. These lighter positive= ly charged particles are then carried to the upper part of the cloud by updrafts. The hail, left with a negative charge, falls towards the bo= ttom of the cloud, thus the lower part of the cloud becomes negatively charged.&= nbsp; These negative charges are then discharged as lightning". (Take from: = Meteorology Today, Ahrens, Page. 437.). We conclude from this that hail is the major factor in producing lightning.

This information on lightning was disc= overed recently. Until 1600 AD, Aristotle’s ideas on meteorology were dominant. For example, he said "that the atmosphere contains two kinds of exhalation, moist and dry. He also said that thunder is the sound of the collisio= n of the dry exhalation with the neighboring clouds, and lightning is the inflam= ing and burning of the dry exhalation with a thin and faint fire." (Taken from: The Works of Aristotle Translated into English: Meteorologica, vol. 3. Ross and others. Page. 369a-369b.). These are some of the ideas on meteorology that were domin= ant at the time of the Quran’s revelation, fourteen centuries ago.

Now I have provided evidence that Qura= nic verse 24:43 is miraculous in terms of unfolding the mystery of cloud format= ion, rain, hail and lightning when it was not acknowledged at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). I will remain uttering that Quran is a word of Allah and not the words of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) or any other historians like you find in the Bible. (Readers! above description is taken= from http://www.islam-guide.com/)

“It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they raise t= he Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky as He wills, and break them into fragments, until thou seest rain-drops issue from the midst thereof: then w= hen He has made them reach such of his servants as He wills behold, they do rejoice!-“ (Quran 30:48)

Ali Sina again corroborated himself as bamboozle when he said “as for rejoicing for rain, this is clea= rly from the point of view of those who don’t see much rain. There = are places on this earth that rain most of the year and people rejoice when the= re is day sunshine. This shows these verses are written by one whose knowledge= was limited to Arab world.”

There are numerous ways that I can ref= ute his declaration mentioned above:

First:

I will quote some of the Quranic verses where Allah has mentioned rain storm as the punishment for the people or la= nd:

“Or like a rainstorm from the sky, wherein is dark= ness, thunder and the flash of lightning. They thrust their fingers in their ears= by reason of the thunder-claps, for fear of death. Allah encompasseth the disbelievers (in His guidance)” (Quran 2:19)

“…= ;for his parable is that of a smooth r= ock with [a little] earth upon it - and then a rainstorm smites it and leaves it hard and bare…” (Quran 2:264)

“The while We rained a rain [of destruction] upon = the others: and behold what happened in the end to those people lost in sinR= 21; (Quran 7:84)

“And rained down upon them a rain [of destruction]: and dire is such rain upon all who let themselves be warned [to no avail]! (Quran 26:173 & 27:58)

“And they [who now deny Our messages] must surely = have come across that town which was rained upon by a rain of evil: have they, t= hen, never beheld it [with their minds eye]? But nay, they would not believe in resurrection!” (Quran 25:40)

“And so, when they beheld it in the shape of a den= se cloud approaching their valleys, they exclaimed, “This is but a heavy cloud which will bring us [welcome] rain!” [But Hud said:] “Nay, but it is the very thing which you [so contemptuously] sought to hasten - a wind bearing grievous suffering,” (Quran 46:24)=

Therefore, Quran does have verses which illustrate that rain can be in the mode of catastrophe and definitely after when it ceases, people surely rejoice. The Quranic verse 30:48 which Ali Si= na has brought up and also referred by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech is speaking about when rain is a blessing and rejoices people and surely not explicitly stating about disaster or raining a great deal. Therefore, Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) knew (as alleged by Ali Sina that Quran was written by = him) that there are places where it rains a lot and people do exult when they experience sunlight.

Second:

The other way to disprove Ali SinaR= 17;s contention against Quranic verse 30:48 is: I want to pose him a counter question as where does this verse cites if it is speaking about “all humanity” or “all the people” or “the whole world” rejoices when they observe sunlight after raining? If he ever = used his common sense (which I also surely doubt that he has ever exercised it), this verse can be talking about only those people who vision rain as a bles= sing and not of those who cheer sunlight after rain since Quran refers to rainst= orms also. Hence, my advice to him is to look in an extensive vision rather then being a tapered minded harebrained.

Third:

Ali Sina stated “There are places on this earth that rains most of the year and people rejoice when th= ere is a day sunshine. This shows these verses are written by one whose knowled= ge was limited to Arab world.” Readers! This is also a false cla= im against Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). There are places in= Saudi Arabia where it rains in abundance most of the season and weather remains cloudy m= ost of the time of the year. And all these places are in close proximity to Mak= kah and Medina, like for example, Taif where Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) went for preaching, Abha, Khamis Mushayet, Tabuk etc. I have been to these places in person and live through the weather as well. So it’s been proved now = that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) knew places where people do rejoice wh= en there is a sunlight after rain because he had also experienced the same.

Readers! If you are living in Saudi Arabia and if you desire going to Makkah by car from eastern province then you sur= ely have to go through Taif. And you can see and feel the weather while traveli= ng through Taif.

I can give Ali Sina more arguments aga= inst his allegations regarding Quranic verse 30:48; however, I think it is enoug= h to shut his foul mouth.

“Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, therewith, produce of various colours: then it withers; thou wilt see it gr= ow yellow; then He makes it dry up and crumble away. Truly, in this, is a Mess= age of remembrance to men of understanding.” (Quran 39:21)

=

Yes, a person undeniably needs to be a scientist or a prophet to know that rain falls from the sky and that the sp= ring waters are from rain. Such philosophies seem quite usual to us today, but we should not overlook the fact that they were not ubiquitous long ago. It was= not until the sixteenth century, with Bernard Palissy, that we acquired the fir= st lucid description of the water cycle. Earlier to this, populace talked about the theory whereby the water of the oceans, under the upshot of winds, was shoved towards the interior of the continents. They then revisited to the oceans via the great chasm, which, since Plato's time, has been called the Tartarus. In the seventeenth century, a great intellectual such as Descartes assumed in it, and even in the nineteenth century there was still gossip of Aristotle's theory, according to which water was condensed in cool mountains grottos and shaped underground lakes that noshed springs. Today, we know th= at it is the infiltration of rainwater that is accountable for this. If one put side by side the facts of modern hydrology with the data to be found in cop= ious verses of the Quran on this theme, one cannot fall short to notice the incredible degree of concord amid the two.

Here’s the testimony which will again shut Ali Sina’s foul mouth:

Excerpt from this document:

http://www.search.com/reference/Bernard_Palissy

“Palissy is highly regarded for his contributio= ns to the advance of soil science, geology, geohydrolo= gy, geomorphol= ogy and biology. The concept of the water cycle in his time assumed that sea water was co= nveyed from coastal to mountainous areas through subterranean passages by the acti= on of wind, desalinatized by condensation in cool caves, forming underground l= akes which fed mountain springs. Palissy correctly attributed spring water to rainfall percolating into the earth and emerging after slow travel through permeable layers overlying impermeable layers. Palissy expanded the concept= of erosion and sedimentation as a contribution to landform formation and soil types, based on differences in rock resistance to weathering by ice and wat= er. Palissy postulated how fossils were formed by the action of soluble mineral= s, and observed that some fossils were from plant and animal life forms no lon= ger present, introducing the concept of biological species extinction.”

“And We send down water from the sky according to (due) measure, and We cause it= to soak in the soil; and We certainly are able to drain it off (with ease).= 221; (Quran 23:18)

Readers! If you go through the tafsir of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi= , he cited:

“The "rain" may refer to the rainfall, which comes down every now and then. It may also refer to the great store of water which Allah sent down at the time of the creation of the earth to fulfill i= ts various needs till the Last Day, and which still exists in the shape of sea= s, lakes, sub-soil water, etc. It is the same water which evaporates in summer= and freezes in winter and is carried by winds from place to place and spread ov= er the earth by rivers, springs and wells to cause the growth of multitudes of= things, and then is again restored to the seas, lakes, etc. Neither has this store = of water been decreased by a drop nor was there any need to increase it by a d= rop since its creation. Today it is too well known how water comes about by the combination of oxygen and hydrogen in a certain ratio. The question is why can't more water be produced when oxygen and hydrogen still exist in abunda= nce in the world? Who caused them to combine in the proper ratio in the beginni= ng to produce oceans of water and who now stops them from coming together to produce an extra drop? Then when water evaporates, who causes oxygen and hydrogen to remain combined .n water vapors even in the gaseous state. Have= the atheists and polytheists, who believe in independent deities for water, air, summer and ! winter, any answer to this question?” (Taken from: http://www.translatedquran.com/meaning.asp?pagetitle= =3DAL+-+MUMINOON&sno=3D23&tno=3D1326)<= /p>
Readers! I have already brought up the= same Quranic verse above in the section of evaporation, now; I will prove the phenomenon of evaporation again using Ali Sina’s own commentary. He s= aid “places are parched with draught” and I am linking his own comment with the same verse where it says “able to drain it off”, and I am not in a bit of doubt that = he thought “abl= e to drain it off” means evaporation when he uttered “places are parched with drau= ght”. What made the places parched with draught? Answer is EVAPORATION. So he also testified the phenomenon of evaporation in his own words. Alhudullillah.

“And among His Signs, He shows you the lightning, by way both of fear and of hop= e, and He sends down rain from the sky and with it gives life to the earth aft= er it is dead: verily in that are Signs for those who are wise.” (Quran 30:24)

This is idiocy again, why Ali Sina is looking for an explanation= of causes of lightning in this verse? Why is he not referring to other verses which are elucidating the causes of lightning explicitly? I do not figure o= ut. Or he did not find any verse in the Quran speaking on this subject. Alright= let me put him on view:

“…And He it is who sends down from the skies= , by degrees, mountainous masses [of clouds] charged with hail, striking therewi= th whomever He wills and averting it from whomever He wills, [the while] the f= lash of His lightning well-nigh deprives [men of their] sight!” (Quran 24:= 43)

"Meteorologists have found th= at these cumulonimbus clouds, that shower hail, reach a height of 25,000 to 30,000 ft (4.7 to 5.7 miles)," (Taken from: Elements of Meteorology, Miller and Thompson, p. 141.)<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;color:red'> like mountains, as the Quran said, “...And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky...” (See figure 5 above).

This verse may raise a question. = Why does the verse say “its lightning” in a reference to the hail? Does this mean that hail is the major factor in producing lightning? Let us see what the book entitled Meteorology Today says about this. It says that "a cloud becomes electrified as hail falls through a re= gion in the cloud of super cooled droplets and ice crystals. As liquid droplets collide with a hailstone, they freeze on contact and release latent heat. T= his keeps the surface of the hailstone warmer than that of the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes in contact with an ice crystal, an impor= tant phenomenon occurs: electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object. Hence, the hailstone becomes negatively charged. The same eff= ect occurs when super cooled droplets come in contact with a hailstone and tiny splinters of positively charged ice break off. These lighter positive= ly charged particles are then carried to the upper part of the cloud by updrafts. The hail, left with a negative charge, falls towards the bo= ttom of the cloud, thus the lower part of the cloud becomes negatively charged. These negative charges are then discharged as lightning.&quo= t; (Take from: Meteorology Today, Ahrens, Page. 437.). We conclude from this that hail = is the major factor in producing lightning.

This information on lightning was disc= overed recently. Until 1600 AD, Aristotle’s ideas on meteorology were dominant. For example, he said "that the atmosphere contains two kinds of exhalation, moist and dry. He also said that thunder is the sound of the collisio= n of the dry exhalation with the neighboring clouds, and lightning is the inflam= ing and burning of the dry exhalation with a thin and faint fire." (Taken from: The Works of Aristotle Translated into English: Meteorologica, vol. 3. Ross and others. Page. 369a-369b.). these are some of the ideas on meteorology that were domi= nant at the time of the Quran’s revelation, fourteen centuries ago. (Information taken from: www.islam-= guide.com)

Readers! Ali Sina again alleged Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) where he said “lightening is to frighten people and to give them hope”, I concur with that adversary quickly. Yes, lightning can frighten people where it would be rai= ning so heavily which may sluice away everything, however, on the other hand it would be a good hope as it would benefit the crops. Therefore, we should bow down in front of Allah and ask for good benefits. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was rightly addressing to the people.

Then he alleged, “Rain is a natural phenomenon. It is not a sign from anyone.” I again co= ncur with this adversary quickly, with the foremost part only; yes, rain is a natural phenomenon but toting up to that, we Muslims also deem that Allah is the driving might behind this natural phenomenon.

Then he said, “It just hap= pens on its own thanks to the effect of Sun on earth.” I believed = that he is an atheist and do not believe in any God or deity, so why is he thank= ing the effect of Sun? I know he did not mean that but that is what it implied.=

Readers! Now I will discuss regarding rainbow that is mentioned in the Bible and related with God. Let us see what the verses of Genesis 9:13-17 says:

“I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for= a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.”

“It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the ear= th, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud,”

“and I will remember my covenant, which is between= me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.”

“The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at = it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth”=

“God said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

Readers! If you glance at the descript= ion of all these verses you will come to know that Gospel preachers and Bible thum= pers say that "the ra= inbow that Ezekiel and John saw around the Throne of God was CIRCULAR. In this wo= rld we only see half of a rainbow, or half of things, in Heaven we shall see the whole of things. And that rainbow was in emerald color, but, definitely not= the mixture of seven primary colors. And the rainbow is the sign of a covenant based on an accepted Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Noah (Gen. 8:20-22). What = does this “CIRCULAR GREEN RAINBOW” about the Throne of God signify? = It signifies that God is a Covenant keeping God, that His promises as to this earth shall be fulfilled." (Taken from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tbr/tbr021.htm)<= /o:p>

Ali Sina has to put this narration in = the picture for me; does this depiction make any sense to him? Semi Circular Colorful Rainbow as the sign of Noah’s Accepted Sacrifice and Circular Emerald Color Rainbow around God’s Throne as the sign of Jesus’ Accepted Sacrifice. And he wanted Dr. Zakir to agree on this point and affi= rm that it is surely a sign of God’s promise and rule out all the rules = of science. And God found only a rainbow in this world to vision His ever-last= ing covenant to mankind? What so significant about rainbow that God chose it as= His “covenant-keeper”? What was rainbow in the sight of God before = he made it as a token of Covenant? Does God require a rainbow to remember and = to keep his promises? “God of Bible” shattered his covenant by sen= ding Tsunami which exterminated around 200,000 innocent people; and still we see= the rainbow everyday. The story of “storm of Noah” is off-beam in t= he Bible which inevitably makes the story of rainbow erroneous as well.

Readers! Dr. Zakir Naik only denied ha= ving faith on the fact that rainbow is the sign of God’s promise as mentio= ned in the Bible? Dr. Zakir Naik and we all Muslims indubitably, accept as true, that rainbow is undeniably one of the signs of Allah’s creation as li= ke other creations in the world. Similarly, rain is also a sign of Allah’= ;s creation in sight of every Muslim.

Readers! You judge now who is fool? Ali Sina or Dr. Zakir Naik.<= o:p>

“And We send the fecundating winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith providing you with water (in abundance), though ye are not the guardians of its stores.” (Quran 15= :22)

In counter to Ali Sina’s post, I will present one more translation of the same verse in order to understand it correctly:

“And We send the winds fertilizing, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink. It is not ye who are the holders of the store thereof.” (Quran 15:22)

The other translation that I have posted above uses the word “fertilizing” which can also be used in this place as a replace= ment of the word “fecundating”. Actually both are the same, fecundat= ed means fruitfulness, richness, lushness, productiveness, and antonym is infertility. I have already referenced this verse as an example under the section of evaporation; however, here I will give you another scientific fa= ct that is proven in this Quranic verse. And that is “Wind Pollination”; the transfer of pollen from a stamen to a pistil, fertilization in flowering plants using wind as a medium. According “= Britannica Concise Encyclopedia”;

“Insects and wind are the most important pollinators among other agents.” (Take from: http://www.answers.com/topic/pollination= )

Alhudullillah, Quranic verse 15:22 also clearly mentions the phenomenon of Pollination by wind by giving a description in disguise in the phrase “fecundating winds”.

Now I will give another scientific fact and that is; in this ver= se, the Quran unveils another great mystery of creation, the fundamental role p= layed by the wind in the fertilization of clouds. Using complex instruments and electrical means, civilized man has made great progress in recent years resulting in the establishment of the discipline known as meteorology. Specialists in this discipline point out the following: "It must be recognized that t= he obtaining of two conditions - the existence of steam in the air and its distillation to the point of saturating the air - is not enough to cause the formation of clouds and the occurrence of rainfall. A third condition is al= so necessary, which we may call fertilization.”

In the appearance of natural phenomena, a kind of friction and d= elay always exists. For example, if water is pure and stationary, it is possible that its temperature is reduced to below zero without its solidifying and t= hat it does not begin to boil until its temperature is much higher than 100 degrees. Also, steam may not begin to distill even though it has reached a point of saturation, and once it has distilled, its globules may be so minu= te that they do not fall, remaining instead suspended in the air so that no rainfall occurs. It is necessary for the wind to provide invisible particle= s of salt, picked up from the surface of the oceans that then form nuclei of attraction and inflation. More importantly, the moisture in the air has to accumulate around the crystallized snowflakes that have formed at higher altitudes and are then scattered by the wind.

Finally, the minute initial drops of rain merge with each other = as a result of the collision and intermingling of the winds until they gradually grow in size and fall through cloud masses as a result of their relatively great weight.

As a result of their friction with features of the earth and with bodies suspended in the air, cloud masses acquire opposing electrical force= s. The release of this electricity is accompanied by intense friction of the particles in the air and the formation of nitrogen. This process contributes considerably to the merging and growing of raindrops and the occurrence of rainfall.

In short, the formation and strengthening of clouds, and the occurrence of rainfall and snow, cannot take place without a form of fertilization, accomplished through the intervention of an outside factor. =

Artificial rainfall likewise depends on artificial fertilization, carried out in the following way: an airplane scatters "water dust&quo= t; (pulverized and crystallized ice) in air that has the potentiality of cloud formation but is in a state of delayed equilibrium.

Discussing the rich treasury of knowledge contained in the Quran, Dr. Bucaille writes: = "Whereas monumental errors are to be found in the Bible, I could not find a single e= rror in the Quran. I had to stop and ask myself: if a man had been the author of= the Quran, how could he have written facts in the seventh century AD that today= are shown to be in keeping with modern scientific knowledge?<= /p>
There was absolutely no doubt about it: the text of the Qura= n we have today is most definitely a text of the period, if I may be allowed to = put it in these terms (in the next chapter of the present section of the book I shall be dealing with this problem). What human explanation can there be for this observation? In my opinion there is no explanation; there is no special reason why an inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula should, at a time when Ki= ng Dagobert was reigning in France (629-639 AD), have had scientific knowledge on certain subjects that was ten centuries ahead of our own."

“It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy: when they have carried the heavy-laden clouds, We drive them to a la= nd that is dead, make rain to descend thereon, and produce every kind of harve= st therewith: thus shall We raise up the dead: perchance ye may remember.̶= 1; (Quran 7:57)
I will retort to only those annotations of Ali Sina’s which are allied to the subject matter. He said "Not all winds carry <= i>glad tidings. Some of them are devastating. Also most of the rains do not fa= ll on dead land but on very wet lands". It gives the impression t= hat his perspective is very irrational, for example; if I put forth a statement that "Ali Sina is a fool", and then in the counter reply he says "No, I am not the only one, there are many others like me". In op= position I would say that my remark was only destined to him and it only expressed h= im as a fool and not others. However, if I would have said that "Ali Sina= is the only fool", then he would have had an opportunity to refute me by stating other fools. Similarly, Quranic verse 7:57 is specifically talking about only those winds that carry glad tidings and not of those who are a disaster for the people; since there are other verses which speaks about ra= in as a catastrophe explicitly. Here, I am presenting some Quranic verses that= are specifically stating about winds that are disaster.

"…But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not: but Allah sees (clearly) all that ye do." (Quran 33:9)

"…they were destroyed by a furious Wind, exceedingly violent;" (Quran 69:6)

"So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster," (Quran 41:16)

I have also referred to Quranic verse 7:57 above, under the subj= ect of "Evaporation".

For Ali Sina, another counsel to him is to keep his smudged mind fresh, keep his eyes wide open, contemplate on what is being said and try to comprehend the translation whenever he reads Quran. Do not read it like he reads any other book. Do not treat Quran like any other religious book.

“He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to i= ts measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. = Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utens= ils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show for= th Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like froth cast out; while that w= hich is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables.” (Quran 13:17)

Ali Sina articulated that "this is just a parable. No= thing scientific here", let's uncover the scientific facts in this v= erse and readers you advise if there is any scientific knowledge in this verse.<= o:p>

=         &= nbsp; "He sends down water from the sk= ies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure" Readers! If you notice the latter par= t, it is aiming to both actions; first, the rain pours down according to its measure and channels or rivers stream according to their measures. It is cogent that all these measures are appointed by Allah.

The following question arises for both rain and rivers; can we measure them? Let see if we can answer this question. I will answer separat= ely for both entities, i.e. rain and rivers.

Rain:

=         &= nbsp; Some what similar question was asked from Meteorologist Mike Bosilovich of NASA's Data Assimilation Of= fice at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, he is the lead author of the s= tudy being published in the March-April issue of the Journal of Hydrometeorology, and he said "If I see rain or snow in the central U.S., I can now tell= you how much of the moisture came from the Gulf of Mexico, how much came from t= he tropical Atlantic Ocean and so on,"

        &= nbsp; "The model gives us a much clearer picture of how water moves in the atmosphere = than we have ever had before."

        &= nbsp; NASA has made a computer model that can simulate water movement in the atmosphere around the world, and traces it f= rom the places where it evaporates to the places where it falls back to Earth. = (Taken from: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020401watervapor.html)

=         &= nbsp; Now human beings can also some what measure the capacity of rain. Around 1400 y= ears ago this information was given in the Quran and its only yesterday that we = have discovered that rain has its own measures, quantity and capacity.

Rivers:

=         &= nbsp; Measure of flow in rivers affects many issues of water quality and quantity togethe= r. River ecosystems and the native species dependant upon them can best be conserved by protecting as much as possible of the natural variability in f= low - a concept that has been called the "natural flow paradigm".

=         &= nbsp; Because we will not perfectly understand how much alteration of natural flow regime= s is ecologically tolerable in any particular river, the definition of an adequa= te or preferred flow regime should be determined in an adaptive fashion - a concept that has been called "adaptive management".

= For more information on how river flow can affect out ecosystem please visit the following site. http:= //www.epa.gov/watertrain/river/index.html

=         &= nbsp; Readers! If you examine the Quranic verse 13:17, doesn't this phrase "according= to its measure" ring any bell? Why Allah is setting measures to rain and rivers? And why is He telling us that he set measures? Surely, it depicts t= hat Allah has put a great deal of scientific knowledge in this small verse and leave it for sensible people to find the truth. I said “sensible people”, which surely curb Ali Sina elsewhere.

        &= nbsp; I have already replied to each and eve= ry acrimonious comment Ali Sina emblazoned in his lewd article pertaining to r= ain. I will hand it down to the readers to settle on if there are any scientific facts in the verses mentioned in the holy Quran.

He said, "Is there any hitherto unknown scientific information in these verses?" I would like to ask him, why he = is looking for unknown scientific information in the Quran. Why does he think = that Quran is a book of Science and not of signs? If some how he finds an unknown scientific fact in Quran then how is he going to prove it? In that case, ag= ain he will hit Muslims back saying this is something very vague and ask us to prove this “unknown scientific fact”.

I have already proved that what ever scientific knowledge Quran gives, was not known at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and thus also proving Ali Sina to be fool who is not able to comprehend the tru= th.

=         &= nbsp; As for the rest of his polluted comments, I will retort under some other topic insha Allah.

Do Mountains Stabilize Earth

Ali = Sina:

          (Dr. Naik)= Dr. William Campbell spent maximum…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…beneath us from shaking with us has come from.

Answer= :

        &= nbsp; I am assuring to the readers that whatever Dr. Zakir articulated regarding "mountains as stakes", "they have deep roots" and "they give stability to Earth" are all authentic annotations devo= id of any uncertainties. I am employed with an oil company and I am surrounded= by thousands geologists (Muslims and non-Muslims). I had a personal conversati= on with many of them pertaining to "Mountain Building". I am aware that Ali Sina will not consent my "personal discussion" with these geologists as it does not carry any credence, so, I will acquaint him with unyielding proofs. I will not provide him with the names of geologists, however; I will divulge adequate evidence that will certainly gratify his appetite.

        &= nbsp; These geologists are not graduates from Al Azhar University and that is for sure,= as I corroborated with them. However, at least they have graduate and masters' degree in geology, not like Ali Sina, who looks as if never attended a scho= ol. And it seems factual as I will ascertain later in this topic.

        &= nbsp; Readers, I want your full concentration on this topic. Over here I will again prove = how Ali Sina manipulates words, twists meanings, bluntly lie to people, and what evidence he churns out to espouse his lame accusations. I will elucidate st= ep by step:

Mountains= do have roots (mountains as stakes):

        &= nbsp; Quranic verse in question:

"= ;And the mountains as pegs?" (Quran 78:7)

          Much of the depiction was already afforded by Dr. Zakir= Naik in his speech that the "mountains have roots". And here is the pr= oof:

Excerpts fro= m: http://www.geology.wisc.edu/course= s/g112/mtn_roots.html. This particular site belo= ngs to "Geology & "Geophysics" department of "UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON".

        &= nbsp; "The most important point is = that mountains have buoyant roots that extend downward in to the mantle beneath a mountain range, and that the roots are, in general, about 5.6 times deeper = than the height of the range."

        &= nbsp; "Continents are buoyant crust that float on a denser mantle. We can thus use the densit= y of continental rocks and mantle rocks to calculate how deep roots are that sup= port mountain ranges."

        &= nbsp; "The existence of buoyant roo= ts has important implications for the lifetime of mountain ranges. What happens wh= en erosion removes material from the top of a mountain? With less mass above sea-level to support, the buoyant root rebounds upward an amount that is exactly proportional to the density difference between the root and the underlying mantle! Thus, in the case of an iceberg that stands 10 meters ab= ove sea level, if all 10 meters of ice melt from the top, the buoyant root push= es upwards 9 meters! The iceberg thus loses only 1 meter of height. It thus ta= kes much longer for the iceberg to "disappear" because its buoyant ro= ot continually restores (from beneath sea level) ice that melts above the water surface."

        &= nbsp; "The bottom line - once plate tectonic processes build a mountain range, the buo= yant underlying root enables the mountain range to hang around a long time even while its being actively eroded."

        &= nbsp; This precise editorial is value readin= g and I will insist readers to examine it. It gives you the loads of subsequent i= nformation:

1.     E= vidence for mountain roots

2.     It presents a mathematical equation to find out how deep must the root extend = down in to the mantle to support the elevation.

3.     I= mplication of roots on the life time of mountain ranges.

4.     C= alculate mathematically that mountain will not survive long if it doesn't have roots= .

5.     C= alculate mathematically the life time of a mountain range; given mountains have root= s.

6.     W= hat will happen to a mountain if it doesn’t have any roots?

7.     A simple mathematical derivation of the equation for mountain root depths.

"Note that mountains have deep roots, as determined through seismological = and gravity studies." (Taken from: http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo101/mountain.htm). This particular site belongs to "GEORGIA<= /st1:PlaceName> PERIMETER COLLEGE".

= Excerpts from: http://honolulu= .hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program8%20MountainBuilding/program8.ht= ml. This particular site belo= ngs to "HONOLULU COMMUNITY COLLEGE".

"…and the continents began to embed themselves into plates that had mantle roots,"

"To explain this discrepancy Airy concluded that a low density root must lie beneath the range. Geophysical studies have since confirmed that the crust beneath the Himalaya extends to a depth = of 75 kilometers, twice as thick as ordinary continental crust."<= /span>

"It's now known that most mountain ranges are underlain by crustal roots floating atop the hot plastically deforming mantle. The roots grow as a result of compression during plate convergence. As mountain ranges are worn down, the= ir roots are buoyed upward by the mantle."

"In the same way, tall mountains usually have roots extending deeper into the E= arth than low mountains made up of the same rock type."
"When you build up a large mountain range, you're liable to have a root underneath and a lot of material piled up high on the Earth's surface"=

"Floating on Earth's plastic mantle, these gigantic topographic features disappear sl= owly as their low-density roots are buoyed up."

=         &= nbsp; Excerpt from: http://www.news= .utoronto.ca/bin6/060421-2217.asp. This site belongs to "UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO".
"It profoundly changes the behaviour of the tectonic plates beneath the mountai= ns. “These are tiny, tiny changes on the surface, but integrating them ov= er geologic time scales affects the roots of the mountains, as opposed to just= the top of them,”

   &nb= sp;      Followi= ng is taken from the article written by Donald L. Blanchard who is Amateur Herpetologist, Armchair Paleontologist, Geomorphologist, and Paleoclimatologist. He has written many articles related to herpetology, an= d he is the author of book "The ABC's of Plate Tectonics" (Ta= ken from his website: http://home.pcisys.net/~dlblanc/. Let us see what = he says in his book.

"The forces pushing down from above the fluid's surface - in this case the ocean floor - must equal the forces pushing up from below, caused by the displace= ment of denser mantle material by the less dense continental rock of the mountai= ns' roots"

"The roots of the mountains will be sitting in the middle of a flat".<= /o:p>

"The roots of those mountains will be pushed down into the mantle to depths approaching 100,000 feet, where the heat and pressure is great enough to partially melt and deform the layers of sandstone and shale."

"When all the sediments have been folded, right back to the edge of our original mountains' roots, remove the lateral pressure between the two original continents and allow them to move as a single continent."

"What is today a 3.5 billion year old craton was, 3.5 billion years ago, the root= s of a major mountain range, indicating that orogeny driven by plate tectonics w= as already occurring well before 3.5 billion years ago"=

You can read the whole article written by Donald L. Blanchard here: http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/tectonic/craton.php

=         &= nbsp; I believe that I have presented sufficient proofs to shut Ali Sina’s fo= ul mouth that "mountains do have roots" and they play such an eminent role in their existence.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! The articles that Ali Sina has presented in his website a propos to creatio= n of mountains, I consent that they do not reference "mountains have roots&= quot;. However, on the other hand they also do not declare that "mountains CAN NOT have roots". Therefore, he is using these articles which are not e= ven vocalizing about “mountains' roots” to sustain his claims. This= is silliness again. Let him find an article with authentic proofs that cites "MOUNTAINS CANNOT HAVE ROOTS".

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina’s approach is very juvenile. He is referring to websites which a= re for school children (1 & 2) and the third one is for multimedia visualization.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Please find below the sites Ali Sina has mentioned in his article and also please visit the sites in order to prove that they are for school children. First site says," Moorland is a UK co-educational boarding and day school situated in Clitheroe, Lancashire. We are a small vibrant school with superb facilities. Moorland School has a family atmosphere combined with small class sizes". And the second ones says," Woodland's Junior School. Woodlands Web has been created to support the work we do in our school as w= ell as giving our visitors a chance to play games and to get a glimpse of what = life is like in England through the eyes of our students."

1.=      http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/tectonic.htm<= /span>

2.=      http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.s= ch.uk/Homework/mountains/types.htm

3.=      http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/downloads.php

Ali Sina has proved himself a preschooler. He is defending his claims through these infantile websites. And, one of these sites allows visitors to play children games. Are these his evidences?

=         &= nbsp; Readers! "Mountain's roots" is a subject matter for connoisseurs and advan= ce students, but not for children. This area of discussion elucidates and pres= ents convoluted theories, metaphors and complex mathematical formulas and equati= ons that in no way can enter into a child's brain. This is the basis Ali Sina is not able to comprehend the whole concept.

=         &= nbsp; And as for what Dr. Zakir Naik said "Not all Geologists, but many do= say" and in turn Ali Sina asked him for few names so that he could verify their credentials. Well he already gave the names, Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Najjar. Let Ali Sina contact them and verify.

Ali Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) I have not come across a single Geological book…=

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…and let me know to update this page.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Such an upset for Ali Sina that he did= not get in touch with Dr. Frank Press, I am definite he would have been proven erroneous. So, why he did not communicate with other Geologists and verify = the claim? There are websites accessible over Internet where you could inquire straightforwardly from various geologists and geophysicists (provided they = are not Ali Sina’s disciples belonging to “Golden Rule Cult”)= .

=         &= nbsp; I also did not read the book "The Earth" written by Dr. Frank Press, but I did not keep my self limited to only Dr. Frank Press. I communicated = with other geologists who are working with me. I will not reference them over he= re in this discussion as personal discussion will not carry any weight. Howeve= r, I will provide proof in black and white that "mountains do give stabilit= y to Earth". In this discussion I will not make any references to children's websites that were brought up by Ali Sina in his article.

Mountains do give stability to Earth:

=         &= nbsp; Quranic verses in question:

"And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them," (Quran 21:31)

"He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you;&qu= ot; (Quran 31:10)

"And He has set up on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake wi= th you;" (Quran 16:15)

=         &= nbsp; Excerpts from: http://honolulu= .hawaii.edu/distance/gg101/Programs/program8%20MountainBuilding/program8.ht= ml

        &= nbsp; "When you build up a large mountain range, you're liable to have a root underneath and a lot of material piled up high on the Earth's surface, and, ultimately= , if you don't have forces to keep it piled up, that is going to tend to want to equilibrate and float in gravitational equilibrium with the other areas aro= und it."

"As mountain belts uplift and late in their stages, they may begin to actually undergo extensional collapse or breaking apart at the high levels due to the force of gravity. At their deeper levels, there may be plastic flow underne= ath them or compensation by flow in the mantle in order to let whatever root th= at exists to equilibrate and to come to gravitational equilibrium with the man= tle and a lower crust around it."

"The floating of Earth's crust atop the mantle is termed "isostasy". T= his is similar to what happens at sea, where large icebergs float with more ice extending beneath the surface than small ones do. In the same way, tall mountains usually have roots extending deeper into the Earth than low mount= ains made up of the same rock type. In both cases, far more mass lies hidden from view than can be seen at the surface. Isostasy is the process by which different thickness and different density irregularities in the outer Earth float in gravitational equilibrium with one another."

        &= nbsp; Isostasy can be put in plain words as harmonizing of forces between the effects of gravity on the mass of a secti= on of earth (such as a large basin, or mountain range) and the resistance of t= hat mass to plummeting in to the mantle of the earth. Isostatic adjustment is t= he process that is responsible for why certain areas of the Earth are at eleva= tion than other areas. Mountain belts exist because those areas of the continent= al crust were thickened during compressional events (a result of tectonic plat= es pressing against each other). The amount of the crust that sinks in to the mantle is directly proportional to the thickness of the thickened crust tim= es the average density of the crust times the acceleration due to gravity. The extra rock that does not displace mantle sticks up in to the air. Mountains= !

=         &= nbsp; Now I have proved that Earth when requires stability in gravitational equilibri= um or balance, results in mountain formation.

=         &= nbsp; Excerpts from article which is written by Jane M. Matty who is Associate Professor Director, CMU Environmental Studies Program and her specialties are Geochemistry and Hydrology. She is PhD from Michigan State University, M.A. from Rice University and B.S. from Duke University. She say= s in her article "Rocks & Minerals", (http://www.jiskha.com/cgi-bi= n/frames.cgi?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Ffindarticles%2Ecom%2Fp%2Farticles%2Fmi_m0GD= X%2Fis_3_76%2Fai_75434343)

"Iso= stasy provides the primary link between erosion and uplift of mountains. Earth's crust essentially floats on the denser mantle that behaves as a very viscous fluid. Different regions of the crust "float"--or achieve isostat= ic balance--at different elevations based on their thicknesses and densities."

=         &= nbsp; Readers! I believe this is enough proof to refute Ali Sina’s lame claims as I = have presented the quotations from renowned “non-Muslim” Universitie= s, authorities and experts.

=         &= nbsp; Referring to above mentioned proof, I do believe now that what ever Dr. Zakir Naik had quoted in his speech, the same is also written in Dr. Frank's book.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) The function of the mount= ain in the Qur’an,……

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…sha= king mean except earthquake?

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! Ali Sina is talking gibberish= here, what else could you expect from a child brain. Dr. Zakir Naik was only demonstrating to the people that the word "earthquake" is not mentioned in the particular verse as alleged and mistranslated by Dr. Willi= am Campbell. The word mention there is "shake". And yes, you can translate the word "shake" to whatever you like. However what ever written in Q= uran should retain as it is in terms of meanings and translations.

=         &= nbsp; Quran is not like Bible, where the word is different in Hebrew or Greek and it was translated differently in English. Whatever is written in Quran in Arabic, = it should be translated accurately.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) And Dr. William Campbell = said - He writes…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…whe= re high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Ali Sina said," It is absurd to say that one cannot walk on the surface of these planets and moons without making the gr= ound beneath them shake." Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao, B.S. in Physics a= nd Ph.D. in Earth Sciences, currently positioned as Chief, Space Geodesy Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) said,

"Any worldly event that involves the movement of mass affects the Earth's rotation, from seasonal weather down to driving a car," (Taken from:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/200= 5/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html)

=         &= nbsp; It's unambiguous from the words of Dr. Chao that even trivial matters have an ef= fect on Earth's movement, I am aware that it would be very negligible but sure it does make a difference in calculation. And as I have demonstrated above that mountains do stabilize Earth's crust, so, let's suppose if there were no mountains then Earth would definitely be rickety. Let's make it clearer by looking at the description of Isostasy again.

"When large amounts of sediment are deposited on a particular region, the immense weight of the new sediment may cause the crust below to sink. Similarly, wh= en large amounts of material are eroded away from a region, the land may rise to compensate. Therefore, as a mountain range is eroded down, the (reduced) ra= nge rebounds upward (to a certain extent) to be eroded further. Some of the rock strata now visible at the ground surface may have spent much of their histo= ry at great depths below the surface buried under other strata, to be eventual= ly exposed as those other strata are eroded away and the lower layers rebound upwards again.

    &nbs= p;     An = analogy may be made with an iceberg- it always floats with a certain proportion of = its mass below the surface of the water. If more ice is added to the top of the iceberg, the iceberg will sink lower in the water. If a layer of ice is som= ehow sliced off the top of the iceberg, the remaining iceberg will rise. Similar= ly, the Earth's lithosphere "floats" in the asthenosphere." (Tak= en from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy)

What en= sue if Earth does not have a mechanism to equalize or balance itself? Definitely E= arth will tilt to the side where there is more weight. And transfer of weight wi= ll certainly wobble the crust of the Earth; likewise heavy movements will shake the Earth itself.

          For exampl= e; let us imagine that plate tectonics are not occurring on Earth consequently there are no mountains either. And Earth is balanced impeccably, if an airp= lane flies from one part of the Earth then that part will positively loose some weight and Earth's crust will tilt. Likewise, after couple of hours of flyi= ng when airplane arrives at its destination the weight will again equalize and vice versa. This is just an imaginary exemplar I put forth for Ali Sina, if= it is too difficult to swallow what ever I am trying to state. I am also aware= , if plate tectonics were to cease, then so would this mountain building activit= y. Erosion would then, eventually, abrade down the mountains. Sediments remove= d by erosion, carried in to the oceans by rivers and streams would eventually le= ad to a rise in sea level. If the process continued, it is calculated that eve= ntually a global ocean would cover the Earth completely, resulting in catastrophic extinction of all land-based species.

          &qu= ot;The formation of ice-sheets can cause the Earth's surface to sink. Conversely, Isostatic post-glacial rebound is observed in areas once covered by ice-she= ets which have now melted, such as around the Baltic Sea and Hudson Bay. As the ice retreats, the load on the lithosphere and asthenosphere is reduced and they rebound back towards their equilib= rium levels. In this way, it is possible to find former sea-cliffs and associated wave-cut platforms hundreds of metres above present-day sea-level. The rebo= und movements are so slow that the uplift caused by the ending of the last Ice = Age is still continuing." (Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isosta= sy)

=           "= Continental crust and oceanic crust exist on lithospheric plates buoyant upon a molte= n, highly viscous aethenosphere. Within Earth's crustal layers, balancing proc= esses take place to account for differing densities and mass in crustal plates. F= or example, under mountain ranges, the crust slumps or bows deeper into the up= per mantle than where the land mass is thinner across continental plains. Somew= hat akin to how icebergs float in seawater, with more of= the mass of larger icebergs below the water than smaller ones, this bowing results in a balance of buoyant forces termed isostasy.

    &nbs= p;     "Isostasy is not a process or a force. It is simply a natural adjustment or balance maintained by blocks of crust of different mass or density." (Taken fr= om: http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/Isostasy)

    &nbs= p;     Readers! You tell me now, if this natu= ral adjustment is eliminated from the Earth then there will be an unbalance and= as the continental crust and oceanic crust on lithospheric plates move around, then their mass and weight will definitely shake the Earth.

     &n= bsp;    To prevent this natural adjustment from elimination and to maintain the equilibrium and balance on Earth, plate tectonics take place and in turn mountains are formed as I have mentioned above.

     &n= bsp;    It's clear now and I have given written proof that Quranic verses 21:31, 31:10 &= amp; 16:15 are speaking of mountains that do give stability to Earth.=

    &nbs= p;     Ali Sina said," It is absur= d to say that one cannot walk on the surface of these planets and moons without making the ground beneath them shake." "In planets where high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable."

     &n= bsp;    All what you have written evidently illustrates your lack of information of Science.

     &n= bsp;    "Plate tectonics is unique to Earth. But learning about it during the last 40 years has given scientists = many theoretical tools to understand other planets, even those that circle other stars." (Taken from:

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/blnutshell_plate-tec.htm= )

    &nbs= p;     "The Earth appears to be the only body in the solar system to experience plate tectonics." (Taken from: http://www.wwnorton.com/earth/egeo/features/ch2_2.htm)

    &nbs= p;     "Currently there is no direct evidence supporting plate tectonics on other planets of = our solar system." (Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A884469)

    &nbs= p;     According to above mentioned excerpts,=

1.     There is no evidence of plate tectonic= s on other planets till now.

2.     Means no mountain building.=

3.     Means mass is evenly distributed<= /o:p>

4.     No external force, like Humans, buildi= ngs etc.

5.     Means no un-stability

On the contrary, on Earth, we have pla= te tectonics, means un-stability, mountain building, mass is not evenly distributed, heavy objects available like humans and buildings etc.

Ali Sina said, "one cannot = walk", he is speaking about one person, one astronaut visiting moon or other plane= ts and Quran is speaking about human race. And human race do carry weight.

Ali Sina said, "In planets = where high mountains don't exist, the ground is very stable." Yes, b= ut there are no plate tectonics happening there and there is no external force imposing them which can cart them off course.

Ali Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) And Dr. Willi= am Campbell in his book, he writes…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…This goes beyond absurdity. It's outright asininity.

Answer:

     &n= bsp;    Dr. Zakir Naik is very right when he translated the verse as "to prevent Earth from shaking with you" = as I have illustrated and proved above. If Ali Sina cannot experience an event it doesn't mean that it cannot happen. And even he cannot experience it as it = will be a catastrophe.

Ali Sina said," How can eve= n one suggest that tiny beings like humans can make a continent shake by simply walking on it?" I would really like to quote Dr. Benjamin Fong Chao from NASA again:

"To make a comparison about t= he mass that was shifted as a result of the earthquake, and how it affected the Earth, Chao compares it to the great Three-Gorge reservoir of China. = If filled the gorge would hold 40 cubic kilometers (10 trillion gallons) of wa= ter. That shift of mass would increase the length of day by only 0.06 microsecon= ds and make the Earth only very slightly more round in the middle and flat on = the top. It would shift the pole position by about two centimeters (0.8 inch)." (Taken from: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011= _earthquake.html)

Readers! Just consider what will happe= n if there were no mountains and you had a mass of such enormity as Three Gorge reservoir. I have already explained the idea above.

Ali Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) And in reply to the statement…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…exa= mple of patients and doctors.

Answer:

     &n= bsp;    Readers! Again Ali Sina has proved him= self a lunatic. If he would have read or listened carefully to what Dr. Zakir Naik= had said in his speech, he wouldn't be writing such idiotic comments.

     &n= bsp;    Firstly, Dr. William Campbell gave a wrong analogy of the Quranic verses and secondl= y, he translated the word incorrectly as "Earthquake". In his counter reply Dr. Zakir Naik gave a right analogy. He just replied to his annotatio= ns and he was not comparing non-living things with living things. In my words, "a genius was giving a stupid answer to a stupid person", the same way I am doing with Ali Sina. Sometimes you require lowering your level of understanding in order to educate dumb people like him. The same way, a tea= cher does to his/her students.

     &n= bsp;    Ali Sina said,” Here Dr. Naik is trying to explain with this harebrained exampl= e why most of the earthquakes happen in mountainous regions.” Where did he say that? Can Ali Sina point to me? Isn&#= 8217;t it idiocy that all the way Dr. Zakir Naik was refuting a wrong claim that earthquakes are due to mountains and then go astray to affirm it later?

     &n= bsp;    As for the rest of Ali Sina’s mucky comments, I will leave it for later reply under some other discussion.

Oceanology of the Quran<= /p>
Ali Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) In the field of Oceanology, the Glorious…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…exc= ept a totally ignorant person?

Answer:

     &n= bsp;    Quranic verses in question:=

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, = meeting together” (Quran 55:19)

“Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress” (Quran 55:20)

“It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowi= ng water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He m= ade a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed.” (Quran 25:53)

Once more Ali Sina has afforded argume= nts with “NO EVIDENCE” in hand, just only disparaging and dejectedly mottled ideologies which churn out no astuteness in any way.

     &n= bsp;    Much of the explanation was already portrayed by Dr. Zakir Naik in his speech and rest I will enlighten readers using Ali Sina’s own interpretations.

     &n= bsp;    Ali Sina believes, “There is no “invisible barrier” bet= ween two waters, which is “forbidden to be trespassed”. There is no barrier of any kind - no barzakh at all between waters.” He is negating what N= ASA said,

“The narrow Strait of Gibraltar is the gatekeeper for water exchange between the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. A top layer of warm, relatively = fresh water from the Atlantic Ocean flows eastward into the Mediterranean Sea. In return, a lower, colder, saltier layer of water flows westward into the North Atlantic ocean. = A density boundary separates the layers at about 100 m depth.” (Taken f= rom: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages= /images.php3?img_id=3D16581)

        &= nbsp; At this juncture NASA is conversing wi= th reference to some “density boundary”; can’t we hail as a barrier which is off-putting sweet water and salt water to blend instantly?= In his interpretation Ali Sina is not only opposing Quranic verses, although w= hat NASA has held. Jogging his remembrance, as being an atheist he ought to cho= ose a side; either Holy Scriptures or Science. He requires either of them to pr= ove his allegations.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina uttered, “All waters mix and there is no barrier, invisibl= e or otherwise between them”. I agree to the first part of adversa= ry quickly, if he ever looked at the translation attentively he would fathom t= hat Quran has used the word مرج<= /span> meaning “they both meet and = mix with one another”. Now he has to put in the picture, as to why on one hand Quran is saying that sweet and salt water when meet, they mix and on the ot= her hand saying that there is still a boundary which keeps them apart, after meeting. NASA already gave a reply above. Ali Sina has to enlighten me now that who discerned this boundary or a barrier 1400 years ago? No one, if he still articulates that it is a discernible experience then he is dishonest again = and as usual.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! There is no approach for Ali Sina to establish these verses as un-scientifi= c, but limited to only give his own self-crafted smeared terminologies and tar= nish implications, creation of his own grimy mind, with no evidence in hand at a= ll. Certainly these are his handy works.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! For more information on this subject please visit the following site: http://www.islam-guide.com/= ch1-1-e.htm

Embryology in the Quran

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) In the field of Embryology, Dr. Willi= am Campbell…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…See= my response bellow.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! See my response below as well= .

Is Islam for All Mankind?

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) As far as this statement of his is concerned…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…tru= ly believe that the Quran is the word of God.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! The only motive I am refuting= Ali Sina’s comments is because Dr. Zakir Naik has mentioned Quran and Pro= phet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) as guidance for all mankind, in his speech whi= ch Ali Sina deemed is not true.

=         &= nbsp; Let’s make out how righteous Ali Sina is in his claims. He quoted following verses and interpreted that Quran is only destined for the natives of Makkah and i= ts surroundings.

“And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming = (the revelations) which came before it: that thou mayest warn the mother of citi= es and all around her.” (Quran 6:92)

“Thus have We sent by inspiration to thee an Arabic Qur'an: that thou mayest warn= the Mother of Cities and all around her” (Quran 42:7)

        &= nbsp; Readers! Where these verses say tha= t they are restricted to Makkah and its surroundings only? According to English language, “all” also means as “the entire”, “= the whole”, “every single one”, and “each and every one”. Therefore, it means all the places surrounding Makkah which is a hub of Islam, means the whole universe.

=         &= nbsp; The word applied for “surrounding” in above mentioned Quranic verse= s is حولها and if you look up for this word i= n any other verses it gives you the same translation.

“Those who sustain the Throne (of Allah. and those around it Sing Glory and Praise= to their Lord;” (Quran 40:7)

=         &= nbsp; In the above verse Allah is mentioning “all of those mankind” who believes in Him. There is no where in this verse a limitation of mankind is defined. Thus proving Quranic verses 6:92 & 42:7 to be true and they me= ant for whole humanity.

Readers! I would like Ali Sina to find me a verse from Holy Quran where it unequivocally states that Quran and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) are only sent for the people of Makkah? I said unequivocally and not smeared construal same as he always presents.

Quranic verses in question:

“Or do they say, "He has forged it"? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lo= rd, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: = in order that they may receive guidance.” (Quran 32:3<= /i>

“In order that thou mayest admonish a people, whose fathers had received no admonition, and who therefore remain heedless (of the Signs of Allah” (Quran 36:6)

        &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “The people= of the Book, i.e. the Jews, the Christians and perhaps the Zoroastrians had th= eir own messengers and their guidance. The only people who had not received guidance were the Arabs, specifically the Arabs of Mecca and its surrounding”. We Muslims believe that they go astray of the beliefs and teachings of their prophets. And their Prophets’ teachings were never retained by any on= e of them. So it is inevitable that they did not receive any guidance.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “So, it is clear that Muhammad claimed that he had c= ome only for the Quraish and not for the people of the Book and the rest of mankind”. Where is it written in the verses he mentioned? He = said that “Muhammad claimed”, but tell me where did he claim in these verses?

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “They must leave Islam, if they truly believe that t= he Quran is the word of God”. What is he saying here? Is he in h= is senses or is it a typo? Why should we leave Islam if we believe Quran to be= the word of Allah?

=         &= nbsp; Readers! I could have spent more time on these verses, but they are not actually the theme in this discussion. For rest of Ali Sina’s comments, (his sickn= ess of going off-track is going out of hands) I will do reply later insha Allah= .

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Qur’an says in Surah Ibr= ahim, Ch. 14&= #8230;

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…you= are accepting to be inferior.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Quranic verse in question:<= /span>

“We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.” (Quranic verse 21:1= 07)

        &= nbsp; Readers! I will only reply to only tho= se comments of Ali Sina pertaining to this particular Quranic verse. For rest = of the excerpts, I will do rebut under some other topic insha Allah.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “Nas is = people – any number of people. It could be people gathered in a room. It cou= ld refer to the inhabitants of a village, a town, a country and not necessarily ALL Mankind”. Why not necessarily all mankind? What kind of l= ogic is this? It is like he is forcing us to use this word in limitations, but w= hy? First he said that “Nas is people - any number of people” and t= hen he said “not necessarily ALL Mankind”, he is contradicting hims= elf. Does he drink alcohol while writing? What about the whole chapter 114 by the name of “An-Nas” meaning “Mankind”?

“Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind,” (Quran 114:1)<= o:p>

“The King (or Ruler) of Mankind” (Quran 114:2)
“The Allah (for judge) of Mankind” (Quran 114:3)=

“(The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind,” (Quran 114:5)

=         &= nbsp; What does Ali Sina has to say about above mentioned verses? Readers! Please note that how Ali Sina manipulates words and twists the meanings to confuse comm= on people. The Arabic word الن&= #1575;س also means “mankind” as mentioned in the above verses. I= can give you more Quranic verses where this word is used for mankind, however a= bove seems enough.

=         &= nbsp; By the grace of Allah I have proven that Quran and Prophet Muhammad are sent f= or “the whole mankind”.

=         &= nbsp; For rest of his mucky comments including some hadiths he mentioned. I will rebut later insha Allah.

=

Embryology Continuation

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) So as far as the Qur’an is concerned…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…dif= ferent than what the X rays reveal.

Answer:

        &= nbsp;          <= /b>Readers! Please do read the article “How the Westerners Found $cience in the Quran” by Abul Kasem. = It is hilarious indeed. The author appeared to be so belligerent in faceting &= #8220;Dr. Maurice Bucaille’s” & “Dr. Keith Moore’s” life histories. Bestowing the inkling that he was in the company of Doctors= all the time and noting down all the things they were doing. Surprisingly, he is also aware of the “HIDDEN STORY” that King Faisal bribed Doctor= s to inscribe their books. He & his ally Ali Sina imagine that populace will believe every word from them by “NO EVIDENCE” in hand again. Readers! I cannot resist myself in retorting to a few comments a propos this article. It seems Ali Sina’s sickness (of going out of track) is cree= ping up on me. However, I won’t engrave too much with reference to it and certainly won’t confuse you as well.

=         &= nbsp; In one place article says, “To say that the "water cycle"= ; is something that is discovered by the Qur’an is simply laughable and reveals nothing but the real motive as to why Dr. Bucaille is so inclined in pleasing the Islamists”. No where Quran mentions that water c= ycle is discovered by it. Again a lie and allegation against Quran and no scholar pronounces that as well.

Truthful testimony is that Abul Kasem should put in to words that water cycle is mentioned in Quran and it was discovered by populace later. =

=         &= nbsp; Article says, “This is due to the fact that almost all the Islamic coun= tries have translated his book in their languages and it is a must read book for = the new Mullahs. I have never seen this book in our mosques or in our religious schools (madrasa). Endow with evidence where it bares that it is = part of the curriculum for the students in religious schools. This is a lie from Abul Kasem.

=         &= nbsp; Article says, “Dr. Bucaille's book leaves one with the impression that = he (Dr. Bucaille) is convinced that Islam is the truest religion of all on ear= th and the Qur’an is indeed the words of Allah. Now when a person is so much convi= nced in a faith we naturally expect him to be a Muslim, isn't it?”= Why doesn’t Abul Kasem ask Doctor, in person? Send one of Ali Sina’s disciples or his own allies to ask him personally. And how sure is he on Do= ctor’s conversion? I didn’t locate a single article (known or unknown) stati= ng Dr. Maurice Bucaille conversion to Islam with proper evidence.

=         &= nbsp; Article says, “Being a man of science why does not he lend his ultimate allegiance to the scientific Qur’an?= What answer the Islamists have for this enigma of Dr. Bucaille?̶= 1; Ask Dr. Bucaille? Why is he asking Muslims? Do we care if he is converted or not?

=         &= nbsp; Besides revealing the “HIDDEN TRUTH” (that King Faisal bribed Dr. Bucai= lle) which only Abul Kasem, Ali Sina and their allies knew, there are several ot= her laughable “items” present in this article as well. <= /span>

=         &= nbsp; Article says, “Dr. Bucaille cleverly avoids the political, social and t= he violent parts of the Qur’an. Are not political and social matters scientific too? After all, there are such subjects= as political science, social science, etc”. Dr. Bucaille writes that he could not find any verse in Qur’an that is against science”. Subsequently Abul Kasem furnishes a list of items f= rom Quran, and according to him, they should be part of science in Doctor’s book= but they are not.

Whatever Abul Kasem has printed in his article is refutable. One just has to rummage around on Internet to acquire an in depth answers. I on= ly like to give my reply to one of his examples where he says that Islam allows beating the wives in order to make them obedient. I just want to enlighten = Abul Kasem that he is no better than Dr. Maurice Bucaille, when he said that Doc= tor “cleverly avoids violent parts of the Quran”, since Abul Kasem has done= the same thing. He deliberately avoided good parts of Quran regarding the posit= ion of women in Islam. He just posted a particular verse that only served his o= wn purpose, discarding bunch of other verses pertaining to women’s rights and position in Islam. Following are the some of verses from Quran:

“And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of th= eir own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with r= ight good cheer.” (Quran 4:4)

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnes= ses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors” (Qu= ran 24:4)

“Those who slander chaste women, indiscreet but believing, are cursed in this life= and in the Hereafter: for them is a grievous Penalty” (Quran 24:23)<= /o:p>

“O ye who believe! When ye marry believing women, and then divorce them before= ye have touched them, no period of 'Iddat have ye to count in respect of them:= so give them a present. And set them free in a handsome manner.” (Quran 33:49)

     &n= bsp;    For particular verse which Abul Kasem was referring to where it says to beat wi= ves to make them obedient is this. Readers! Search Internet for a detailed answ= er.

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their me= ans. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on w= hose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), ref= use to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most Hi= gh, great (above you all).” (Quran 4:34)

Article says, “If the Hindus could generate billions= of petro-dollar they can surely employ many western professors to do just that”. Meaning, Hindus do not have billion dollars to take in= to service western professors. Isn’t it much of senselessness from Abul Kasem. One can easily acquire such “western professors” who effortlessly can put up for sale their ego and faith and can do anything for money (same way you alleged Muslims to hire Dr. Maurice Bucaille & Dr. Keith Moore). If Muslim dogma is not coming in to grips and it is going out= of their hands then employ western professors, subsequently we will see what t= hey will come up to. Fetch in all your atheists, contribute to a cause of hiring professors, and let them loose to defy Islam. Ali Sina can also put his $50= ,000 for this cause. I want to see how strongly they can hit.<= /p>
=         &= nbsp; Article says, “There are separate pay structures and perks for the whit= es and the dark skinned people in most Arab countries”. Readers! Please note that how Abul Kasem is keep on lying to the people. I work with= an oil company in Middle East and the pay structure over here depends upon the personal living cost back in your home country. If you look at it in a broader vision; An American will get the sa= me salary package after cutting down his calculated expenses and living cost b= ack in his home country, as compared to an Indian. And it is the case in most of the companies in Arab countries. Similarly, an Indian-American (Dark Complexion) will definitely get more salary than that of a person who lives= in India and this is just because of the living cost back in his home country. Therefore, no matter if you are white or dark; salary is based on the living cost back in your home country.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! I will stop here. You go through this article yourself and do search for all the allegations for evidences and I am assuring you that you won’t fi= nd any one. People like Ali Sina and Abul Kasem desire Holy Scriptures to be l= ike a book of science, where it should mention 2+2=3D4 and mathematical equatio= ns and terms, theories and hypothesis. Keeping this scenario in consideration, you tell me who will regard such a kind of book. If this so called “Holy Scripture” mentions simple formulas then it should be meant for only children and if it contains complex formulas and rocket science then it wou= ld be meant for higher students. Science book also requires experts for understanding. These kinds of people will never sit back in criticizing such “Holy Scriptures”, and will keep on poking people of the book t= hat their book is not for the whole humanity. Holy Scriptures should be all together different, from all other books written by humans, and it should i= nvite people to search for a truth hidden in them and such discourses are actually what you call a beauty of a book.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Besides not having their own Holy Book and no fear of justifying their faith and beliefs, people like Ali Sina and Abul Kasem will never sit back but wi= ll always hit you as they will never agree to any of your explanations. They w= ill just stick to the outset of the terms mentioned in Holy Scriptures, without producing solid evidences and logical explanations but just keep howling on= the basis whatever their teeny-weeny brain can grasp.

Human embryo and leech:

=         &= nbsp; Readers! I am posting here few pictures of human embryo and leech and you decide for yourself if they resemble.

= Human Embryo Pictures:

=         &= nbsp; Just be assured that none of the pictures are from Islamic sites.

=         &= nbsp; Look at the part where it denotes “Tail Bud”, “Somites”,= and “Brain”. If you redraw the picture again leaving out rest of the parts except tail bud, somites and brain, you will surely see a resemblance= as leech.

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

= A model of Human Embryo

=

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

= Leech Pictures:

=         &= nbsp; Consider tail bud, somites, and brain, then compare it with leech and surely you will see a resemblance.

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

= <= ![endif]>

=         &= nbsp; Again Ali Sina did not provide any evidence in his claims. He just believed what = ever Dr. William Campbell presented. The part where Dr. Zakir Naik was telling a= bout “different perspective”, he would surely get the idea what Doct= or was talking about after looking at the pictures. And in some part of his br= ain, he will certainly agree that human embryo does resemble leech, but if he st= ill sticks to his belief then he is a dishonest person, dishonest to himself an= d to people as well.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Regarding the meaning of alaqa, much has been posted on the Internet. I will advise you to search for it and you will surely get the answers “WITH EVIDENCES”.

=

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) What Dr. William Campbell showed you…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm)

…Isl= am is nothing but a big lie.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! I have already posted picture= s of human embryo and leech as evidences. And it is not required for Ali Sina at= all to stand on his head to agree to perception, but just requires from his par= t a mere common sense which I surely doubt that he has it. However, if his comm= on sense does not work this way then he can stand on his head if it suites him. Rest, I will leave it to the enlightened readers to fix on.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore, after about 80 questions…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…we = can dispense with the opinions of authorities.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “We don't n= eed the opinions of the experts when we can easily find the facts on our own”. What if one cannot comprehend scientific terminologies;= a person will definitely refer to the specialists for a profound explanation. Readers! When Ali Sina fells ill, it seems that he refers to books of medic= ine rather then visiting a Doctor where he could get detailed and proper information concerning his disease? Similarly, does he not accept the words= of a Doctor just because he is an authority? This is ridiculousness again.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “We must not accept the words of anyone just because they are authorities”. Oh! So this is the reason he is still suffering from his mental sickness. He must summon an authority in Medical Science for cure. My counsel is to see a Muslim doctor.
Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) ‘Moon is reflected light’= - I’ll come to it later on…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…Wha= t is the name of that award?

Answer:

        &= nbsp; The name of the award is “J. C. = B. Grant Award” by the Canadian Association of Anatomists in 1991. And he also received Honored Member Award of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists “for outstanding contributions to the field of clinical anatomy”.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) This is the Islamic edition that was = put forward…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…whi= ch is of course not true.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! Such a disgusting mind and tr= aits Ali Sina has. I wonder if he ever reveres his own family and associates. He surely proves me that he has never learnt etiquettes from his child hood. S= uch mottled wits he has, really compelling me to have faith in his debauched br= ing up.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina asked, “Where does the Quran say anything about millions of sperms? I will not counter this query, for the reason that, subsequently he will raise a question if Quran has scores of scientific miracles then where is it written that 2+2=3D4. Therefore, I rather not rea= ct to this childish inquiry.

=         &= nbsp; As for the meaning of alaqa, readers please search Internet for comprehensive answer. Much has already been written and is available on Internet with evidences.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Qur’an says in Surah Saj= da Ch. 32 Verse no. 8…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…is = not at all concerned about lying?

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Quran is only giving a depiction of se= men. Readers! You can conclude now how Ali Sina is deceiving people.<= /span>

Ali = Sina:

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;   (Dr. Naik) And Qur’an says in Surah Insan, Ch. 76 Verse No. 2…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

R= 30;Mother was only an incubator in his mind.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Quranic verse in question:<= /span>

“Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight”. (Quranic verse 76:2)

        &= nbsp; Readers! Right from the outset Ali Sin= a is proving himself dupe. Not only he lacks the insight of scriptures, he even seems lame in English vocabulary as well. The word “mingle” has following meanings:

-      =    M= ix things together gently or gradually

-      =    T= o mix or bring together in combination

-      =    T= o mix so that the components become united

-      =    T= o join or take parts with others

Every meaning of the word “mingle” is depicting “two or more than two entities involved in inter-mixing”. In Quranic verse 76:2, one component is “sperm” itself and second constituent is from female. Otherwise if only sperms were requested for fertilization, then this verse would be off beam in all aspects. Therefore,= the word “mingled” is equitably employed in this particular Quranic verse.

Readers! Ali Sina once more substantiated in his declaration that Quran was not plagiarized from the Bible, when he said, “Galen = knew that woman must also contribute something to the formation of the fetus, although he erroneously thought this something is congealed blood. But Muha= mmad did not think any female contribution is needed. Mother was only an incubator in his mind”. Although, this entire testimonial is erroneous, yet still it rebuffs what he keeps on yowling about Quran was fo= rged from the Bible.

Ali Sina said, “Mother, in Muhammad’s embryolo= gy is only an incubator. She does not contribute genetically to the formation = of the embryo”. And afterwards he brought up two Quranic verses = and cited that there are no allusions of female interference in these verses. Quranic verse 23:14 confers the answer when it articulates about changing “nutfa” in to a clot of congealed blood. Readers! You elucidate= me where this precise stage is ensuing? Surely, it is occurring in Mother̵= 7;s womb. This verse surely depicts the idea of woman intervention in fertiliza= tion process. If donkey brain like Ali Sina cannot apprehend the truth then it is his own deficiency not that Quran is fallible.

Readers! By this time you must be sure about Ali Sina’s intellectual fitness and where it is taking him.

Ali = Sina:

<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'>        &= nbsp;   (Dr. Naik) The Qur’an describes the various embryological…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

R= 30;in the Quran is scientifically wrong.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! There is zilch to comment over here. I have already retorted to all his allegations above in the discussio= n.

=         &= nbsp; If Ali Sina does not deem it as a miracle, that blood is clotted in the closed vessels and there is no circulation still started as portrayed by Quran, th= en we do not require his testimony to prove this. If Quranic description does = not seem to be a miracle to him, as he said in regards to blood clot being an observable phenomenon, so, isn’t it enough a miracle that he cannot e= ven “disprove” any claim of Quran regarding blood clot as an observable phenomenon, and subsequently science has also proved that blood = is clotted within the closed vessels as well. Therefore, one can put both the statements in conjunction with Quranic verse and still cannot disprove any = one of it as they are not in against what is Quran saying. In short, both the descriptions are proved by this particular Quran verse.
=         &= nbsp; Regarding forging Quran from Bible, I have already put in words the evidences. Rest of his comments is again his messy terminologies and nothing at all.

Ali = Sina:

          (Dr. Naik) Only one line answer is sufficient to answer…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…embryonic growt= h much more accurately.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! For the sake of the argument I agree that an embryo guised like a clot and it is an observable phenomenon.= And it is also one of the meanings of the word “alaqa”, besi= des having meanings as “leech like” and “some thing that clings”. However latter two meanings are not an observable phenomenon= and Ali Sina uttered that it does look like a leech after abortion, which is wi= de of the mark. I am presenting here some pictures of human fetuses that were aborted in first trimester (in which most abortions and miscarriages occur)= . I want readers to look at the size of human fetuses starting from 7^{th
week and see how diminutive they are and if they bear a resemblance to leec=
h.
You can visit the following link to view the pictures}(http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-= photos.html).

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Sure you have seen that human fetus does not look like a leech at the most probable week of miscarriage or abortion. And prior to seventh week, human fetus is not visible to naked eye and can only be viewable from microscope. Therefore, the only stage when it looks like a leech is when it is microsco= pic. This is the also the reason why Dr. Keith Moore was surprised when he obser= ved the semblance. Who could have known this fact 1400 years ago?

=         &= nbsp; The exquisiteness and marvel lie in the word “alaqa” where it symbolizes three meanings and all of them tally the Quranic descriptions to excellence. According to the sake of argument I acquiesce with Ali SinaR= 17;s fraudulent terminology that human fetus does look like a clot, nevertheless= , he fibbed when he alleged that it is an observable phenomenon where it looks l= ike a leech as you must have already classified in the pictures. How could Prop= het Mohammed (Peace be upon him) knew that embryo clings and looks like a leech 1400 years ago?

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina is such a hypocrite. Again he did not provide any evidence to support = his crooked claims.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Professor Keith Moore took plastic seal…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…kno= wn to everyone at the time of Muhammad.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! Again “NO EVIDENCE̶= 1; in hand and just yapping with no common sense at all from his side. This is another sickness he has besides going off the subject and perplexing people. Dr. Zakir Naik already cleared that Quran is furnishing descriptions on appearances and not functions.

=         &= nbsp; It is a common sense that when someone describes a complex process and if he w= ants it to be easy to comprehend then he surely divides it in to easy steps so t= hat they can be grasped with no difficulty. What so false about it? Quran is do= ing the same thing, it is noting down the whole progression of development in t= o steps in terms of appearances to make populace understand easily.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “Alaqa either means something that cli= ngs or clot of blood. One word in one sentence cannot have two different meanin= gs.” I would like “PROFESSOR” Ali Sina to ascertain me that one word cannot have two different meanings in one sentence in Arabic, Hebrew and Gr= eek? These are the languages in which scriptures were recorded originally. If his mother tongue has limitations then it is the dilemma of his lingo. I am not aware of which language he speaks and what is his mother tongue; however it seems either his language has limitations or he does not know very much abo= ut his dialect. Why is he employing his own language rules to the languages of Holy Scriptures? One word, several meanings and this is the magnificence of= a language; that was the reason why Arabs before the time Prophet Muhammad (P= eace be upon him) used to call people like Ali Sina as “ajami”= ; عجمى<= /span> – dumb; dumb in language, dumb in eloquence and dum= b in intellect? They swanked about their language; but this practice of racism w= as ceased by our beloved Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) by equalizing ev= ery one.

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “If I say the Moon looks like Melon, I am right. But this is not a scientific statement”. Readers! Yes he is right; however, Moon is visible to naked eye and Quran is talking about stages that are not discernible. Blood clotted with in the closed vessels, embryo cling= s to uterine wall and it looks a leech, are not obvious facts until unless you h= ave a microscope and an ultrasound machine, as I have proved above. If I say th= at Ali Sina has a pumpkin-head; again this is an observable fact and no miracle whatsoever. Marvel lays here, when I pronounce how and what is inside that pumpkin-head without using any equipment but just divine knowledge. And thi= s is what Quran is illuminating; THE INSIDE STORY.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Later on the Qur’an says… ‘We made the…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…This statement is scientific. The Quran is not.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Quranic verse in question:<= /span>

“Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made= a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones wi= th flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, t= he best to create!” (Quran 23:14)

        &= nbsp; Readers! You must have noticed that Al= i Sina is acknowledging all that was said by Dr. William Campbell, as true. Devoid= of even applying his own intellect he is just well-disposed of whatever said by the Doctor. He did not even try to ensure Doctor’s credence with some other authentic sources concerning having bones first then flesh during hum= an development.

=         &= nbsp; Here is the evidence:

“The early skeleton develops primarily by the process of ossification of pre-existing cartilage formed by 5 weeks of gestation. The cartilaginous mo= del undergoes invasion by osteoblasts and is only subsequently mineralised. Hum= an muscle development begins between 6 and 8 weeks of gestation with the forma= tion of primary muscle fibres followed by the laying down of secondary fibres between weeks 8 and 18.” (Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=3DArticleURL&_udi=3DB6T65-4GSJ= XHT-2&_coverDate=3D09%2F30%2F2005&_alid=3D510036663&_rdoc=3D1&a= mp;_fmt=3D&_orig=3Dsearch&_qd=3D1&_cdi=3D5021&_sort=3Dd&= ;view=3Dc&_acct=3DC000027078&_version=3D1&_urlVersion=3D0&_= userid=3D536372&md5=3D44c86a7dc75d5330a0a51bec9e9268d1)

=         &= nbsp; During human or fetal development, hyaline cartilage is present at the 5^{th
week and between 6^th and 8^th week muscles are formed
around hyaline cartilage. Hyaline cartilage is a precursor of a bone as it =
is
avasular (no blood vessels) in function. Besides using the direct word
“cartilage”, Quran has mentioned the word “bone” in
order to understand it easily. And also the word “cartilage” is=
a
newly-born modern word and mostly used in medical terminologies at present.
Today, majority of common people who are not linked to any kind of medical
field still not aware of this word and if you still display them a
“cartilage” they will still label it as a “bone”.
Therefore, Quran is not made only for the Medical students but it is for the
common people and whole humanity.}

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) As Professor Keith Moore said that= 230;

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…to = be covered with flesh later. Period!

Answer:

        &= nbsp; It’s Ali Sina’s conjecture= again that Quran is amiss. Till now he did not controvert Quran to be the word of Allah besides bestowing his own lame postulations and smeared jargons with = no evidences, indeed; such are only by-product of his gutter mind eventually do not make any impression at all. Joseph Goebbel must be discussing about laypeople like him and his cronies and disciples who forever yap and yowl l= ies, devoid of engendering sole “EVIDENCE” in against, eventually framing the entire fib as fact.

=         &= nbsp; Quranic description of embryonic stages is flawlessly bona fide as Dr. Zakir Naik a= nd I have publicized above with “EVIDENCES”. Bone in the form of its precursor known as cartilage is present when flesh starts mounting around i= t. Period!

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Therefore he said… therefore he= said that…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…lau= ghed his way to the bank.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; I am not aware of as why Dr. Moore is = not reverted to Islam. Likewise, I did not come across any realistic account wh= ich pronounces that he is “NOT” reverted. May be he is relapsed and keeping mum, just as the way Ali Sina doing to his family. Who knows? He ha= s to ask Doctor himself.

Does God Punish People?

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) It is mentioned in Surah Nisa, Ch. No= . 4, Verse No. 56…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…and= the characteristic of their sadistic god.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “He is a lo= t like me, a freethinker, a free spirit, and just like me, he is not an appeaser”. At least now I have the picture how Ali Sina looks like and who he resembles. Is this poor animal in his good shape or is he a= lso converted to “Golden Rule Cult” and just turned this way after listening to his sermons? Poor animal!

     &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;

=         &= nbsp; Readers! I do not intend to remark on any of his allegations against Allah and his Prophet Mohammed (Peach be upon him) as this is not the venue. I will retor= t fully under some other subject later insha Allah. However, I cannot resist myself (and yes I am contradicting myself over here) by riposting to some of his d= umb philosophies. First; he gave an exemplar of his cat, expressed his posture towards him, and how he fantasized punishing him but he never did so, since= he loves him a lot. Correspondingly, he compared the entire scenario of himself and his cat to Allah and humans. Isn’t it illogical comparing animals with humans and yourself playing God in comparisons? Such an absurd example= he presented. Human beings one of the best of creations of Allah with intellec= ts; and he compared them with animals with no brains at all. This entire scenar= io exceedingly seems a production of twisted mind like Ali Sina who is also an animal as he already testified his “parents as animals” (This i= s in his debate with Yamin Zakaria where he portrayed Muslims as animals). The debate is over here:

= http://www.iiop.org/M= Debate.php?recordID=3D2

=         &= nbsp; Concerning punishments in Islam, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Isla= mic Society of North America, states:

“Allah (Mighty and Exalted Be He) is indeed very Merciful, Loving and Compassionat= e, but He is also Just and Severe in punishment. According to the Qur’an, Allah is “Forgiver of sins, Accepter of repentance, the Stern in punishment, the Powerful…” (Ghafir: 3). It is wrong to accept o= nly some aspect of Allah and ignore or negate some other aspects. When people believe only in the love of Allah and ignore His justice and power they bec= ome careless and do whatever they wish. When people believe in the justice and power of Allah and ignore His love and compassion they become hermits and m= onks and run away from the world and its enjoyments. Islam teaches us a balanced life and so it teaches us both aspects of Allah’s Being. <= /span>

Allah created human beings and He gave them everything for their existence. He gu= ided them through His Prophets and Messengers and gave them all the possibilitie= s to be good and faithful, but if they still reject Him and turn away from Him, = then He does not care for them. Such people by their own actions have made themselves unworthy of His love and compassion. He warned them again and ag= ain that the consequences of their sins and rebellion will be severe, but if th= ey did not pay any attention to Him, so why should He show any mercy to such ungrateful, stubborn, and evil creatures. Allah says in the Qur’an: “O human being, what has deceived you about your Lord Most Beneficent? Him Who created you, fashioned you in due proportion, and made you right; a= nd in whatever form He willed for you, He set you. But no, you do deny the Day= of Judgment! Indeed over you are keeping watch the honorable beings; writing d= own (your deeds). They know what you do. The Righteous will be in Bliss; and the Wick= ed will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgment.” (Al-Infitar: 6-15) And Allah says, “We wronged them not, but they it = was who did the wrong.” (Az-Zukhruf: 76)”

=         &= nbsp; Coming back to the topic, Quranic verse in question:

“Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their s= kins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may ta= ste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (Quran 4:56)<= /o:p>

        &= nbsp; Readers! I will take a different appro= ach over here, yet, proving this particular verse as scientific and miraculous.=

1.     There is no erroneous information ment= ioned in this verse so far.

2.     Allah is revealing in this verse that = skin is the part of the body that will be given penalty. Indicating again that t= here is some relation of the skin in regards to pain. Today it is a fact that pa= in receptors (Nociceptors) are abundant in skin.

3.     In the past it was understood that the= whole human body could feel pain including internal organs as well. Where as Qura= n is purposely speaking about skin in this particular verse.
4.     Allah is speaking of skin only in this= verse and no other organs, indicating again the primacy of skin in regards to pai= n.

5.     According to Science, if skin is roast= ed (Third and Fourth-degree burns) then it obliterates all pain receptors, mea= ning “NO PAIN”. As the verse says so, “as often as their skins are ro= asted through”. Purporting a severe char, like a third-degree or fourth-degree burn where a= ll the pain receptors are scorched and patients usually do not suffer any pain= . (Taken from: http://www.burnfree.com/p_pages.asp?page=3Dburncare#thirddegree)

6.     Why Allah explicitly declared the word “roasted”? Afterwards, switch of a skin with a fresh one so that the pain re-originates. Obviously, He can easily formulate the skin so that= it will not be roasted in hell, can’t He do that? Likewise, He can also provide a skin that just burns over and over again without even melting, ha= ving immense and endless pain. No, but it seems that Allah is going out of His w= ay by making a skin to be “roasted” first, and then “replaced”, why? Why, “replace” doesn’t it me= an that pain receptors are destroyed when skin is roasted and there is no pain= at all; in turn, there is a need for a fresh skin. And why a “fresh̶= 1; one? Isn’t this word “fresh” depicting of fresh pain receptors on a fresh skin. Surely there is some logic and science in this v= erse which people have found out in recent years.

7.     In this whole verse both the “skin” & “pain” are used twice in respect to ea= ch other, surely inviting intellects and opening up a window of research in the particular relation. Besides skin is associated with sensitivity because it contains the majority of nerve endings causing pain when stimulate.

8.     As I have proved; in no ways this vers= e is going against science and surely it is a miracle of Quran.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Professor Thagada Shaun, who is the head….

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp6.htm)

…the= y will not accept the truth.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; “Professor Thagada Shaun m= ust be a fool” Readers! All along in his arguments Ali Sina was tryi= ng to allege Dr. Maurice Bucaille and Dr. Keith Moore of not reverting to Islam after when they claimed Quran to be the word of Allah and Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) as a true messenger of Allah. Now when he finds one Scientist who reverted to Islam after reading the Quran, he is calling him a “FOOL”. Heaven knows what makes Ali Sina happy.

=         &= nbsp; “Heaven knows if such an idiot actually exists or he is a fabrication of Muslim wis= hful thinking”. And now Professor Thagada Shaun besides being a fo= ol he is an idiot as well. Wow! Really Ali Sina is increasing our knowledge in getting to know Professor. Readers! You tell me that who is an idiot all al= ong in this discussion.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Please find below the testimony (video) of Dr. Tejatat Tejasen, chairman of= the Department of Anatomy at Chiang = Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Previously, he was = the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the same University.
= (http://www.islam-guide.= com/frm-ch1-1-h.htm)

=         &= nbsp; “There are many more authentic doctors and professors born and raised in Islam who reject this cult and have left it. They find Islam and the Quran utterly stupid. Why not listen to them?” Why should we pay attention = to them? They ought to be same as Ali Sina, with no common sense at all and self-make asinine fairytales. Does he consider Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists etc, take note of these people who abscond from their respective religions and initiate hatred against it? If someone departs from Ali Sina’s “Cult of Golden Rule” of which it seems he is a prophet, is he going to give him any credence? However, in the case of Ali Sina, as being a Muslim, I have cross-checked every grimy detail he has pos= ted in his article and I have found every word of his a “BIG LIE” a= nd him as hypocrite, charlatan and fraud. A Person similar to Ali Sina who is,= on one hand, lying to his own family and on the other hand preaching “TRUTH” to mankind, how honest is he going to be for populace. = He has already set up himself as an example and it will be remain as a Dark St= ain on his personality forever.

Readers! It is always very big news for me when someone leaves I= slam because I never thought of someone leaving such a beautiful religion. Howev= er I have broadened my intellect now as I have found out that there are some foo= ls & stupid in every religion. When I started reading Ali Sina’s articles on his website, they made me very upset at first, and I started ha= ving doubts in my faith. Then I thought of checking his credence of what ever he= is writing; is it actually correct or not. And as I thought, every thing he wr= ote on his website is incorrect and full of lies. Then I repent to Allah for ha= ving slightest of doubts in my faith.

Apart from this I should really thank him for making me firm on = my faith. One of the reasons is Ali Sina that makes my belief on Islam stiffer= and sterner more and more, as I always verify his claims from other sources as = well and every time I found them bogus. Thank you Ali Sina, I will not ask him to close down his site as it is helping me increasing my knowledge of religion= and it is really helping me out in understanding Islam correctly and comprehensively.

Ad Hominem in the Quran

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) Quran calls such people…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…nei= ther will they understand.’

Answer:

        &= nbsp; I have already provided details, proof= s, and evidences of what ever I have refuted till now. I will rest my case with Readers and they will judge now who fits “Ad Hominem” fallacy. = All along in his article, Ali Sina has provided so many things and they all fit= in this fallacy perfectly.

=         &= nbsp; Regarding all other crap he has written, NO EVIDENCE again from him.

The Quran vs. the Bible

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) And regarding the other parts of̷= 0;

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…as = well as innumerable scientific errors.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “However si= nce the thinking Christians and Jews know that the Bible is not the verbatim wo= rd of God, but stories written by men who allegedly were inspired but nonethel= ess fallible, they take their scriptures with a grain of salt. This allows them= to adapt to the changing time and let their intelligence be their guide”. How many “thinking” Christians and Jews know that the Bible is = not the verbatim word of God? Are these “thinking” Christians and J= ews educating their congregation as well that Bible is not the verbatim word of God? I want Ali Sina to provide me evidence where a Christian or a Jew makes such a statement in public. I also want Pope Benedict to utter such stateme= nt on television. If Pope cannot, then he is not a “thinking” Christian and surely does not belong to a “living” religion but= to a dead one (as per rule set by Ali Sina).

=         &= nbsp; The difference between a Muslim faith and Christian or Jew faith is that the “thinking” Muslim and a common Muslim both believe Quran to be = the verbatim word of Allah, so we do not have to lie and also we do not have do= uble standards. According to Ali Sina, “thinking” Christians and Jew= s do not believe Bible as a word of God, but common people they do. Does he mean= these “thinking” Christians and Jews are liars? We Muslims dare these “thinking” Christians or Jews to make such a statement in public and on Television.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Every Christian and Jew is unique, whenever you try to corner them using th= eir own terminologies from Bible; they always find a way out by uttering “= ;I do not believe in this”, “I do not believe in that”. Same thing with Ali Sina as well, I have read one of his debates where he did somewhat similar. Like for example, his debate with Yamin Zakaria where in every rebuttal he was giving a new terminology of “Golden Rule. And a= lso he did not post the full debate on his website as was truly done by Yamin Zakaria. The debate is over here:

= http://www.iiop.org/M= Debate.php?recordID=3D2

=         &= nbsp; Readers! Afterwards “REVEREND” Ali Sina posted a verse from Bible from J= ohn Chapter 16 verse 13, and he interpreted the phrase “Spirit of truth” to “new age of enlightenment”.
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now”. (= John 16:12)

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: fo= r he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he spe= ak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)<= /i>

=         &= nbsp; Ali Sina said, “The spirit of truth has come. It is the new age of enlightenment. The gates of knowledge and understanding are flung open and = new truths are being revealed every day”. Readers! This is again a “BIG LIE”. No where in the annotations of Bible the “Spir= it of truth” is deciphered as “new age of enlightenment”. Christians interpret “Spirit of truth” as “Holy Spirit”, as the Greek word for “spirit” is “Pneu= ma” in John 16:13 and it is the same word that has been used in several other places for “Holy Ghost” i.e. John 1:33, 7:39, 14:26, 20:22 and million other places in the Bible. If Christians still stick to the notion = that this word can also be interpreted as “new age of enlightenment” then they are untruthful. Why Christian scholars and Bible thumpers never s= ay that? Here is the fact.

= http://www.bibl= egateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=3DgetCommentaryText&cid=3D4= &source=3D1&seq=3Di.50.15.2

Readers! If you profoundly scrutinize the verse of John 16:13, y= ou can spot that the pronoun used for the “Holy Spirit” is “= he” and it is been used SIX times in the same verse. You will not find a single verse in the whole Bible where you will come across SIX or more pronouns in= the same verse for the same person. And no where in the whole Bible “Holy Ghost” ever called by masculine pronoun “he”, but always = by the word “spirit” (because it is neutral and has no gender). Therefore, this verse is neither talking about “Holy Ghost” nor about “Holy Spirit”; however it is talking about a man of God w= ho will come and guide people into truth. “New age of enlightenment̶= 1; is out of question, this is just an interpretation of adolescent Ali Sina w= ho never thinks before saying something, just like kids.

If Christians are still not comply with this evidence then they = have to justify Muslims that what new teachings this “Holy Spirit” h= as given to them in 2000 years? In Context, in John 16:12 Jesus is saying that= he has so many things to say but Jews cannot bear them now and in the next ver= se he said that a man will come (as I have proven above that “Holy Spirit” is actually a “Holy Man”) and he will guide you i= nto all truth and will show you new things which Jesus failed to show them beca= use Jews were not competent enough. Christians have to show us what new things = were introduced by their “Holy Spirit”? What new laws it has brought= to them?

Readers! Surely this verse is falsely interpreted by Ali Sina. J= esus was actually speaking about Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), that he w= ill come and will guide whole humanity into all truth and shall give you new things. There is no other way Ali Sina and Christians can interpret this ve= rse other than what Muslims have interpreted.

Rests of Ali Sina’s comments are just only implication of = his daydreaming. I advise him to put forth the “EVIDENCE” otherwise just shut his foul mouth.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; (Dr. Naik) if there are scientific points…=

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…Can= you attribute this to God?

Answer:

        &= nbsp; There are no unscientific portions in = the Quran as I have mentioned above and will be doing later in this document insha Al= lah. By producing smeared terminologies with no solid “EVIDENCE” in hand, Ali Sina thinks that he disproved Quran. Let readers be the judge.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; Purpose of my presentation on…<= /span>

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…I do apologize in advance.

Answer:

        &= nbsp; “Christians have been taking criticisms for a long time and if those criticisms were correct, they have changed their ways and beliefs. That is why I call Christianity a living faith and Islam a dead and fossilized faith”. Ali Sina is ignorant of history. What= about 4^th century Emperor Constantine who executed 3000 Christians? Wh= at about “Mark of Arethusa” and “Cyrill of Heliopolis”= who were famous as “temple destroyers”? What about Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) who executed even children who were playing with remai= ns of pagan statues? What about Crusaders? Every religion has some black sheep, so, it is inane to point to only one religion and leaving others. I can give loads of accounts on this subject; rather I will keep it for some other time under some other topic. For a quick review of Christians atrocities and it = is just a counter reply to Ali Sina’s arguments, you can visit the follo= wing site:

= http://www.truthbeknown.co= m/victims.htm (It is a Christian site)

=         &= nbsp; Well it is a very good excuse from him that “Christians have been ta= king criticisms for a long time and if those criticisms were correct, they have changed their ways and beliefs”. Readers! Damage was already = done by them and now they are ready to change themselves; this is hypocrisy. All those atrocities mentioned by Ali Sina are the concrete teachings of Bible only, and I can provide the evidences if requested. This is actually what t= heir Bible advocates and they can certainly align their mayhems as well by quoti= ng their own scriptures. I am no where talking OUT OF CONTEXT, I am not like A= li Sina. What ever so-called Muslims are doing or they had done in the past ca= nnot be verified from Quran but this is their own misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the Holy Scriptures only and nothing to do with the teachings of Quran. If Ali Sina can quote me any verse from Quran which goes against humanity, then I will definitely clarify the misconception. And I am very much sure that he will come up with some verses but actually he would = be quoting OUT OF CONTEXT.

=          At least, Dr. Naik had excused Christians prior, if they would feel hurt after= his presentation. Doctor is not a callous person like Ali Sina whereby he mars = the feelings of Muslims by mocking Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) who we revere so much, and he never undergoes remorse. Ali Sina, a stupid and twis= ted atheist, in his own dogma he has proven himself nastiest than non-Muslim cynics.

Ali = Sina:

        &= nbsp; The purpose is only to point…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…ref= ute me and prove me wrong?

Answer:

        &= nbsp; Readers! I will put a side all of Ali Sina’s gibberish writings except t= his one where he said, “<= u>Why instead don’t you exert an effort to refute me and prove me wrong?” I challenge him that he cannot = even disprove an apprentice like me, thus put aside thinking about having a deba= te with a connoisseur like Dr. Zakir Naik. First he has to confront me then lo= om to experts.

  &nbs= p;       Readers! I would like you to go through his letter to Dr. Zakir Naik posted in his website “The Challenge to debate with Dr. Zakir Naik”. I will definitely insha Allah will reply to this letter fully later. I will just retort in short pertaining to this letter, where he furnishes hits of his w= eb site and he weigh against the web site of Dr. Zakir Naik and says that his = site is 12 times and some place he said 5 times popular than Doctor’s, suc= h a brainless chap Ali Sina is, completely forgetting that Dr. Zakir Naik comes= on Television and he is trillion times more popular than him. There are more people on Earth knowing Dr. Zakir Naik than him. Therefore, just swanking on web site hits is insanity and nothing at all. He again portrayed himself a harebrained; hiding himself in the mask of Internet and calling himself pop= ular on the other hand.

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “The reason I wrote this invitation, was not to deb= ate with Dr. Naik. I knew already Dr. Naik would not accept. He is wise enough = to protect his reputation.” Oh such a brawny statement from Ali S= ina. Readers! Ali Sina is shielding himself over here from being debased as he k= new that Dr. Zakir Naik will never ever contest him on his provided conditions.= So he just took an advantage of this situation and safeguards his standing.

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “Dr. Naik should be able to read his emails no matt= er which part of the world he is. Being abroad, is no more an excuse in this a= ge of the Internet.” I assume Doctor must have seen Ali Sina’s email and just scored through it at once considering not worth responding. Scores of people sent emails to Doctor everyday and it is very arduous to riposte every email when you are traveling. You only react to very imperati= ve emails. It comes about to me as well while I travel. There are instances wh= ere I have to thrust aside some emails because of my work load. Similarly, peop= le like Dr. Zakir Naik keep staff to read his emails as it is habitual for the people who are much occupied or who travel a lot. This is the grounds that = Ali Sina is getting emails from IRF Admin Team in response, since Dr. Zakir Nai= k is not reading them. Or may be Ali Sina thought that he has befall to be very famed now, and right after receiving his email, IRF Team will indeed compel= to make an urgent call to Dr. Zakir Naik to reply to his email as soon as poss= ible or otherwise it will be catastrophe in Islamic World. I would advise Ali Si= na to stop day dreaming. He is not worth a thing.

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “M= aybe Dr. Naik could tell us who are those "high-profile and high-caliber" opponents with whom he debated?” At least Ali Sina is not part = of it and will never be. Why does not he visit Doctor’s site and look for people whom he had debates?

  &nbs= p;       I just want to add one more thing, if Ali Sina is so “zealous” to have a debate with Dr. Zakir Naik then why does not he fulfill Doctor’= ;s conditions and come in public. Not in writing, but only in public. Dare to = come in crowd and bang Dr. Zakir Naik to grounds, as he wishes. Satisfy Doctor’s conditions and this will be Ali Sina’s first attack in proving him wrong. Knowing Ali Sina very well, he will never make such a ga= ffe to appear in public. I can sense a beefy coward and chicken in him.

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “Not a single person has won the debates with me, n= ot because I am a highly skilled debater, but because I debate from the positi= on of strength. It is easy to win when you speak the truth and your opponent d= oes not.” Oh yeah! The same way Ali Sina had his “victory” over Ya= min Zakaria. Readers! I have not read his debate with Grand Ayotallah Montazeri= and others, but I have known this daft Ali Sina by reading his debate with Yamin Zakaria. I have found him a liar, hypocrite and swindler. By reading his debates with others, what else good it will give me, when he just proved himself a madcap in this particular one. He showed himself an impostor at first, so he will remain the same afterwards. I will urge readers to look at his debate with Yamin Zakaria. Do not read this debate on his site as he has not posted the debate from tip to toe. The debate is over here:<= /span>

http://www.iiop.org/MDebate.php?recordID=3D2=

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “He would say anything and would propose unreasonab= le conditions such as televised meeting with 10,000 audience to avoid debating with me.” Let me remind Ali Sina, that it is he who desir= es to have a debate with Dr. Zakir Naik. He is only giving excuses that Muslims are coercing him to have a debate with Doctor. If he is so “zealous” to have a success over Dr. Zakir Naik then comply with his conditions?

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “As for face to face debate in front of camera or in public places, I consider it theatrics and have no desire for that”.<= /span> Then similar decree should be valid for Dr. Zakir Naik as well, Doctor too thinks that debating on Internet has no value and he considers it waste of time and has= no longing for that. Over here Ali Sina is purely shunning Dr. Zakir Naik by saying that television is not an apt medium for such encounters. In his own doctrine, whatsoever Ali Sina imagines and verbalizes is “RIGHT” and what ever he is anxious and scares of is “WRONG”. This is a very upright way of eluding confronts.

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “It is time consuming, expensive and what can you s= ay in just two hours? Or, actually one, because half of the time is allotted to your opponent”. Ali Sina is giving excuses over here, he can ea= sily gather up a matter that he wants to converse in one hour. Or he can concur = upon a format with Dr. Zakir Naik and can have three hours. Or if he dares not to come in public then he can send one of his disciples (Cult of Golden Rule) = who is good in speech. In this way he can remain hiding in his den as well and = can deliver his message too. He can also put his $50,000 for this cause.

  &nbs= p;       I probably heard Dr. Zakir Naik saying that he could go on delivering speech = for a whole day, such an endurance he has. I believed him and I am sure that he will keep his words as well. Problem solved for Ali Sina, as he does not ha= ve to wrap up his speech in very few hours and he can go on for half a day and rest can be utilized by Dr. Naik. Contact Dr. Naik and we will see what he comes up with.

  &nbs= p;       Letter says, “Also my doctors have advised me to stay away from = any public and televised meetings. They say with my condition, a public meeting with Muslims is extremely dangerous for my health.” Oh yeah! They must have sensed a coward and chicken in Ali Sina.= And there is no doctor on the face of the Earth who can cure a person who is “chicken”.

=         &= nbsp; One place in letter Ali Sina has offered Doctor $50,000. If this debate ever happened, I am very much sure that after loosing it, he is not going to pay $50,000 as he is an individual who is lying to his own family, so he can li= e to any one. And this is one of his biggest deceit and nothing at all.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! The scenario between Ali Sina and Dr. Zakir Naik is that he wanted Doctor to have a debate with him, but only on his provided conditions to have it in writing only. Now, Doctor “afraid of being a looser” he denied = his conditions and in turn put up his requirements to have a televised debate. = Ali Sina also did not agree on his conditions and afterwards made a dim-witted claim that it was Doctor who was averting him, completely and deliberately overlooked that he had also denied Doctor’s conditions and avoided Do= ctor on the other hand. This is pure lunacy from Ali Sina.

=         &= nbsp; Readers! You must have known Ali Sina by now after reading this document that how his intellect works when it comes to Holy Scriptures. And you must be sure now = that besides not worth reading, he is not even worth responding. He is just only= a game for apprentice like me. Let me handle him.

Creation of the Universe in the Quran
Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) As Jesus Ch= rist, (Peace be upon him) said…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…This book as a book of God.
Answer:<= /p>
=          Quranic vers= es in question:

“SAY: Would you indeed deny Him who has created the earth in two aeons? And do you claim that there is any power that could rival Him, the Sustainer of all the worlds?” (Quran 41:9)

“For He [it is who, after creating the earth,] placed firm mountains on it, [towering] above its surface, and bestowed [so many] blessings on it, and equitably apportioned its means of subsistence to all who would seek it: [a= nd all this He created] in four aeons.” (Quran 41:10)<= /i>

“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], bot= h of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, “We = do come in obedience.” (Quran 41:11)

“And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function. And We adorned the skies nearest to= the earth with lights, and made them secure: such is the ordaining of the Almig= hty, the All-Knowing.” (Quran 41:12)

Readers! No where in the Quran a 24 ho= urs day is mentioned in regards to creation of this universe. Quran says “= ;ayyam” and does not articulate day and night or morning and evening just like Bibl= e.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “However Dr. Naik says that the days stated in the Bible should be interpreted as 24-hours days while the days stated in the Quran should be interpreted as unspecified periods of time - eons. Why this double standard?” Yes, days in the Bible ought t= o be construed as 24-hours of period because it undeniably speaks about “morning and evening” specifically. I am not aware how Ali Sina= is going to interpret in some other way or may be he has to twist his miniscule brain a bit more. As for Quran, it does not state “morning and evening”, it just elucidates “very long periods”.

Ali Sina asked why a double standard, = I am asking why should not be a double standard. Again this is another proof that Quran was not plagiarized from Bible. Readers! Please judge now that whose = mind is under par and bereft of fairness and common sense. Ali Sina is such a sightless in his intellect that he is not even able to comprehend the distinction between Quran and Bible. It seems that he has a dilemma in acknowledging why Quran didn’t state days as 24-hours as it is declar= ed in the Bible.

  &nbs= p;       The word “yawm”, commonly translated as “day” but rendered as “aeon” and is used in Arabic to denote any period, whether extremely long (“aeon”) or extremely short (“moment”). Its application to an earthly day of 24-hours is on= ly one of its many connotations.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “No scientist has ever said that= the universe has been created in six phases”. Yes, but no scientist has never “DENIED” that universe can not be created in six long periods. I want Ali Sina to afford an established fact where scientists say that Earth cannot be created in six very long periods.<= /o:p>

Six or eight days of creation?=

  &n= bsp;       41:9

Allah has created the earth in “T= WO DAYS”

2

41:10

He created mountains and all other things in <= /span>“F= OUR DAYS”

4

41:11

Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky= and said to it and earth for their obedience

0

41:12

So He completed them as seven firmaments in “T= WO DAYS”

0

= TOTAL DAYS OF CREATION

6

  &nbs= p;       Let’s analyze Quranic verse 41:11, it has a word “Moreover” in its translation, and meaning is:

1.&n= bsp;    Furthermore

2.&n= bsp;    In addition

3.&n= bsp;    Besides

4.&n= bsp;    Also

5.&n= bsp;    Additionally

6.&n= bsp;    Likewise

Subsequently, Quranic verse 41:12 is starting wi= th a word “So” which has a meaning of:

1.&n= bsp;    Consequently

2.&n= bsp;    As a result

3.&n= bsp;    Thus

4.&n= bsp;    Therefore

5.&n= bsp;    Subsequently

6.&n= bsp;    Accordingly

7.&n= bsp;    Hence

Readers! The creation of earth mention= ed in Quranic verse 41:9 is also mentioned in Quranic verse 41:12 in conjunction = with the creation of sky, so there are actually two accounts depicting the same process in Quran. Besides creating earth in Quranic verse 41:9 and Quranic verse 41:12 in TWO days, Allah has also created sky in the same TWO days wh= en he created earth as mentioned in Quranic verse 41:11 and 41:12. In short, A= llah took TWO days in the creation of earth and sky and further FOUR days in creating mountains and other nourishments, so total of six days. Problem solved.

If you look at it another way, how can earth and sky be created after creating mountains and other nourishments? T= his is contradiction, however, it is removed by looking at the words “Moreover” in 41:11 and “So” in 41:12 which clearly insinuate that creation of earth and sky is a part of TWO DAYS creation. So= the total comes to six days.

TWO days mentioned in Quranic verse 41= :9 are the same TWO days that are mentioned in Quranic verse 41:12. They actua= lly are not adding up, but Allah is mentioning the same account in two different places.

And regarding night as a veil over and earth, I am perplexed what Ali Sina is speaking about. It seems like he was= not able to put forth his testimony of “six days creation theory” properly, and to conceal this set back he just started blabbering.

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Point No.2 – Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…Quran is wrong again.

Answer:<= /p>
=          Quranic vers= e in question:

“So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. = Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.” (Qur= an 41:12)

= ;         Readers! Reg= arding six-day creation theory, I have already refuted Ali Sina above. Let’s speak about seven firmaments of which it seems he has a quandary with.=

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “Not only Muhammed believed that= the sky has seven layers, which is ludicrous, he also believed that the earth h= as seven layers too.” Quranic verse he posted:

“Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number.” (Quran 65:12)

= ;         Readers! Let’s scrutinize the above mention verse with Science and see what scientists have to say regarding this matter. Above in the discussion, Ali = Sina had provided school websites to prop up his perverted intellect regarding “mountains have roots”. This time I will also provide a testimo= ny from children school’s website just to inform him that this informati= on is from school level and it is an ignominy that it is not known by him. Yet substantiating my doubt again that he never attended a school.

“Earth has seven layers the inner core, ou= ter core, D layer, lower mantle, transition region, shallow mantle, and crust.” (Taken from: = http://209.85.165.104/search?q=3Dcache:qIriR03AA8kJ:library.norwoodschool.o= rg/science/planets02/spring03/Planet_Projects_spring03/Earth%2520Leah.ppt+%= 22earth+has+seven+layers%22&hl=3Den&ct=3Dclnk&cd=3D11)=

  &nbs= p;       Readers! Qur= an also speaks about seven layers of sky which we can interpret as seven layer= s of atmosphere. Here are they: you can get more details on Internet regarding t= hese layers.

1.&n= bsp;    Troposphere

2.&n= bsp;    Stratosphere

3.&n= bsp;    Ozonosphere

4.&n= bsp;    Mesosphere

5.&n= bsp;    Thermosphere

6.&n= bsp;    Exosphere

7.&n= bsp;    Ionosphere

Therefore, Quran is accurate in all te= rms when it speaks about seven layers of earth and sky.

I think only one testimony is enough f= or Ali Sina to show him fallacious. Readers! For more information on earth and= sky having seven layers, you can search on Internet.

Ali Sina presented pagan myths in his argument and said, “<= u>they thought that the Earth is flat an= d is located at the center of the Universe which consisted of solar system only. They believed that the Sun and the Moon along with Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, V= enus and Mercury that are the seven known objects of the heaven are deities”. Afterwards, he linked the idea of seven planets to the layers of heaven mentioned in Quran. Readers! Quranic verse 41:12 clearly states following:<= o:p>

1.&n= bsp;    Allah has completed them as seven firmaments.

2.&n= bsp;    He assigned to each heaven its duty and command.=

3.&n= bsp;    Allah adorned the lower heaven with lights.=

It is apparent by reading Quranic verse 41:12 that Allah has formed seven heavens and He allocated each heaven its = duty and command, afterward He bejeweled the “LOWER HEAVEN” with lig= hts. Readers! You put in the picture for me; is Allah speaking about planting li= ghts on a “lower planet” or “lower sky” in this particul= ar Quranic verse. Supposedly if people at the time of Prophet Muhammad (Peace = be upon him) believed seven planets as seven heavens, however they must have crushed away this idea by an implication of common sense that how can light= s be fixed on a planet. As per Ali Sina early people knew about seven planets. Y= es, but they did not have a single stupidest picture of having “lights= 221; on a “lower planet” as Ali Sina has. Then Ali Sina said each pl= anet occupied a crystal sphere and stars were attached to lower sphere. What sph= ere? Quran says that the lights were there to adorn the lower heaven, and not the sphere. Now it’s been proved that “seven heavens” mention= ed in Quran are not the actually the “seven planets” mentioned by bemused Ali Sina. Readers! Just read out the story of pagan myths by Ali Si= na, and you will see how a big joker he is.

Regarding Quranic verse 65:12 which is speaking about seven layers of Earth and I want to ask Ali Sina is Quran ag= ain speaking about “seven planets” inside the “Earth”? = This is the same interpretation he gave for “seven heavens” as “seven planets” in his argument which is ludicrous in itself. Therefore, the idea of pagan myths is as outlandish as Ali Sina is.

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Further, th= e, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…Don’t we have enough already?

Answer:<= /p>
=          Readers! I h= ave already proved above that the Universe was created in six long periods according to Quran. Regarding the absurdity that is mentioned by Ali Sina, I have already refuted that. Earth and sky were formed in chorus and this testimony can be verified from Quran and also it is mentioned above. I am n= ot going to repeat everything here again.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “Furthermore, is this an accurate accou= nt of Big Bang and the creation of Universe?” He has to provide an accurate account of Big Bang and the creation of Universe. I have already s= aid much about both the theories above.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “Every school child knows that”. Rea= ders! Isn’t it derisory adequate that Ali Sina is speaking of school?<= /o:p>

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “According to Quran the Earth is created first and the sky next”. I want him to show me a verse from Quran where it says that Earth is created “FIRST” and then sky “SECOND”. I am not going to consent to his erroneous and warped allusions. Readers! Quran in verse 41:9 is explicitly speaking about Earth = and absolutely not speaking about sky at all. Similarly, Quranic verses 41:11 &= amp; 41:12 are speaking about creation of both Earth and Sky. And I have already proved above that Quranic verse 41:9 and 41:12 are two distinct accounts of= the identical process in Quran in regards to the creation of “EARTH ONLY”. Regarding creation of sky, Allah has already cited the process= in Quranic verse 41:11 and 41:12 in conjunction with the creation of Earth. Th= is also proves that Earth and Sky were created, in tandem.
Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Point No..4, Genesis, Ch No.1 Verses 9to 13 says…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm=

…Quran that rehashed this fairytale.

Answer:<= /p>
=          Ali Sina is = just blabbering over here with “NO EVIDENCE” again.

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Point No. 5= , the Bible says in Genesis, Ch No. 1…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…see the same error in the Quran?

Answer:<= /p>
=          Readers! Ple= ase refer to my post where I have proved the creation of Universe in six long periods= .

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Point No. 6= , that the Bible says in Genesis, Ch No. 1…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…We will discuss that later.

Answer
        &= nbsp; Readers! I w= ill also discuss that later. =

Length of Days of Creation

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) There are c= ertain people who try and reconciliate…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…the same difficulty exists also in the Quran.

Anwer:<= /p>
=          Ali Sina sai= d, “the sun and the moon are created in the 7^th an= d 8^th day”. Readers! There are no 7^th and 8^th days= in Quran regarding creation of Universe. Again refer to my earlier posts.=

Contradictions in the Bible and the= Quran

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Regarding t= he concept of Earth, there are various…

(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…that it equal to 50,000 years.

Answer:<= /p>
=          Readers! Aga= in this particular contradiction is not related to the subject. However, I will retort in short.

1000 years:

  &nbs= p;       Quranic verses in question:

“Yet they ask thee to hasten on= the Punishment! But Allah will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sig= ht of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.” (Quran 22:47= )

“He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day,= the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning.” (Quran 32:5)

  &nbs= p;       Readers! Both these verses account 1000 years as a definite article in respect to hu= mans ONLY. There is no ambiguity in both of these verses. Allah is speaking of h= uman and human years in both of these verses devoid of speaking about angels, ghosts, spooks or spirits.

50,000 years:

  &nbs= p;       Quranic verse in question:

“The angels and the spirit asce= nd unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years” (Quran 70:4)

  &nbs= p;       Readers! In this precise verse Allah is speaking about angels and spirits and certai= nly “NOT ABOUT HUMANS”. And surely time can be different for spirit= ual beings. So a day measures up to 50,000 years in this verse is particularly = for the angels and spirits.

  &nbs= p;       Readers! You be the arbitrator now, when Quran verbalizes about human years on TWO ACCOUNTS (22:47 & 32:5), then there is no incongruity as both the accou= nts say 1000 human years and are consistent in every sense. However, when Quran articulates spirits and angels in conjunction with 50,000 years, here Ali S= ina found it paradox. Such a dumb head he has.

  &nbs= p;       I can also prove by other means but I will do it later. For more information = you can search for this particular “contradiction” on Internet, much has already been available there.

Is Sky a Dome?

Ali Sina:

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) Regarding ‘the Heavens’, the Bible says in Job…
(h= ttp://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp7.htm)

…the knowledge of created things ends.

Answer:<= /p>
=          Readers! If = you read this post of Ali Sina, you will certainly be sure of his bizarre intellectual fitness.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “In the verses 41:9-12 that we already discussed, Muhammad says that after creating the earth and putting in it the mountains so it does not shake with people and covering it with vegetation = then he erected the sky”. Readers! Lets read the all these vers= es again from four different translators.

M. Asad

Yusuf Ali

Picktall

Shakir

41:9

SAY: “Would you indeed deny Him who has created the earth in two aeons? = And do you claim that there is any power that could rival Him, the Sustainer = of all the worlds?”

Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.

Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is = the Lord of the Worlds.<= /span>

Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two period= s, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.

41:10

For He [it is who, after creating the earth,] placed firm mountains on it, [towering] above its surface, and bestowed [so many] blessings on it, and equitably apportioned its means of subsistence to all who would seek it: = [and all this He created] in four aeons.

He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;

And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.

41:11

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], b= oth of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, ̶= 0;We do come in obedience.”

Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He sai= d to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.&qu= ot; They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.=

Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and= to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

41:12

And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and impa= rted unto each heaven its function. And We adorned the skies nearest to the ea= rth with lights, and made them secure: such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.<= /span>

So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights,= and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Migh= t, Full of Knowledge.

Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.

So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven = its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it= ) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “He erected the sky”, but I couldn’t locate this in these verses. Where do these verses say that Allah has “erected” the sky? Readers! As you come across one of= his lies again.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “The picture we get here is that the sk= y is like a dome”. Yes, although with a slight alteration in the meaning; as it is an imperceptible dome or an empty ground, though it is st= ill a vacant medium for planets, clouds, Sun, Moon etc. Ali Sina has to enlight= en me as where these planets and other firmaments are then placed if there is = no dome? There ought to be some place, medium, ground, field or dome for such things. Such a place is sky which is an invisible dome for firmaments.=

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “First the foundation which is t= he earth is built and once it is finished Allah turns to the sky and lifts it = up, as if it was a tent, and adorns it with stars”. I dare him = to show me any verse from Quran where it states that Allah “lifted up= 221; sky and made Earth its “foundation”. Readers! You can see anoth= er lie from him. I am not going to accept his abnormal representation of his underhanded mind.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “002:022 syas that the sky is bana (Arabic). While in reality sky is just and empty space”. Then he pre= sented some translations where bana is translated as “canopy”, which he thinks is a wrong portrayal of sky. Lets see what “COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA” published by Columbia University Press has to say about it.

“Sky, apparent dome over the earth, background of the clouds, sun, moon and stars.” (Taken from: htt= p://www.answers.com/topic/sky)

  &nbs= p;       Readers! Above mentioned excerpt is evidently declaring sky as a “dome” = upon earth. However, they are also making the notion sterner by saying “apparent dome”; however Quran and Ali Sina only cited “dome”. Be certain that this Encyclopedia is not written by Mus= lims and it is not published by them as well. Therefore, who should I have faith= in; “ENCYCLOPEDIA by Columbia University Press” or “PSYCHOPED= IA by Ali Sina”?

  &nbs= p;       Readers! I will present a few additional evidences concerning sky as canopy or dome = from the words of Science.

From MSN Encarta Encyclopedia:=

“Region above Earth” (Taken from: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?= q=3Dsky&Submit2=3DGo)

From Wikipedia Encyclopedia:

“In the field of astronomy, the sky is also called the celestial sphere. This is an imaginary dome where t= he sun, stars, planets, and the moon are seen to be traveling.” (Take fr= om: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/sky)

From Encyclopedia Britannica:<= /u>

“The upper atmosphere or expanse of space = that constitutes an apparent great vault or arch over the earth”. (Take from: http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=3DDiction= ary&va=3Dsky&query=3Dsky)

  &nbs= p;       Readers! Ali Sina has multiple problems to defy now, despite disproving Quran, he ha= s to counteract above mentioned bona fide sources as well, since they are in accordance with Quran in calling “sky as a dome”. Poor Ali Sina, now he has to come up with some other self-created deformed terminologies in rebuttal.

  &nbs= p;       Regarding Islamic Cosmology, he said = “it was understood from Quran and Hadiths”, again this whole doctrine intimates his day dreaming. A person if eats too much he perceives such kind of dreams. The w= hole story is not authentic and he has once again provided “NO EVIDENCE= 221; of such theory. He is just linking whatever suits his minuscule mind to Isl= am. As for “mountains as pegs”, I have already replied to this subj= ect earlier in this document.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “The versed 13.2 and 31.10 do not contradict the Bible. They only state the obvious that these alleged pillars holding the sky in place cannot be seen”. Readers! Al= i Sina is saying that Quran is not contradicting Bible, but just a slight disparity that the pillars in Quran are unseen. I am posting here the translations of both the verses and let’s see if they speak about any “unseen pillars”.

“Allah is He Who raised the hea= vens without any pillars that ye can see;” (Quran 13:2)<= /i>

“He created the heavens without= any pillars that ye can see;” (Quran 31:10)

= ;         Readers! As = you can see that Quran is denying the fact that heaven have got pillars; howeve= r, Ali Sina construed that heavens have got “unseen pillars” accor= ding to Quran. He also said that Quran is in harmony with the Bible, but with ju= st a slight difference that Quran connotes “unseen” pillars. Arabic = word used in these verses is “bighayer” meaning “without” and the Arabic words for “unseen” or “invisible” are خفى, غئر مرئ<= span dir=3DLTR> but they are not in the Quran’s Arabic text.= I do not know how far Ali Sina can go in deceiving people. The correct understan= ding of these particular verses is that Allah affirms that there are no pillars = holding sky, but in the latter part of the verses where Allah says “that ye can see”, over here He= is addressing to humans that they themselves can also see the heavens without pillars. I hope readers can comprehend this narration.

  &nbs= p;       I consent that Islamic scholars had argued over the idea of “unseen pillars” whether they subsist or not, however, no one was persuaded. = You can also comprehend the notion of pillars as Allah’s invariable and imperceptible Power which is not only seizing and keeping each and everyone= of these colossal bodies including the Earth we inhabit, in their apposite spa= ces and trajectories but also does not let any collision take place between the= m.

  &nbs= p;       Ali Sina said, “If the dome of heaven is raised= above the earth supported by invisible pillars, what supports the earth?” No pillars = for the heaven, likewise no pillars for the Earth too. Period! It’s Allah’s prodigious brawn that keeping them perched devoid of any supp= ort.

  &nbs= p;       Readers! Concerning all other bits and pieces by Ali Sina in his argument, like, some hadiths from Jami-Al-Tirmidhi, Islamic Cosmology, about the credence of Yus= uf Ali are all out of this subject and just the fabrication of his day-dreamin= g. I may be reply under some other topic insha Allah.

Poisonous Plants<= /u>

Ali Sina:

&n= bsp;         (Dr. Naik) In the fiel= d of ‘Diet and Nutrition’ let’s analyze…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp8.htm)

…Allah have achieved? Nothing!<= /span>

Answer= :

          <= /span>

=          Genesis Chapter 1 verse 29:

“Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth a= nd every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.R= 21;

=          Readers! At the outset, the dilemma with above-mentioned verse is that this verse is utilizing very compelling word “every” and its synonyms are “each” and “all”, enclosing the whole lot that is referenced in this verse concerning diet and nutrition. Secondly, it is not revealing anything with reference to medicine, on the contrary meticulously insisting on “food” only. This way we can construe that this ve= rse is only enunciating about “food” only and not medicine. LetR= 17;s scrutinize other verses from the Bible speaking about “food”.

“And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it = 211; I give every green plant for food. And it was so”. (Genesis 1:30)

“And the LORD = God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were plea= sing to the eye and good for food. (Genesis 2:9)

“Everything th= at lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” (Genesis 9:3)



          Readers! To = begin with, as you can spot that every verse of the Bible is only discoursing about “food” and no medicine at all; and there is not a single implication of healing or cure mentioned except only filling up your appeti= te. Secondly, I do not come across any account in the Bible that forbids certain plants as food in context and as a whole. There are accounts only forbidding certain animals. And Dr. Zakir Naik ingeniously used only this particular v= erse of Genesis about plants as a supportive statement. If forbidden plants are = not mentioned and God of Bible is not “disallowing” people to take every plant and every fruit, then; but naturally He is “allowing̶= 1; people to take poisonous plants and fruits as well to fill up the tummy. Pl= ease be sure as I have not quoted anything out of context.

=          Readers! If you look at the word used in original text of Hebrew in Genesis 1:29 for “food” is “oklah” and Hebrew word for “cure” or “healing” is “marpe’&#= 8221;, “rapha’” or “gahah” which is not mentioned in this particular verse. Hebrew word for medicine is “g= ehah”, “R@phu’ah” or “T@ruwphah” which= is also not included in this particular verse. And according to Bible translat= ors, the Hebrew word “oklah” is defined as “food”, “eating” or “object of devouring”. The only figurat= ive definition provided by Bible translators pertaining to “oklah&= #8221; is “by wild beasts” and “of judgment” and that̵= 7;s all. Therefore, it is illogical to say that God of Bible was also speaking about cure, healing or medicine in figurative sense.

If Ali Sina = can find me any verse from Bible speaking of forbidden plants and fruits except that of Adam and Eve, then I will apologize and shall take my words back. Otherwise his implications regarding plants used as medicine for healing or cure in the Bible are just as incongruous as he is.

=          Ali Sina said, “The poisonous plants can have medicinal benefits.” Yes, I am in agreement with that and = it is a general saying that “there is no plant that cannot be used medicinally, because God has given healing properties, making a healer of e= ach plant”. However, the glitch is that Bible doesn’t say anyth= ing about medicinal properties in these verses but explicitly just to fill up y= our stomach only.

=          <= /p>
=          Ali Sina said, “Prohibited foods in the Quran a= re specified, human flesh is not among them. Does that mean that Muslims are licensed to consume that? Such an absurd example, when killing a human being is like butchering the whole humanity, and it is absolutely forbidden in Quran, eating of his flesh is out of question. Same decree fix to Bible as well. This is common sense which surely Ali Sina is deficient in.

The Test of the= Bible

Ali Sina:

&n= bsp;

  &nbs= p;       (Dr. Naik) The Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true…

(http://www.= faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp8.htm)

…Quran that Muslims call “miracle”.

Answer= :



          Readers! I w= ill straight come to the issue, and shall not fool around like Ali Sina, by bombarding his self-made imaginative statements and their implications with= no EVIDENCES would not convince us for sure. Let’s scrutinize the Bible Gospel of Mark Chapter 16 verses 17 & 18:

“And these sig= ns shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;” (Mark 16:17)=

“They shall ta= ke up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mark 16:18)

=          Readers! If you contemplate both the verses, no where do they implicate that the wri= ter was speaking metaphorically, but was speaking literally.<= /p>

=          If you scan the whole chapter of Mark 16, you will come to know that this chap= ter is regarding aftermath of the event when Jesus was “crucified” = and was placed into sepulcher. The chapter starts with Mary Magdalene who went to sepulcher but she did not find Jesus there, which in fact flabbergasted her. Afterwards, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast = out SEVEN devils (in the past). This account is mentioned in Bible in the same chapter:

“he appeared f= irst to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” (Mark 16:9)=

          Another acco= unt of the same event:

“and also some= women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) fr= om whom seven demons had come out;” (Luke 8:2)=

=

Readers! Ali= Sina has to tell me now, is Bible again speaking metaphorically in these particu= lar verses? No, but this verse is giving account that Jesus had cast out SEVEN devils from Mary Magdalene. What SEVEN devils? Why Bible is giving a defini= te number of SEVEN devils? Sure this verse is not speaking allegorically and J= esus did cast out?

=          <= /p>
=          Furthermore, when Mary Magdalene knew that Jesus was alive, she went to his disciples and told them the good news. But they did not believe her until Jesus came in f= ront of them and they became terrified. Then Jesus asked them to do following:

“And he said u= nto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.= 221; (Mark 16:15)

            <= /span>What Gospel? Which Gospel? Jesus’ words were Gospel and he ordered his disciples to go into the world and pre= ach his teachings. Was Jesus again speaking metaphorically? No, he wanted his disciples to abide by his orders, in truth. Jesus said that whoever shall believe and baptized shall be saved and whosoever disobey will perish. You = can find this account in this verse:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;= but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16)

            <= /span>Was Jesus still speaking metaphoricall= y? Again NO, afterwards he said which is written in Mark 17 & 18 and he ca= lled these traits as his “signs”. Was he again speaking figuratively? Answer is NO again. The first sign should be their dominion over evil spiri= ts, the second, the proof of that grace which went beyond the narrow limits of = Israel, addressing itself to the entire world. They should speak diverse languages. Besides this, with respect to the power of enemy, manifested in doing harm,= the venom of serpents and poisons should have no effect upon them, and diseases should yield to their authority.

     &n= bsp;    Having thus given his disciples their commission, Jesus ascends to heaven. Meanwhi= le, the disciples occupy Jesus’ place, extending their sphere of service = unto the ends of the earth; and Jesus confirmed their word by the signs that fol= low them. Jesus repeated his signs again and confirmed them by working and help= ing his disciples and you can find this account in the last verse of Mark 16:

“And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. “(Mark 16:20)

            <= /span>Who went forth? His disciples! What th= ey preached? Jesus’ words (Mark 16:15). Which signs following? The same signs that are mentioned in Mark 16:17-18. No where in this chapter Jesus w= as speaking metaphorically. He was speaking literal and his disciples obeyed h= im.

     &n= bsp;    Readers! Mark 16:17-18 are the only signs mentioned in this whole chapter. No other signs are uttered by Jesus. And Bible reminded these signs TWICE in all the= 20 verses of Mark 16, likewise these signs were also confirmed by Jesus himsel= f in the last verse. He is making sure that these signs will follow every believ= er, in the last verse. Therefore, none of these signs are metaphoric but they a= re literal. I have never heard or seen any Christian saying that these signs a= re metaphoric except this dupe named Ali Sina. Proving my point again that he always presents his smeared terminologies which are full of lies, made-up of his grimy mind that never makes any impression at all. I challenge him agai= n to show me any authentic testimony where a Bible Specialist makes such a state= ment that Jesus was speaking figuratively in Mark 16.

            <= /span>Readers! Ali Sina gave examples of a g= irl who play with scorpions and people walking on fire without getting hurt. But I = want to ask him how many people in the world do that? The examples he mentioned = are the only exceptions? People walking on fire are all abnormal people as they= are deficient in pain receptors and they do not feel any pain. You can find one account of such over here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/science/13cnd-pai= n.html?ex=3D1323666000&en=3D922da651eb77095f&ei=3D5088&partner= =3Drssnyt&emc=3Drss

What about rest of the people in the world? Bible says that these signs will follow them who believe. No other condition was put forth by Jes= us; just only and only “belief”. What does Ali Sina has to say about it?

“And these signs shall follow them that believe,” (Mark 16:17)

     &n= bsp;    After presenting his absurd examples and his twisted thinking, Ali Sina moves for= ward and gave verses from Quran that depicts that Allah transformed the Jews into apes and swine. Readers! Again I will be retorting in short. Quranic verses= he presented:

“for you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, "Be as apes despicable!” (Quran 2:65)

“Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah. those= who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) wor= se in rank, and far more astray from the even path!” (Quran 5:60)

“When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected̶= 1; (Quran 7:166)

&n= bsp; 41:9	Allah has created the earth in “T= WO DAYS”	2
41:10	He created mountains and all other things in <= /span>“F= OUR DAYS”	4
41:11	Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky= and said to it and earth for their obedience	0
41:12	So He completed them as seven firmaments in “T= WO DAYS”	0
	= TOTAL DAYS OF CREATION	6

	M. Asad	Yusuf Ali	Picktall	Shakir
41:9	SAY: “Would you indeed deny Him who has created the earth in two aeons? = And do you claim that there is any power that could rival Him, the Sustainer = of all the worlds?”	Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.	Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is = the Lord of the Worlds.<= /span>	Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two period= s, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.
41:10	For He [it is who, after creating the earth,] placed firm mountains on it, [towering] above its surface, and bestowed [so many] blessings on it, and equitably apportioned its means of subsistence to all who would seek it: = [and all this He created] in four aeons.	He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).	He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;	And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.
41:11	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], b= oth of you, willingly or unwillingly!” - to which both responded, ̶= 0;We do come in obedience.”	Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He sai= d to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.&qu= ot; They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."	Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.=	Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and= to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.
41:12	And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and impa= rted unto each heaven its function. And We adorned the skies nearest to the ea= rth with lights, and made them secure: such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.<= /span>	So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights,= and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Migh= t, Full of Knowledge.	Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.	So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven = its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it= ) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.