Richard Carrier
Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists


Good Day

You claim all that is in the Koran was either copied from the Bible or learnt from the Greeks .

Where was this copied from?
Quran[21:30]

30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the
heavens and the earth were joined together as one
united piece, then We parted them? And We have
made from water every living thing. Will they not
then believe?

This relates clearly to the Big Bang only discovered recently. There are other things in Koran I could also ask you where it was copied from, but first just answer this question. Also the part about all living things coming from water. This was discovered I think in 1976.

I will just mention one (for now)thing in your article.
[41:12]
12. Then He completed and finished from their
creation (as) seven heavens in two Days and He
made in each heaven its affair. And We adorned
the nearest (lowest) heaven with lamps (stars) to
be an adornment as well as to guard (from the
devils by using them as missiles against the
devils). Such is the Decree of Him the All-
Mighty, the All-Knower.


it clearly says. "And We adorned " ,it does not say "then we adorned" thus your statement indicating that the stars came after completion of Earth is absurd
In the same manner all the other comments you made is mostly not correctly read by you.

I can show You this later, but first answer my one question. then the next will follow.

my email, jojo_sa@hotmail.com

-DM-

[Thank you for your feedback regarding <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html" target="_blank">Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists</a> by Richard Carrier. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. --Don--]

Richard Carrier

Where was this copied from? Quran[21:30]
30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the
heavens and the earth were joined together as one
united piece, then We parted them? And We have
made from water every living thing. Will they not
then believe?

Creation of all things from water was a staple Greek idea originating with Thales (and with probable antecedents in Egyptian and Babylonian mythologies). Other presocratics developed the idea that all life, including man, originated from primitive fish that crawled onto land. The idea that God separated the heavens from the earth (indeed, the use of the royal plural for God as well) is found in Genesis. That accounts for everything in this passage.

This relates clearly to the Big Bang only discovered recently.

I fail to see any connection whatever. The earth was not “joined to the heavens” in the Big Bang, neither heavens nor earth existed then. The heavens then expanded, and eventually earth condensed from it through numerous processes, and is still very much united with the heavens. As to life originating from water, it isn’t really known, not even in 1976, where life actually originated, but water is a pretty good bet: all life depends on water, a fact known to all observant people long before the Koran was written. But life is not made from water. It uses water, but all those amino acids are far more important--without them there would be no life at all, just the water.

As to the other point:

it clearly says. "And We adorned " ,it does not say "then we adorned" thus your statement indicating that the stars came after completion of Earth is absurd

Funny, I do not make the argument you allege. Nowhere do I say any word like “then” entails this conclusion here. Rather, I note only that the word can mean “then” and that the context proves that this is the meaning here, since, e.g. “41:12 describes in no uncertain terms the last two days of the six days of creation, since it says in these two days creation was ‘completed and finished’, yet it is only then that stars, the ‘lamps’, are made.” That is, it is not the word “then,” but the words “completed and finished” that prove my case, and refute yours. You are convicted by your own book.

Furthermore, rather than referring to the word “then,” I argue instead: “we are seeing a clear temporal order: for mountains and plants could not be made before the earth is made, thus 41:10 follows 41:9 in time, so it is only reasonable to conclude that 41:11 and 41:12 continue the temporal progression.” Once again, you are convicted by your own book.

Moreover, 41:11 says the earth and the smoke coexist. Hence my argument was “Verse 41:11 thus fails to fit any scientific theory of the origins of the cosmos: the earth long post-dated the ‘gaseous’ state of the universe that Muslim Fundamentalists want the word ‘smoke’ to refer to,” i.e. the Koran here cannot be read as referring to anything like the Big Bang theory, much less any contemporary cosmological fact.

Etc. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html" target="_blank">Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists</a> makes even more points that lead to the same conclusion, none of which arguments are the one you attack, all of which refute your attempt to turn the Koran into science.

-DM-

[This is a cut and paste of a further response from &lt;jojo&gt; --Don--]

---------

&lt;jojo&gt;
unregistered

posted January 03, 2002 03:02 AM

Where was this copied from? Quran[21:30]
30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the
heavens and the earth were joined together as one
united piece, then We parted them? And We have
made from water every living thing. Will they not
then believe?
Creation of all things from water was a staple Greek idea originating with Thales (and with probable antecedents in Egyptian and Babylonian mythologies). Other presocratics developed the idea that all life, including man, originated from primitive fish that crawled onto land. The idea that God separated the heavens from the earth (indeed, the use of the royal plural for God as well) is found in Genesis. That accounts for everything in this passage.
This relates clearly to the Big Bang only discovered recently.

I fail to see any connection whatever. The earth was not “joined to the heavens” in the Big Bang, neither heavens nor earth existed then. The heavens then expanded, and eventually earth condensed from it through numerous processes, and is still very much united with the heavens. As to life originating from water, it isn’t really known, not even in 1976, where life actually originated, but water is a pretty good bet: all life depends on water, a fact known to all observant people long before the Koran was written. But life is not made from water. It uses water, but all those amino acids are far more important--without them there would be no life at all, just the water.

As to the other point:

it clearly says. "And We adorned " ,it does not say "then we adorned" thus your statement indicating that the stars came after completion of Earth is absurd

Funny, I do not make the argument you allege. Nowhere do I say any word like “then” entails this conclusion here. Rather, I note only that the word can mean “then” and that the context proves that this is the meaning here, since, e.g. “41:12 describes in no uncertain terms the last two days of the six days of creation, since it says in these two days creation was ‘completed and finished’, yet it is only then that stars, the ‘lamps’, are made.” That is, it is not the word “then,” but the words “completed and finished” that prove my case, and refute yours. You are convicted by your own book.

Furthermore, rather than referring to the word “then,” I argue instead: “we are seeing a clear temporal order: for mountains and plants could not be made before the earth is made, thus 41:10 follows 41:9 in time, so it is only reasonable to conclude that 41:11 and 41:12 continue the temporal progression.” Once again, you are convicted by your own book.

Moreover, 41:11 says the earth and the smoke coexist. Hence my argument was “Verse 41:11 thus fails to fit any scientific theory of the origins of the cosmos: the earth long post-dated the ‘gaseous’ state of the universe that Muslim Fundamentalists want the word ‘smoke’ to refer to,” i.e. the Koran here cannot be read as referring to anything like the Big Bang theory, much less any contemporary cosmological fact.

Etc. Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists makes even more points that lead to the same conclusion, none of which arguments are the one you attack, all of which refute your attempt to turn the Koran into science.

__________--------¨

so you replied good.

"Creation of all things from water was a staple Greek idea originating with Thales (and with probable antecedents in Egyptian and Babylonian mythologies). Other presocratics developed the idea that all life, including man, originated from primitive fish that crawled onto land. The idea that God separated the heavens from the earth (indeed, the use of the royal plural for God as well) is found in Genesis. That accounts for everything in this passage"

give me the passage in the genesis where you say these ideas came from.

also give the refernces to books where greeks and whoever talks about these ideas so i can check them out. it easy to say things, please show me proof.

about 41:12 that u say follows. well the word is "thoemma" in arabic which can also be used as and or moreover and in this case does not indicate a follow on. also in arabic one can start sentences with "and" and the part "and we adorned it" is bascially a statement in a new sentence indicating something that was also done. does not follow. your logic does not work.

because 9 and 10 may follow does not mean 11 and 12 follows.


about the earth and the heavens joined. words are "sama and ard" its too indicate that everything was joined in one unit(may have been smaller than an atom or could be nothing cos u know when matter and anti matter meet u get nothing) , and then parted. this is the big bang.

also for your information there are still heaps of places in the universe that still have smoke or gas where new stars are born( i suppose u know this) the smoke and earth are also indicating the force G of attraction which happens between masses.so smoke and earth can coexist as u know it does now.
the principles are still the same the attraction.

ok next

where was this copied?

now please give quotes from books or resources, dont just say things.
this way i can check up ur information.

21:33 mushkin
And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating.
021.033
YUSUFALI: It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course.
PICKTHAL: And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.
SHAKIR: And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all (orbs) travel along swiftly in their celestial spheres.

i give few translations so you can get better idea of what the arabic is saying.

so this indicates the earth and moon is in orbits, and if u know arabic you will see this indicates that all celestil bodies or orbiting in space (sun galaxies etc.)

and another one

027.018
YUSUFALI: At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."
PICKTHAL: Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving.
SHAKIR: Until when they came to the valley of the Naml, a Namlite said: O Naml! enter your houses, (that) Sulaiman and his hosts may not crush you while they do not know.

027.019
YUSUFALI: So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by Thy Grace, to the ranks of Thy righteous Servants."
PICKTHAL: And (Solomon) smiled, laughing at her speech, and said: My Lord, arouse me to be thankful for Thy favour wherewith Thou hast favoured me and my parents, and to do good that shall be pleasing unto Thee, and include me in (the number of) Thy righteous slaves.
SHAKIR: So he smiled, wondering at her word, and said: My Lord! grant me that I should be grateful for Thy favor which Thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I should do good such as Thou art pleased with, and make me enter, by Thy mercy, into Thy servants, the good ones.

this verses indicate that the ant who solomon understood was a female. and as u know only worker ants forage around and are sterile females.
about the fact that solomon could understasnd ants is not under debate here, just the fact that it clearly indicates the ants or worker ants are females.
so where was this copied. who knew before this that the worker ants are female.

Richard Carrier

If you wish to receive tutoring in ancient history, my rate is thirty dollars an hour. If you have the competence and discipline to learn on your own, consult the following works:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671201581/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">A History of Western Philosophy</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1853026816/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">Creation Stories of the Middle East</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157392198X/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195107993/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Oxford History of Islam</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157392945X/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary</a>

On ancient science:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393005836/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393007804/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">Greek Science After Aristotle</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486274950/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">Ancient Science Through the Golden Age of Greece</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0486277402/qid=InternetInfidelsA/" target="_blank">Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.</a>

And remember what my essay actually says: Nothing in the Koran displays any knowledge of scientific facts that were not already known or argued long before the Koran was written, in Greek, Syrian, Christian, Egyptian, Persian, and Hebrew cultures. I nowhere state that everything in the Koran is unoriginal. Rather, only that which is purported to be prescient knowledge of “future” scientific discoveries. Consult all the above books and you will see this.

As you can see, what I actually said renders almost many your questions and arguments moot, and those that remain are already refuted by the essay itself and standard scholarship as noted above, as any competent reader will observe, and so I leave it to their judgement to decide the matter.

I see no need to keep testing a book that has already completely and blatantly failed to get the facts right, and that is hopelessly vague otherwise. I refer everyone to the essay at issue: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/islam.html" target="_blank">Cosmology and the Koran: A Response to Muslim Fundamentalists</a>; and another I have written: <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=168" target="_blank">The Koran Predicted the Speed of Light? Not really</a>; and our whole section on <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/index.shtml" target="_blank">Islam</a>. Together, this material leaves me with no reason to continue debating the issue.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: Richard Carrier ]</p>

Denis Giron

Let me say that Richard Carrier has done a fine job defending his position. However, being that he has become exasperated with Jojo's dawaganda and basically brushed it off, I will pick up here (so that our mu'min doesn't assume we filthy Mulhideen are avoiding the indisputable proof of the one true deen). Wa'sh-Shaytaanu 'Aleem!!!

A good book on the subject would be Rabbi Dovid Brown's Mystery of the Creation, as well as a number of other sources that play this "miracle of reinterpretation" game with the Hebrew text. It is a reference to Genesis chapter 1. Non-Hebrew speakers will say "ah, but my translation says XYZ," while Hebrew speakers will counter that it could also be translated as "ZYX."

This is complete nonsense, and is exactly the sort of "miracle of reinterpretation" nonsense that allows al-Muttaqeen to basically find whatever they want in the text. First of all, the word thumma does not appear in that aya. You're thinking of the one just prior, which begins with thumma istawaa ilaa as-Samaa'ee wahiya dukhaanun, or "then he rose to the heavens and it was smoke." That's what it literally means... sure you could now, in light of science, try to make more sense of it and say "it *COULD* mean XYZ." Yeah sure, it *COULD* mean anything, but this basically a bit of hermeneutic gymnastics, and you banish the discussion to the realm of the unfalsifiable.

Miracle of reinterpretation again. All you're doing is parroting the usual "miracle of the Qur'an" dawaganda (that is, propaganda for the sake of dawa) that is on so many sites on the net. I wonder if you even know Arabic. The text of that aya from Soorat al-Anbiyaa is wholly vague, and could just as easily be a reference to the sun moving across the sky (i.e. it looks as though it revolves or orbits the earth). There is no reason your interpretation should be accepted over the one I have just presented.

This is the sort of nonsense that I remember used to appear in the writings of Gary Miller. Well, ancient people were able to tell the difference between male and female ants (or even bees). For example, the Hebrew word for ant is N'mal, and the spelling is nun-mem-lamed (NML), essentially the same as the Arabic spelling for ant, yet in Proverbs 6:6, it says to consider the ant, and in Hebrew it says N'malah, which means that the author of this Yahoodi mythology knew that worker ants were female!

Now a Jojo might try to squirm out of this by saying that parts of the Bible are also from Allaah, so to prove that common folk in ancient times knew this, consider the following from the Complete Works of Aristotle:

"Others again assert that these insects [i.e. Bees] copulate, and that drones are male and bees female."
[Complete Works, (Princeton, 1995), Vol. 1, Generation of the Animals, book 11, p. 872, citation: 553a32-553b1]

The above was written in the fourth century before the common era, so this proves that ancient people, living long before the Qur'an was ever written, knew the sex of bees (and even ants). So you're basically just trying to capitalize on the apparent incredulity of others, and then say "gosh! how could he know that?"

Ah, but this should be under discussion. Furthermore, while we're on the topic of ants and bees, in the same volume Aristotle also wrote that ants and bees had "a keen olfactory sense" [p. 705, cit. 444b7-12]. This is important, as it touches on the fact that ants and bees use odor (chemical trails) as a communication tool, something the author(s) of the Qur'an didn't know about considering that Soorat an-Naml 27:18-19 has Solomon hearing the speech of an ant! Ants don't speak, they communicate via chemical trails. But the verse from the Qur'an says:

*qaalat* namlatun yaa ayyuhaa an-Namlu odkhuloo masaakinakum laa yaahtimannakum Sulaymaanu wa junooduhu wahum laa yasha'uroona

In other words, the little ant literally says it (and yes the verb is conjugated in the feminine). In the very next aya it says that Sulaymaan derived pleasure from qawlihaa, or "her speech." So your amazing scientific miracle goes out the window, as the qur'an got it wrong as to how ants communicate. I guess now you can pull some other hermeneutic miracle out of the hat, eh?

-DM-

&lt;jojo&gt; responds:

---------

&lt;jojo&gt;
unregistered

138.223.70.70 proxy1.ch.abb.com
jojo_sa@hotmail.com

posted January 16, 2002 12:38 AM

*qaalat* namlatun yaa ayyuhaa an-Namlu odkhuloo masaakinakum laa yaahtimannakum Sulaymaanu wa junooduhu wahum laa yasha'uroona In other words, the little ant literally says it (and yes the verb is conjugated in the feminine). In the very next aya it says that Sulaymaan derived pleasure from qawlihaa, or "her speech." So your amazing scientific miracle goes out the window, as the qur'an got it wrong as to how ants communicate. I guess now you can pull some other hermeneutic miracle out of the hat, eh?

read this site
<a href="http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/s001d.html" target="_blank">http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/s001d.html</a>

it answers your ideas on ants.

About 41:12 again.
yip thumma is in previous verse and this was said to indicate that 41:11 does not follow 41:10. 41:9 and 41:10 goes together.

41:12 makes a statement that the stars were placed in a certain heaven it does not follow. read the passage.

-DM-

[Note: &lt;jojo&gt; has now registered as jojo-sa, member #5155, and this topic was copied from Feedback to this forum so that he and others who might be interested could take part in the ongoing discussion here. --Don--]

DMB

A subset of muslims claim that all scientific truth is to be found in the koran. It is interesting that all that they appear to do is to retrospectively fit bits of the koran to existing scientific knowledge. It would carry a lot more conviction if they could come up with some scientific innovations based on their reading of the koran (and "scientific" does not include "facts" about djinns).

-DM-

jojo-sa had said:

027.019
YUSUFALI: So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my
Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which
thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the
righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by Thy Grace, to
the ranks of Thy righteous Servants." PICKTHAL: And (Solomon)
smiled, laughing at her speech, and said: My Lord, arouse me to be
thankful for Thy favour wherewith Thou hast favoured me and my
parents, and to do good that shall be pleasing unto Thee, and
include me in (the number of) Thy righteous slaves. SHAKIR: So he
smiled, wondering at her word, and said: My Lord! grant me that I
should be grateful for Thy favor which Thou hast bestowed on me and
on my parents, and that I should do good such as Thou art pleased
with, and make me enter, by Thy mercy, into Thy servants, the good
ones

this verses indicate that the ant who solomon understood was a
female.

---------

Richard Carrier provides this further response:

If that were so, it also indicates that ants talk! &lt;G&gt; Now, that is
hardly scientific, now is it?

But it is not at all clear even whether this is an ant or a people
who have the name 'ant' (after all, a "valley of the ants" sounds
like a nation or tribal territory, and most ancient words for 'ant'
also mean 'swarm' anyway). Since she talks, and is afraid of an
army, and lives in dwellings rather than hives, it seems more
likely we are simply talking about a people called Ant (27.18).

But no matter. Let your superstition take you, and suppose this is
a talking ant, which doesn't exist. Which kind of ant is it? It
does not say whether it is the queen, a drone, a warrior, a stud,
or what. Thus, there is no way to identify which kind of ant
Solomon is addressing as female, thus there is no scientific
content here.

But let even your delusion take you, and assume the word "worker
ant" was somehow omitted but really is supposed to be there. ALL
ANCIENT SOCIETIES REGARDED ANTS AS FEMALE. The word for 'ant' in
every ancient language is always feminine, and thus always gets a
feminine pronoun (they are *always* referred to as 'she' -- in
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, you name it: for example, the 1st
century B.C. Latin poet Horace: "Thus the little ant (for she is an
example), of great industry, carries in her mouth whatever she is
able, and adds to the heap which she piles up").

Thus, Horace is wiser than your Koran--he knew ants were female
seven hundred years before Mohammed did!

Stand and be enlightened. Abandon your superstition and join the
rest of the civilized world.

--
Richard C. Carrier, M.Phil.
Ph.D. Candidate, Columbia University
Editor in Chief of the Secular Web
(http://www.infidels.org)

---------