In numerous discussions with Muslims, the Freethought Mecca debate team has been directed to the writings of Dr. Gary Miller. Who this person is, we do not know, but he has gained quite a bit of popularity among the cyber-ummah. The Global Conspiracy cannot continue to lead people astray with enemies like Shaykh Gary Miller. Thus we have called on the Dajjal, alaihee salaam, to write a response to this powerful Muslim.

First and foremost, I want to say now what I have said to all those Muslims who pushed me to read Dr. Miller's writings: It is a fallacy to argue that Islam is true because some doctor says it is. This is essentially argumentum ad verecundiam. Furthermore, much of this is the miracle of reinterpretation, and nothing more. Regardless, many Muslims have continued to push what I consider to be nothing more than Islamic apolegetics, or extreme dawaganda. With out any further introduction from myself, here is one Atheist's response to Dr. Gary Miller.

One thing which surprises non-Muslims who are examining the book very closely is that the Qur'an does not appear to them to be what they expected.
 

My Comments: Dr. Miller is obviously only setting the tone here, so it might be a bit premature to start criticizing what he wrote. However, Dr. Miller is already getting ready to stereotype the non-Muslim. Let it be known here that there are a few non-Muslims who have read the Qur'an, and are familiar with Islam, and are not at all convinced (particularly apostates). Also, just for the record, I've read the Qur'an, and my opinion is that it is nothing more than an Arab slant on the folklore of the Jews and Christians; furthermore I consider it a poorly compiled text, from a wholly human origin, of a plurality of sources.

What they assume is that they have an old book which came fourteen centuries ago from the Arabian desert; and they expect that the book should look something like that - an old book from the desert. And then they find out that it does not resemble what they expected at all. Additionally, one of the first things that some people assume is that because it is an old book which comes from the desert, it should talk about the desert. Well the Qur'an does talk about the desert - some of its imagery describes the desert; but it also talks about the sea - what it's like to be in a storm on the sea.

Some years ago, the story came to us in Toronto about a man who was in the merchant marine and made his living on the sea. A Muslim gave him a translation of the Qur'an to read. The merchant marine knew nothing about the history of Islam but was interested in reading the Qur'an. When he finished reading it, he brought it back to the Muslim and asked, "This Muhammad, was he a sailor?" He was impressed at how accurately the Qur'an describes a storm on a sea. When he was told, "No as a matter of fact, Muhammad lived in the desert," that was enough for him. He embraced Islam on the spot.

He was so impressed with the Qur'an's description because he had been in a storm on the sea, and he knew that whoever had written that description had also been in a storm on the sea. The description of "a wave, over it a wave, over it clouds" (Surah Nur, 24:40) was not what someone imagining a storm on a sea to be like would have written; rather, it was written by someone who knew what a storm on the sea was like. This is one example of how the Qur'an is not tied to certain place and time. Certainly, the scientific ideas expressed in it also do not seem to originate from the desert fourteen centuries ago.
 

My comments: While undoubtedly every religion has people who convert for numerous reasons, I find this story to be a bit suspect.  No name is given, rather we are just supposed to accept Islam's validity on the word of some sailor. The problem here is that this hypothetical sailor was told that the book was brought forth by some man in the desert. As has been said elsewhere on this site, we have no grounds on which we can claim Muhammad alone (or with the help of some celestial being) brought about the Qur'an. Whomever put forth the above quote cited in the Qur'an could have been a merchant who had come into contact with sailors, or had himself been in the sea once. It could also be something taken from Arabic poetry. There are numerous possibilities, but Dr. Miller fallaciously tries to set the tone for bifurcation, where this verse either came from some all knowing deity, or a man living in the desert.

Many centuries before the onset of Muhammad's prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet; interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur'an (Surah Saba', 34:3) which states:

"He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that..."

Another example of what one might expect to find in an "old book" that touches upon the subject of health or medicine is outdated remedies or cures. Various historical sources state that the Prophet (s) gave some advice about health and hygiene, yet most of these pieces of advice are not contained in the Qur'an. At first glance, to the non-Muslims this appears to be a negligent omission. They cannot understand why Allah would not "include" such helpful information in the Qur'an. Some Muslims attempt to explain this absence with the following argument: "Although the Prophet's advice was sound and applicable to the time in which he lived, Allah, in His infinite wisdom, knew that there would come later medical and scientific advances which would make the Prophet's advice appear outdated. When later discoveries occurred, people might say that such information contradicted that which the Prophet (s) had given. Thus, since Allah would never allow any opportunity for the non-Muslims to claim that the Qur'an contradicts itself or the teachings of the Prophet (s), He only included in the Qur'an information and examples which could stand the test of time." However, when one examines the true realities of the Qur'an in terms of its existence as a divine revelation, the entire matter is quickly brought into its proper perspective, and the error in such argumentation becomes clear and understandable.

It must be understood that the Qur'an is a divine revelation, and as such, all information in it is of divine origin. Allah revealed the Qur'an from Himself. It is the words of Allah, which existed before creation, and thus nothing can be added, subtracted or altered. In essence, the Qur'an existed and was complete before the creation of Prophet Muhammad (s), so it could not possibly contain any of the Prophet's own words or advice. An inclusion of such information would clearly contradict the purpose for which the Qur'an exists, compromise its authority and render it inauthentic as a divine revelation.
 

My comments: Before we get to Dr. Miller's point on honey below, I want to comment on the above paragraph. It is  clear that Dr. Miller's logic is working in reverse order, thus this becomes an article strictly for the Muslims. Dr. Miller wants us to understand "that the Qur'an is a divine revelation," but Dr. Miller has not proven this. He has not proven the existence of any divine being, much less Allah, and this is a problem, as he must first prove Allah's existence before he can start attributing texts to Him/Her. In short, Dr. Miller is seeking to prove that the Qur'an is from God, but he's using his assumption that the Qur'an is from God as a base. He is assuming his conclusion, and that is a circular argument.

Consequently, there was no "home remedies" in the Qur'an which one could claim to be outdated; nor does it contain any man's view about what is beneficial to health, what food is best to eat, or what will cure this or that disease. In fact, the Qur'an only mentions one item dealing with medical treatment, and it is not in dispute by anyone. It states that in honey there is healing. And certainly, I do not think that there is anyone who will argue with that!
 

My comments: One might wonder why this is even in this essay. To claim that there is healing in honey is essentially to offer a home remedy. This offers nothing in terms of proof of divine origin. There are Native Americans living in the Amazon, under conditions that today's modern Westerner might call "primitive." In fact, these people live lives that are even less advanced than the life of those living in seventh century Arabia! However, these people know many local and natural remedies that even some of today's modern scientists do not know. The fact that ancient people know about natural healing techniques is in no way grounds to assume that they acquired this knowledge from a divine source. Healing in honey, what's the point?

If one assumes that the Qur'an is the product of a man's mind, then one would expect it to reflect some of what was going on in the mind of the man who "composed" it. In fact, certain encyclopedias and various books claim that the Qur'an was the product of hallucinations that Muhammad underwent. If these claims are true - if it indeed originated from some psychological problems in Muhammad's mind - then evidence of this would be apparent in the Qur'an. Is there such evidence? In order to determine whether or not there is, one must first identify what things would have been going on in his mind at that time and then search for these thoughts and reflections in the Qur'an.
 

My comments: Again, Dr. Miller is trying to set the tone for a bifucation fallacy. He wants us to believe that if the Qur'an was not from his deity, then it was from Muhammad. However, all information we have on Muhammad, just like the claim that Muhammad played a role in the Qur'an being "revealed," is from the highly tendentious ahadith hearsay accounts. As far as this Atheist is concerned, saying the Qur'an is solely from Muhammad is like saying the Torah is solely from Moses. The literary style of the text points, instead, to it being a compilation of variant traditions, and not the work of one man (or one deity for that matter).

It is common knowledge that Muhammad (s) had a very difficult life. All of his daughters died before him except one, and he had a wife of several years who was very dear and important to him, who not only proceeded him in death but died at a very critical period of his life. As a matter of fact, she must have been quite a woman because when the first revelation came to him, he ran home to her, afraid. Certainly, even today one would have a hard time trying to find an Arab who would tell you, "I was so afraid that I ran home to my wife." They just aren't that way. Yet Muhammad (s) felt comfortable enough with his wife to be able to do that. That's how influential and strong woman she was. Although these examples are only a few of the subjects that would have been on Muhammad's mind, they are sufficient in intensity to prove my point.
 

My comments: It is important to note that Dr. Miller has not proven any of the above to be true. This is nothing more than the claims put forth in the sira literature, and various ahadith. Dr. Miller has read the tendentious accounts that allegedly record Muhammad's life, and he has accepted them on blind faith. Assuming that the ahadith tell us something about Muhammad is as naive as assuming that the gospels tell us something about Jesus. In both cases the source is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a biography; rather it is merely popular oral tradition that revolved around a local folk hero. However, Dr. Miller is trying to build upon this shaky base, and after it's all done, one gets the impression that the fallacy of petitio principii has been committed.

The Qur'an does not mention any of these things - not the death of his children, not the death of his beloved companion and wife, not his fear of the initial revelations, which he so beautifully shared with his wife - nothing; yet these topics must have hurt him, bothered him, and caused him pain and grief during periods of his life. Indeed, if the Qur'an was a product of his psychological reflections, then these subjects, as well as others, would be prevalent or at least mentioned throughout.
 
 

My comments: Dr. Miller is being duplicitous. It is later in this very same essay that he makes the claim that the Qur'an devotes an entire surah to Abu Lahab, who was allegedly Muhammad's uncle. Whether this "Abu Lahab" was an historical character or not it irrelevant at this point. Dr. Miller sides with the traditionalist belief that this was Muhammad's uncle, thus the good doctor cannot have it both ways. Either Muhammad kept his personal life out of the Qur'an, or he devoted an entire chapter to chastizing some uncle who ridiculed him. The 111th surah of the Qur'an actually tells us nothing about this "Abu Lahab" character; rather all information comes from the aforementioned ahadith hearsay accounts. Still, if Dr. Miller is going to claim that he was indeed the uncle of the man who brought about the Qur'an, then that contradicts the claim made in the paragraph above.

A truly scientific approach to the Qur'an is possible because the Qur'an offers something that is not offered by other religious scriptures, in particular, and other religions, in general. It is what scientists demand. Today there are many people who have ideas and theories about how the universe works. These people are all over the place, but the scientific community does not even bother to listen to them. This is because within the last century the scientific community has demanded a test of falsification. They say, "If you have theory, do not bother us with it unless you bring with that theory a way for us to prove whether you are wrong or not."

Such a test was exactly why the scientific community listened to Einstein towards the beginning of the century. He came with a new theory and said, "I believe the universe works like this; and here are three ways to prove whether I am wrong!" So the scientific community subjected his theory to the tests, and within six years it passed all three. Of course, this does not prove that he was great, but it proves that he deserved to be listened to because he said, "This is my idea; and if you want to try to prove me wrong, do this or try that."

This is exactly what the Qur'an has - falsification tests. Some are old (in that they have already been proven true), and some still exist today. Basically it states, "If this book is not what it claims to be, then all you have to do is this or this or this to prove that it is false." Of course, in 1400 years no one has been able to do "This or this or this," and thus it is still considered true and authentic.
 

My comments: In just a moment we will look at these alleged "falsification tests," but first I want to comment on this idea in general. Like all religious apologists, Dr. Miller is putting forth the insinuation that his religion has been validated. The reality is, Dr. Miller is only reinterpreting his text to conform to modern scientific theories, or he is commenting on the various ambiguous challenges found in the Qur'an. The Islamic folklore has not been supported with evidence, rather its believers accept the tenets of the religion on faith. There are numerous claims about virgin births, talking babies, men who turn sticks into snakes, and other absurdities, and no proof has been put forth to support these claims. Instead of offering proof, the Muslim, like their Judeo-Christian counterparts, will try to give excuses for why they don't have to present evidence for their fantastic tales. If you're going to accept these stories on faith, that's fine, but no proof is still no proof. If you want to claim that your religion has been validated, present your evidence.

I suggest to you that the next time you get into dispute with someone about Islam and he claims that he has the truth and that you are in darkness, you leave all other arguments at first and make this suggestion. Ask him, "Is there any falsification test in your religion? Is there anything in your religion that would prove you are wrong if I could prove to you that it exists - anything?" Well, I can promise right now that people will not have anything - no test, no proof, nothing! This is because they do not carry around the idea that they should not only present what they believe but should also offer others a chance to prove they're wrong. However, Islam does that.
 

My comments: What Dr. Miller is not telling us is that one has to play by Islamic rules when trying to refute or support Islam. There are certain questions we cannot ask (such as "did Moses exist?"). Furthermore, while Dr. Miller does not say it outright, the above paragraph gives one the impression that this is simply Islamic countermissionary tactics to be used against Christians. This has nothing to do with Atheism. Dr. Miller does not have to ask the Atheists if their religion has a falsification test, as Atheism is not an organized religion in any sense; rather it is merely a statement of disbelief. Why play games with falsification tests that were organized by the believers themselves? In logic, the rules are simple: the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. If Dr. Miller wants to make fantastic claims about Muhammad and his flying horse, a man who recieved messages from heaven via a celestial being named Jibreel, then it is incumbent on Dr. Miller to present some proof. Case closed.

A perfect example of how Islam provides man with a chance to verify it authenticity and "prove it wrong" occurs in the 4th chapter. And quiet honestly, I was very surprised when I first discovered this challenge. It states (Surah An-Nisa, 4:82):

"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

Another interesting attitude that exists in the Qur'an repeatedly deals with its advice to the reader. The Qur'an informs the reader about different facts and then gives the advice: "If you want to know more about this or that, or if you doubt what is said, then you should ask those who have knowledge." This too is a surprising attitude. It is not usual to have a book that comes from someone without training in geography, botany, biology, etc., who discusses these subjects and then advises the reader to ask men of knowledge if he doubts anything. Yet in every age there have been Muslims who have followed the advice of the Qur'an and made surprising discoveries. If one looks to the works of Muslim scientists of many centuries ago, one will find them full of quotations from the Qur'an. These works state that they did research in such a place, looking for something. And they affirm that the reason they looked in such and such a place was that the Qur'an pointed them in that direction.
 

My comments: Argumentum ad verecundiam again? We're nearly a quater of the way through, and Dr. Miller's methods have been nothing but a bunch of fallacies. So medieval scientists, who happened to be Muslim, said their holy writ was their inspiration. Pardon my pessimism, but what's the point? I think a believer in religion is expected to be inspired by their respective book.

For example, the Qur'an mentions man's origin and then tells the reader, "Research it!" It gives the reader a hint where to look and then states that one should find out more about it. This is the kind of thing that Muslims today largely seem to overlook - but not always, as illustrated in the following example.

A few years ago, a group of men in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia collected all of the verses in the Qur'an which discuss embryology - the growth of the human being in the womb. They said, "Here is what the Qur'an says. Is it the truth?" In essence, they took the advice of the Qur'an: "Ask the men who know." They chose, as it happened, a non-Muslim who is a professor of embryology at the University of Toronto. His name is Keith Moore, and he is the author of textbooks on embryology - a world expert on the subject. They invited him to Riyadh and said, "This is what the Qur'an says about your subject. Is it true? What can you tell us?"
 

My comments: In science, the way to prove something is via repeated experiments. It seems the Muslim apologists have the repetitive parts down, but what they're repeating does not count. They are merely repeating the "a scientist believes it" mantra, ad nauseum. Keith Moore may or may not believe the Qur'an is of divine origin. Whether he does or not is irrelevant. Simply pointing to a scientist and assuming his opinion becomes proof because he is a scientist is a fallacy. Maybe Dr. Miller would like to cite some scientific journals rather than a single scientist on the fringe, who makes a few dollars selling books to the gullible masses. There are numerous scientists pushing kook theories to make a few bucks. Go see Dean Radin, PH.D., a professor at the University of Nevada, who writes books on how telepathy, psychokinesis, jinxes, and other Flim Flam, are all real. The fact that Professor Radin has a PH.D. does not prove these superstitions true.

While he was in Riyadh, they gave him all the help that he needed in translation and all of the cooperation for which he asked. And he was so surprised at what he found that he changed his textbooks. In fact, in the second edition of one of his books, called Before We Are Born... in the section about the history of embryology, he included some material that was not in the first edition because of what he found in the Qur'an was ahead of its time and that those who believe in the Qur'an know what other people do not know.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage (Surahs al-Hajj 22:5; al-Mu'minun 23:14; and Ghafir 40:67) - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks.

Although the aforementioned example of man researching information contained in the Qur'an deals with a non-Muslim, it is still valid because he is one of those who is knowledgeable in the subject being researched. Had some layman claimed that what the Qur'an says about embryology is true, then one would not necessarily have to accept his word. However, because of the high position, respect, and esteem man gives scholars, one naturally assumes that if they research a subject and arrive at a conclusion based on that research, then the conclusion is valid.

Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline read: "SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT PRAYER BOOK!" It seems obvious from this example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, "Don't you think that maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe they were not scientists, maybe they did some crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things." The professor immediately pointed out to him that he [i.e., the reporter] had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and that had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, "It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago. They could not have seen it!"
 
 

My comments: Now this is an insignificant point, but I really which Dr. Miller would cite references. I took a look in the LEXIS-NEXIS database available to Universitty students, and I was unable to find the articles Dr. Miller is referring to. By no means does this mean these articles don't exist, but I'm kind of skeptical.

All of the descriptions in the Qur'an of the appearance of the embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, "Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad (s) and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory." In fact, when he was asked, "How do you explain this information in the Qur'an?" Dr. Moore's reply was, "It could only have been divinely revealed!"
 
 

My comments: What a touching story, though it still smells of argumentum ad verecundiam, which is rather common among Muslim apologists. Essentially, Dr. Miller is trying to make an argument from Keith Moore's personal incredulity! First of all, the observation that at one stage the embryo looks like a "leech" (or "chewed up lump") is very ambiguous. Moore, according to Dr. Miller, asserts that this is a reference to a stage that is microscopic, but the Qur'an does not state the time frame, thus Moore is interpreting this into the text. At the point when the embryo is first visible to the human eye (say, when it is roughly two or three milimeters long), what might this look like to a person of the ancient world? If it is small enough, and red enough, an aborted foetus may very well look like a "leech" or "chewed up lump." Furthermore, there are numerous pre-Islamic sources of information of embryology, and some of the Qur'an seems to be from these sources (particularly Hippocrates). I took a peek into The Complete Works of Aristotle, (Princeton, 1995) 2 Vols, and while Aristotle made a few errors, alot of the information therein was amazing considering that it was written circa the fourth century BCE. One example is the following:  "When the material secreted by the female in the uterus has been fixed by the seme of the male [...] the more solid part comes together, the liquid is separated off from it, and the earthy parts solidify membranes all around it[.]"  [Complete Works, Vol. 1, p. 1148, Generation of Animals, Book 11, citation 739b 20-27] That is pretty amazing (depending on how you interpret it), and elsewhere Aristotle spoke of how he thought that the female contribution to procreation might be something found within the menstrual fluid; this could be seen as a reference to ovaries, something never mentioned by the "amazing" Qur'an. Furthermore Aristotle even knew the about the significance of the umbilical cord (another thing the "amazing" Qur'an failed to mention). Finally, Aristotle cited other writings on the issue of embryology, speaking of "acient nature philosophers" (p. 1151) with whom he disagreed, the works of "the Anatomies" and "the Histories" (p. 1157), as well as the disagreements (debates?) of Empedocles, Democritus, and Anaxagoras (p. 1182). All this, combined with the Garbha Upanishad, Ayurveda, Tibetan medical tankas, as well as the works of Galen and the aforementioned Hippocrates, helps us see the greater picture with regard to pre-islamic understandings of embryology, and what we find in the Qur'an comes off as not beeing all that special afterall.

One of Professor Moore's colleagues, Marshall Johnson, deals extensively with geology at the University of Toronto. He became very interested in the fact that the Qur'an's statements about embryology are accurate, and so he asked Muslims to collect everything contained in the Qur'an which deals with his speciality. Again people were very surprised at the findings. Since there are a vast number subjects discussed in the Qur'an, it would certainly require a large amount of time to exhaust each subject. It suffices for the purpose of this discussion to state that the Qur'an makes very clear and concise statements about various subjects while simultaneously advising the reader to verify the authenticity of these statements with research by scholars in those subjects. And as illustrated by the previous examples of embryology and geology, the Qur'an has clearly emerged authentic.
 
 

My comments: Or so Dr. Miller claims, though he gives us no examples (for fear that the subject was too exhaustive, even for his long essay). I have only seen a few such attempts to explain geology in the Qur'an, and one had to do with the verse from surah an-Nabaa 78:7 which describes mountains as "pegs" (awtaadaa), and another from surah an-Nahl 16:15 which insinuates that these mountains keep the ground from quaking. Muslim apologists have actually claimed that mountains hold continental plates together, but this goes against geological discoveries with regards to mountains. The reality is that where continental plates collide and push against each other, they tend to buckle up and rise, forming mountains. The Himalayas formed when India crashed into the south of Asia. They're not holding anything together, or anything like that. Now, some might say I set up a strawman here, but the good doctor didn't give me anything to work with.

Undoubtedly, there is an attitude in the Qur'an which is not found anywhere else. It is interesting how when the Qur'an provides information, it often tells the reader, "You did not know this before." Indeed, there is no scripture that exists which makes that claim. All of the other ancient writings and scriptures that people have do give a lot of information, but they always state where the information came from.

For example, when the Bible discusses ancient history, it states that this king lived here, this one fought in a certain battle, another one had so may sons, etc. Yet it always stipulates that if you want more information, then you should read the book of so and so because that is where the information came from. In contrast to this concept, the Qur'an provides the reader with information and states that this information is something new. Of course, there always exists the advice to research the information provided and verify its authenticity. It is interesting that such a concept was never challenged by non-Muslims fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, the Makkans who hated the Muslims, and time and time again they heard such revelations claiming to bring new information; yet, they never spoke up and said, "This is not new. We know where Muhammad got this information. We learned this at school." They could never challenge its authenticity because it really was new!
 
 

My comments: Dr. Miller is building his argument on shaky grounds. We have no real information on the polytheists of pre-Islamic Makkah (whom I lovingly call the "Jahiloonytoonies"). This talk of challenges in the Qur'an is silly, because we don't know what the critics really said, and we don't know how educated they were.

In concurrence with the advice given in the Qur'an to research information (even if it is new), when 'Umar was caliph, he chose a group of men and sent them to find the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn. Before the Qur'anic revelation, the Arabs had never heard of such a wall, but because the Qur'an described it, they were able to discover it. As a matter of fact, it is now located in what is called Durbend in the Soviet Union.
 
 

My comments: Now this is simply an outright lie for the sake of dawaganda! Notice that Dr. Miller does not give any references from which we can check this for ourselves, nor does he tell us anything about this amazing iron wall from surah al-Kahf 18:89-97. The reality is, the claims about this wall are so embarrassing, that most Muslims today claim it already fell down (an example would be the writings of Shaykh Imran Hossein, et cetera). The Qur'an claims this was a mighty wall, made with iron blocks, that could not be dug under, or climbed over. No such wall exists at this time, and one wonders why Dr. Miller would make such a claim.

It must be stressed here that the Qur'an is accurate about many, many things, but accuracy does not necessarily mean that a book is a divine revelation. In fact, accuracy is only one of the criteria for divine revelations. For instance, the telephone book is accurate, but that does not mean that it is divinely revealed. The real problem lies in that one must establish some proof of the source the Qur'an's information. The emphasis is in the other direction, in that the burden of proof is on the reader. One cannot simply deny the Qur'an's authenticity without sufficient proof. If, indeed, one finds a mistake, then he has the right to disqualify it. This is exactly what the Qur'an encourages.
 
 

My comments: Once again Dr. Miller is shifting the burden of proof. If he is claiming that the Qur'an is from a divine source, it is incumbent upon him to present some proof!

Once a man came up to me after a lecture I delivered in South Africa. He was very angry about what I had said, and so he claimed, "I am going to go home tonight and find a mistake in the Qur'an." Of course, I said, "Congratulations. That is the most intelligent thing that you have said." Certainly, this is the approach Muslims need to take with those who doubt the Qur'an's authenticity, because the Qur'an itself offers the same challenge. And inevitably, after accepting it's challenge and discovering that it is true, these people will come to believe it because they could not disqualify it. In essence, the Qur'an earns their respect because they themselves have had to verify its authenticity.

An essential fact that cannot be reiterated enough concerning the authenticity of the Qur'an is that one's inability to explain a phenomenon himself does not require his acceptance of the phenomenon's existence or another person's explanation of it. Specifically, just because one cannot explain something does not mean that one has to accept someone else's explanation. However, the person's refusal of other explanations reverts the burden of proof back on himself to find a feasible answer. This general theory applies to numerous concepts in life, but fits most wonderfully with the Qur'anic challenge, for it creates a difficulty for one who says, "I do not believe it." At the onset of refusal one immediately has an obligation to find an explanation himself if he feels others' answers are inadequate.

In fact, in one particular Qur'anic verse which I have always seen mistranslated into English, Allah mentions a man who heard the truth explained to him. It states that he was derelict in his duty because after he heard the information, he left without checking the verity of what he had heard. In other words, one is guilty if he hears something and does not research it and check to see whether it is true. One is supposed to process all information and decide what is garbage to be thrown out and what is worthwhile information to be kept and benefitted from immediately or even at a later date.

One cannot just let it rattle around in his head. It must be put in the proper categories and approached from that point of view. For example, if the information is still speculatory, then one must discern whether it's closer to being true or false. But if all the facts have been presented, then one must decide absolutely between these two options. And even if one is not positive about the authenticity of the information, he is still required to process all the information and make the admission that he just does not know for sure. Although this last point appears to be futile, in actuality, it is beneficial to the arrival at a positive conclusion at a later time in that it forces the person to at least recognize, research and review the facts.

This familiarity with the information will give the person "the edge" when future discoveries are made and additional information is presented. The important thing is that one deals with the facts and does not simply discard them out of empathy and disinterest.

The real certainty about the truthfulness of the Qur'an is evident in the confidence which is prevalent throughout it; and this confidence comes from a different approach - "Exhausting the alternatives." In essence, the Qur'an states, "This book is a divine revelation; if you do not believe that, then what is it?" In other words, the reader is challenged to come up with some other explanation. Here is a book made of paper and ink. Where did it come from? It says it is a divine revelation; if it is not, then what is its source? The interesting fact is that no one has yet come up with an explanation that works. In fact, all alternatives have bee exhausted. As has been well established by non-Muslims, these alternatives basically are reduced to two mutually exclusive schools of thought, insisting on one or the other.

On one hand, there exists a large group of people who have researched the Qur'an for hundreds of years and who claim, "One thing we know for sure - that man, Muhammad (s), thought he was a prophet. He was crazy!" They are convinced that Muhammad (s) was fooled somehow. Then on the other hand, there is a group which alleges, "Because of this evidence, one thing we know for sure is that that man, Muhammad (s) was a liar!" Ironically, these two groups never seem to get together without contradicting.
 
 

My comments: It seems Dr. Miller is erecting a strawman. He is drawing us into a discussion on Muhammad, a man we have no reliable information on, so that we will have no choice but to argue over the stories put forth in the tendentious ahadith collections. What about the third group, which holds to the theory that the Qur'an is from a plurality of sources?

In fact, many references to Islam usually claim both theories. They start out by stating that Muhammad (s) was crazy and then end by saying he was a liar. They never seem to realize that he could not have been both! For example, if one is deluded and really thinks that he is a prophet, then he does not sit up late at night planning, "How will I fool the people tomorrow so that they think I am a prophet?" He truly believes that he is a prophet, and he trusts that the answer will be given to him by revelation.

As a matter of fact, a great deal of the Qur'an came in answer to questions. Someone would ask Muhammad (s) a question, and the revelation would come with the answer to it. Certainly, if one is crazy and believes that an angel put words in his ear, then when someone asks him a question, he thinks that the angel will give him the answer. Because he is crazy, he really thinks that. He does not tell someone to wait a short while and then run to his friends and ask them, "Does anyone know the answer?" This type of behavior is characteristic of one who does not believe that he is a prophet. What the non-Muslims refuse to accept is that you cannot have it both ways. One can be deluded, or he can be a liar. He can br either one or neither one, but he certainly cannot be both! The emphasis is on the fact that they are unquestionably mutually exclusive personality traits.

The following scenario is a good example of the kind of circle that non-Muslims go around in constantly. If you ask one of them, "What is the origin of the Qur'an?" He tells you that it originated from the mind of a man who was crazy. Then you ask him, "If it came from his head, then where did he get the information contained in it? Certainly the Qur'an mentions many things with which the Arabs were not familiar." So in order to explain the fact which you bring him, he changes his position and says, "Well, maybe he was not crazy. Maybe some foreigner brought him the information. So he lied and told people that he was a prophet." At this point then you have to ask him, "If Muhammad was a liar, then where did he get his confidence? Why did he behave as though he really thought he was a prophet?" Finally backed into a corner, like a cat he quickly lashes out with the first response that comes to his mind. Forgetting that he has already exhausted that possibility, he claims, "Well, maybe he wasn't a liar. He was probably crazy and really thought that he was a prophet." And thus he begins the futile cycle again.

As has already been mentioned, there is much information contained in the Qur'an whose source cannot be attributed to anyone other than Allah. For example, who told Muhammad (s) about the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn - a place hundreds of miles to the north? Who told him about embryology? When people assemble facts such as these, if they are not willing to attribute their existence to a divine source, they automatically resort to the assumption someone brought Muhammad (s) the information and that he used it to fool the people. However, this theory can easily be disproved with one simple question: "If Muhammad (s) was a liar, where did he get his confidence? Why did he tell some people out right to their face what others could never say?" Such confidence depends completely upon being convinced that one has a true divine revelation.
 
 

My comments: Who told Muhammad about Dhul Qarnein's wall? When did we agree that Muhammad ever revealed this, or even that this wall exists? Dr. Miller still needs to prove that there is such a wall. Simply claiming that it is in the former Soviet Union will not do. He needs to prove it. Who told Muhammad about embryology? When did we agree that it was Muhammad who wrote those verses with regard to embryology? Furthermore, there is nothing special about those verses; rather Dr. Miller had to cite the reinterpretations of Keith Moore, after the fact, to make it an issue at all. Who told Muhammad about event X? The argument from personal incredulity; Dr. Miller fallaciously assumes that if he presents a question we don't have an answer to, his skygod hypothesis automatically wins by default. Who told the author of the Qur'an about all the miraculous things? Why it was Aliens from another galaxy of course. What's my proof? None. Just like Dr. Miller has not presented any proof that his hypothesized deity exists. You have to prove Allah exists before you attribute a work to him, otherwise you're assuming your conclusion, and that's a circular argument. Circulus in demonstrando.

Prophet Muhammad (s) had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet (s) speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad (s) and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (Surah al-Lahab, 111) was revealed about him. It distinctly stated that he would go to the fire (i.e., Hell). In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam.

In essence, Muhammad (s) said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause.

How could Muhammad (s) possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he (i.e., Muhammad) was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.
 
 

My comments: This is a bit like asking "how did Jesus know that Judas would be his betrayer if he wasn't the son of God?" or "how did Krisna know that Arjuna would win the battle at Kurukshetra if he wasn't God incarnate?" Dr. Miller is begging the question, and he's building his argument on the shaky premise that his unsupported claims are true. The reality is that surah al-Lahab tells us nothing of note about this Abu Lahab character. As was said before, all information regarding this character comes from the tendentious ahadith literature, a great deal of which was compiled more than two centuries after the time they are allegedly reporting. One wonders if this Abu Lahab character really existed rather than this whole story being concocted in order to explain a rather vague chapter in the Qur'an (surah al-Lahab, the 111th chapter). Now, it is not my duty to disprove the existence of Krishna, or Abu Lahab. If Dr. Miller wants to discuss this "father of flames" (the translation of "Abu Lahab"), he should present some evidence that he was an historical character.

Another example of the confidence which Muhammad (s) had in his own prophethood and consequently in the divine protection of himself and his message is when he left Makkah and hid in a cave with Abu Bakr (ra) during their emigration to Madeenah. The two clearly saw people coming to kill them, and Abu Bakr was afraid. Certainly, if Muhammad (s) was a liar, a forger and one who was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a prophet, one would have expected him to say in such a circumstance to his friend, "Hey, Abu Bakr, see if you can find a back way out of this cave." Or "Squat down in that corner over there and keep quiet." Yet, in fact, what he said to Abu Bakr clearly illustrated his confidence. He told him, "Relax! Allah is with us, and Allah will save us!" Now, if one knows that he is fooling the people, where does one get this kind of attitude? In fact, such a frame of mind is not characteristic of a liar or a forger at all.

So, as has been previously mentioned, the non-Muslims go around and around in a circle, searching for a way out - some way to explain the findings in the Qur'an without attributing them to their proper source. On one hand, they tell you on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, "The man was a liar," and on the other hand, on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday they tell you, "He was crazy." What they refuse to accept is that one cannot have it both ways; yet they need both theories, both excuses to explain the information in the Qur'an.
 
 

My comment: As has already been explained, there are alternative theories and explanations which Dr. Miller is avoiding (or is possibley not aware of). Furthermore, this essay is about the "amazing" Qur'an, yet the above story about Muhammad in the cave is not found in the Qur'an. It's courtesy of the "amazing" sira literature, biographies written by men who lived centuries after the traditional timeframe given for the life of their subject.

About seven years ago, I had a minister over to my home. In the particular room which we were sitting there was a Qur'an on the table, face down, and so the minister was not aware of which book it was. In the midst of a discussion, I pointed to the Qur'an and said, "I have confidence in that book." Looking at the Qur'an but not knowing which book it was, he replied, "Well, I tell you, if that book is not the Bible, it was written by a man!" In response to his statement, I said, "Let me tell you something about what is in that book." And in just three to four minutes, I related to him a few things contained in the Qur'an. After just those three or four minutes, he completely changed his position and declared, "You are right. A man did not write that book. The Devil wrote it!" Indeed, possessing such an attitude is very unfortunate - for many reasons. For one thing, it is a very quick and cheap excuse. It is an instant exit out of an uncomfortable situation.
 
 

My comment: Actually, the Minister's claim is relevant considering the twisted logic Dr. Miller has put forth in this article. This actually touches home for me, because I had a similar experience when I committed apostasy from Christianity. When I had my falling out with the New York City Church of Christ (Baruch College chapter, which I joined and left TWICE!), I asked one of the church brothers the following question: What proof do you have that the Bible is not the word of Satan? It was indeed a fallacious question on my part, but the brother's only answer was to cite a verse from the Bible that said scripture is not the word of man, but inspired from above (i.e. "the Bible is the word of God because it says so"). Now, if I'm going to claim the Bible or Qur'an is kalimatush-Shaytan, it is incumbent on me to present some evidence. However, in this whole essay Dr. Miller has been using circular arguments to support his assertion that the Qur'an is from Allah. He's been begging the question with illogical queries along the line of "if it's not from Allah, then who?" Well Dr. Miller, if we're just going to name mythical creatures off the top of our heads, I'll say the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad by way of three green elves from Dimension X. Care to prove me wrong?

As a matter of fact, there is a famous story in the Bible that mentions how one day some of the Jews were witnesses when Jesus (pbuh) raised a man from the dead. The man had been dead for four days, and when Jesus arrived, he simply said, "Get up!" and the man arose and walked away. At such a sight, some of the Jews who were watching said disbelievingly, "This is the Devil. The Devil helped him!" Now this story is rehearsed very often in churches all over the world, and people cry big tears over it, saying, "Oh, if I had been there, I would not have been as stupid as the Jews!" Yet, ironically, these people do exactly what the Jews did when in just three minutes you show them only a small part of the Qur'an and all they can say is, "Oh, the Devil did it. The devil wrote that book!" Because they are truly backed into a corner and have no other viable answer, they resort to the quickest and cheapest excuse available.
 
 

My comments: One wonders if Dr. Miller really believes that Prophet Jesus Ibn Yahweh raised some four day old corpse from the dead (imagine the stench!). Regardless, what Dr. Miller fails to realize is that there is just as much evidence that Satan, the IPU, the aforementioned three green elves, space aliens, or Santa Claus wrote the Qur'an as there is that it was written by Allah. Dr. Miller has been begging the question all the way through this essay, assuming his conclusion at every turn. His basic argument is "the Qur'an has information that couldn't have been from Muhammad, therefore it's from Allah." Why is it from Allah? Since when did we agree Allah exists? If we are going to just pull phantasms out of our hat, why not Satan, or Vishnu?

Another example of people's use of this weak stance can be found in the Makkans' explanation of the source of Muhammad's message. They used to say, "The devils bring Muhammad that Qur'an!" But just as with every suggestion made, the Qur'an gives the answer. One verse (Surah Al-Qalam 68: 51-52) in particular states:

"And they say, 'Surely he is possessed [by jinn],' but it [i.e., the Qur'an] is not except a reminder to the worlds."

Thus it gives an argument in reply to such a theory. In fact, there are many arguments in the Qur'an in reply to the suggestion that devils brought Muhammad (s) his message. For example, in the 26th chapter Allah (SWT) clearly affirms:

"No evil ones have brought it [i.e., this revelation] down. It would neither be fitting for them, nor would they be able. Indeed they have been removed far from hearing." (Surah ash-Shu'ara 26:210-212)

"So when you recite the Qur'an seek refuge in Allah from Shaytan, the rejected."

Thanks be to Allah (SWT), Muslims do not have that attitude. Although Satan may have some abilities, they are a long way separated from the abilities of Allah. And no Muslim is a Muslim unless he believes that. It is common knowledge even among non-Muslims that the Devil can easily make mistakes, and it would be expected that he would contradict himself if and when he wrote a book. For indeed, the Qur'an states (Surah an-Nisa 4:82):

"Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

In conjunction with the excuses that non-Muslims advance in futile attempts to justify unexplainable verses in the Qur'an, there is another attack often rendered which seems to be a combination of the theories that Muhammad (s) was crazy and a liar. Basically, these people propose that Muhammad was insane, and as a result of his delusion, he lied to and misled people. There is a name for this in psychology. It is referred to as mythomania. It means simply that one tells lies and then believes them. This is what the non-Muslims say Muhammad (s) suffered from. But the only problem with this proposal is that one suffering from mythomania absolutely cannot deal with any facts, and yet the whole Qur'an is based entirely upon facts. Everything contained in it can be researched and established as true. Since facts are such a problem for a mythomaniac, when a psychologist tries to treat one suffering from that condition, he continually confronts him with facts.

For example, if one is mentally ill and claims, "I am the king of England," a psychologist does not say to him "No you aren't. You are crazy!" He just does not do that. Rather, he confronts him with facts and says, "O.K., you say you are the king of England. So tell me where the queen is today. And where is your prime minister? And where are your guards?" Now, when the man has trouble trying to deal with these questions, he tries to make excuses, saying "Uh... the queen... she has gone to her mother's. Uh... the prime minister... well he died." And eventually he is cured because he cannot deal with the facts. If the psychologist continues confronting him with enough facts, finally he faces the reality and says, "I guess I am not the king of England."

The Qur'an approaches everyone who reads it in very much the same way a psychologist treats his mythomania patient. There is a verse in the Qur'an (Surah Yunus 10:57) which states:

"O mankind, there has come to you an admonition [i.e., the Qur'an] from your Lord and a healing for what is in the hearts - and guidance and mercy for the believers."

It is this very sort of thing - confronting people with facts - that had captured the attention of many non-Muslims. In fact, there exists a very interesting reference concerning this subject in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. In an article under the subject of the Qur'an, the Catholic Church states:

"Over the centuries, many theories have been offered as to the origin of the Qur'an... Today no sensible man accepts any of these theories!!"

Indeed, the Qur'an is a problem for the Catholic Church. It states that it is revelation, so they study it. Certainly, they would love to find proof that it is not, but they cannot. They cannot find a viable explanation. But at least they are honest in their research and do not accept the first unsubstantiated interpretation which comes along.
 
 

My comments: This glaring statement just stares you in the face: "they are honest in their research and do not accept the first unsubstantiated interpretation which comes along." That's right, and that's why they don't believe the Qur'an is the word of God. Dr. Miller and his fellow apologists want to offer the Qur'an, and then come forth with totally unsupported explanations for questions only they think are relevant.

The Church states that in fourteen centuries it has not yet been presented a sensible explanation. At least it admits that the Qur'an is not an easy subject to dismiss. Certainly, other people are much less honest. They quickly say, "Oh, the Qur'an came from here. The Qur'an came from there." And they do not even examine the credibility of what they are stating most of the time.

Of course, such a statement by the Catholic Church leaves the everyday Christian in some difficulty. It just may be that he has his own ideas as to the origin of the Qur'an, but as a single member of the Church, he cannot really act upon his own theory. Such an action would be contrary to the obedience, allegiance and loyalty which the Church demands. By virtue of his membership, he must accept what the Catholic Church declares without question and establish its teachings as part of his everyday routine. So, in essence, if the Catholic Church as a whole is saying, "Do not listen to these unconfirmed reports about the Qur'an," then what can be said about the Islamic point of view? If even non-Muslims are admitting that there is something to the Qur'an - something that has to be acknowledged - then why are people so stubborn and defensive and hostile when Muslims advance the very same theory? This is certainly something for those with a mind to contemplate - something to ponder for those of understanding!
 
 

My comments: This shows the deep inferiority complex some Muslims have about Christians, who still outnumber the Muslims. Dr. Miller needs a vague quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, no doubt quoted out of context, to convince himself that Islam is valid. He needs Christianity to validate Islam. It would seem to me that the quote is saying that theories with regard to the precise origin of the Qur'an have, in the opinion of the author, come up lacking. Just the same, critical scholars have been unable to come up with the precise source of the Mahabharata. Does this mean this text is of divine origin? Of course not.

Recently, the leading intellectual in the Catholic Church - a man by the name of Hans - studied the Qur'an and gave his opinion of what he had read. This man has been around for some time, and he is highly respected in the Catholic Church, and after careful scrutiny, he reported his findings, concluding, "God has spoken to man through the man, Muhammad." Again this is a conclusion arrived at by a non-Muslim source - the very leading intellectual of the Catholic Church himself!

I do not think that the Pope agrees with him, but nonetheless, the opinion of such a noted, reputed public figure must carry some weight in defense of the Muslim position. He must be applauded for facing the reality that the Qur'an is not something which can be easily pushed aside and that, in fact God is the source of these words.

As is evident from the aforementioned information, all of the possibilities have been exhausted, so the chance of finding another possibility of dismissing the Qur'an is nonexistent.
 
 

My comments: Actually, just because one hypothetical "intellectual" Christian (we only get his first name, and no references) says the Qur'an is from God, does not automatically mean there are no other alternatives. The only thing that has been exhausted is the reply to this ad-nauseum argument of Dr. Miller, where he asks "If Allah didn't create the Qur'an, then who?" When did Dr. Miller even prove Allah exists?

If the book is not a revelation, then it is a deception; and if it is a deception, one must ask, "What is its origin? And where does it deceive us?" Indeed, the true answers to these questions shed light on the Qur'an's authenticity and silence the bitter unsubstantiated claims of the unbelievers.

Certainly, if people are going to insist that the Qur'an is a deception, then they must bring forth evidence to support such a claim. The burden of proof is on them, not us! One is never supposed to advance a theory without sufficient corroborating facts; so I say to them, "Show me one deception! Show me where the Qur'an deceives me! Show me, otherwise don't say that it is a deception!"
 
 

My comments: One wonders what Dr. Miller has a doctorate in. Has Dr. Miller ever studied logic? If Dr. Miller is going to claim the existence of beings named Allah, the burden of proof is on him! It is not the skeptics duty to disprove Allah's existence.

An interesting characteristic of the Qur'an is how it deals with surprising phenomena which relate not only to the past but to modern times as well. In essence, the Qur'an is not and old problem. It is still a problem even today - a problem to the non-Muslims that is. For everyday, every week, every year brings more and more evidence that the Qur'an is a force to be contended with - that its authenticity is no longer to be challenged! For example, one verse in the Qur'an (Surah al-Anbiya 21:30) reads:

"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder, and made from water every living thing? Will they not then believe?"

The Qur'an reveals the origin of the universe - how it began from one piece - and mankind continues to verify this revelation, even up to now. Additionally, the fact that all life originated from water would not have been an easy thing to convince people of fourteen centuries ago. Indeed, if 1400 years ago you had stood in the desert and told someone, "All of this, you see (pointing to yourself), is made up of mostly water," no one would have believed you. Proof of that was not available until the invention of the microscope. They had to wait to find out that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell, is made-up of 80% water. Nonetheless, the evidence did come, and once again the Qur'an stood the test of time.
 
 

My comments: As was stated by Sadiqi az-Zindiki, creation by divine fiat is not any kind of scientific explanation. The above is not much different from the Genesis story, where God separated the night from the day (or clove it asunder), and then the seas brought forth every living thing. To draw an analogy, some scientists, who are admittedly on the fringe, believe life may have started when space debris with simple organisms on it landed on earth. The theory is generally considered absurd, but if these scientists are vindicated, does this mean the Amazon people who believe that life fell from the stars got their information from whatever rain forest deities they believe in?

In reference to the falsification tests mentioned earlier, it is interesting to note that they, too, relate to both the past and the present. Some of them were used as illustrations of Allah's omnipotence and knowledge, while others continue to stand as challenges to the present day. An example of the former is the statement made in the Qur'an about Abu Lahab. It clearly illustrates that Allah, the Knower of the Unseen, knew that Abu Lahab would never change his ways and accept Islam. Thus Allah dictated that he would be condemned to the Hellfire forever. Such a chapter was both an illustration of Allah's divine wisdom and a warning to those who were like Abu Lahab.

An interesting example of the latter type of falsification tests contained in the Qur'an is the verse which mentions the relationship between the Muslims and the Jews. The verse is careful not to narrow its scope to the relationship between individual members of each religion, but rather, it summarizes the relationship between the two groups of people as a whole. In essence, the Qur'an states that the Christians will always treat the Muslims better than the Jews will treat the Muslims. Indeed, the full impact of such a statement can only be felt after careful consideration of the real meaning of such a verse. It is true that many Christians and many Jews have become Muslims, but as a whole, the Jewish community is to be viewed as an avid enemy of Islam. Additionally, very few people realize what such an open declaration in the Qur'an invites. In essence, it is an easy chance for the Jews to prove that the Qur'an is false - that it is not a divine revelation. All they have to do is organize themselves, treat the Muslims nicely for a few years and then say, "Now what does your holy book say about who are your best friends in the world - the Jews or the Christians? Look what we Jews have done for you!" That is all they have to do to disprove the Qur'an's authenticity, yet they have not done it in 1400 years. But, as always, the offer still stands open!
 
 

My comments: I think I've discovered a new fallacy, and I will now coin the term "argument from antisemetism." How does one determine if the Jews or Christians were nicer to the Muslims? While the issue of Zionism, in my humble opinion, has been an imperialist tragedy, the Jews have allowed, since 1967, the Muslims to pray at al-masjidul-Aksa. When the Christians took over Jerusalem briefly during the crusades, they attempted to kill all the Muslims. In the closing decade of the 15th century the Spanish forced all the Muslims in Spain to convert, otherwise they were executed or expelled. So one might make a case that the Jews, though savage to the Palestinians, were nicer to the Muslims they occupy than the Christians have been to the ones they occupy. One could also cite what the Orthodox Christian Serbs did to the Albanian Muslims, which is far worse than anything any occupying Jewish force has done to Muslims. This is a very subjective argument, but it seems one could make a case, using Dr. Miller's logic, to discredit the Qur'an.

All of the examples so far given concerning the various angles from which one can approach the Qur'an have undoubtedly been subjective in nature; however, there does exist another angle, among others, which is objective and whose basis is mathematical.

It is surprising how authentic the Qur'an becomes when one assembles what might be referred to as a list of good guesses. Mathematically, it can be explained using guessing and prediction examples. For instance, if a person has two choices (i.e., one is right, and one is wrong), and he closes his eyes and makes a choice, then half of the time (i.e., one time out of two) he will be right. Basically, he has a one in two chance, for he could pick the wrong choice, or he could pick the right choice.

Now if the same person has two situations like that (i.e., he could be right or wrong about situation number one, and he could be right or wrong about situation number two), and he closes his eyes and guesses, then he will only be right one-fourth of the time (i.e., one time out of four). He now has a one in four chance because now there are three ways for him to be wrong and only one way for him to be right. In simple terms, he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; or he could make the wrong choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two; or he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the wrong choice in situation number two; or he could make the right choice in situation number one and then make the right choice in situation number two.

Of course, the (only instance in which he could be totally right is the last scenario where he could guess correctly in both situations. The odds of his guessing completely correctly have become greater because the number of situations for him to guess in have increased; and the mathematical equation representing such a scenario is ½ x ½ (i.e., one time out of two for the first situation multiplied by one time out of two for the second situation).

Continuing on with the example, if the same person now has three situations in which to make blind guesses, then he will only be right one-eighth of the time (i.e., one time out of eight or ½ x ½ x ½ ). Again, the odds of choosing the correct choice in all three situations have decreased his chances of being completely correct to only one time in eight. It must be understood that as the number of situations increase, the chances of being right decrease, for the two phenomena are inversely proportional.

Now applying this example to the situations in the Qur'an, if one draws up a list of all of the subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements, it becomes very clear that it is highly unlikely that they were all just correct blind guesses. Indeed, the subjects discussed in the Qur'an are numerous, and thus the odds of someone just making lucky guesses about all of them become practically nil. If there are a million ways for the Qur'an to be wrong, yet each time it is right, then it is unlikely that someone was guessing.

The following three examples of subjects about which the Qur'an has made correct statements collectively illustrate how the Qur'an continues to beat the odds.

In the 16th chapter (Surah an-Nahl 16:68-69) the Qur'an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food. Now, a person might guess on that, saying, "The bee that you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess female." Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the Qur'an is right. But it also happens that that was not what most people believed at the time when the Qur'an was revealed. Can you tell the difference between a male and a female bee? Well, it takes a specialist to do that, but it has been discovered that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food. However, in Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fourth, some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare's time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.

So, back to the list of good guesses, concerning the topic of bees, the Qur'an had a 50/50 chance of being right, and the odds were one in two.
 
 

My comments: The Dr. Miller is trying to capitalize on the incredulity of others, and that is a very deceptive way of bringing forth information. People who keep bees knew this sort of thing since ancient times. Many people lived in rural areas and had knowledge of bee keeping. Dr. Miller's question "Can you tell the difference between a male and a female bee?" is sort of isninuating the kind of thing we found in the previous claim from Keith Moore with regard to the need of a microscope. He then fallaciously suggests that because a play says something that it was the belief of the time for all people. He doesn't consider that even today fictional stories, plays, movies, contain and exhibit obvious scientific errors. 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 Muslim apologist might try to squirm out of this by saying that parts of the Bible are also from Allah, so to prove that common folk in ancient times knew this, consider the following from the previously cited Complete Works of Aristotle: "Others again assert that these insects [i.e. Bees] copulate, and that drones are male and bees female." [Complete Works, Vol. 1, 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). 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 surah an-Naml 27:18-19 has Solomon hearing the speech of an ant! Ants don't speak, they communicate via chemical trails. In short I have shown that Dr. Miller is deceptively trying to capitalize on the incredulity of the readers; I have shown that ancient people knew the sex of bees (despite a lack of microscopes); and I showed an error in the "amazing" Qur'an.

In addition to the subject of bees, the Qur'an also discusses the sun and the manner in which it travels through space. Again, a person can guess on that subject. When the sun moves through space, there are two options: it can travel just as a stone would travel if one threw it, or it can move of its own accord. The Qur'an states the latter - that it moves as a result of its own motion (Surah al-Anbiya 21:33). To do such, the Qur'an uses a form of the word sabaha to describe the sun's movement through space. In order to properly provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the implications of this Arabic verb, the following example is given.

If a man is in water and the verb sabaha is applied in reference to his movement, it can be understood that he is swimming, moving of his own accord and not as a result of a direct force applied to him. Thus when this verb is used in reference to the sun's movement through space, it in no way implies that the sun is flying uncontrollably through space as a result of being hurled or the like. It simply means that the sun is turning and rotating as it travels. Now, this is what the Qur'an affirms, but was it an easy thing to discover? Can any common man tell that the sun is turning? Only in modern times was the equipment made available to project the image of the sun onto a tabletop so that one could look at it without being blinded. And through this process it was discovered that not only are there spots on the sun but that these spots move once every 25 days. This movement is referred to as the rotation of the sun around its axis and conclusively proves that, as the Qur'an stated 1400 years ago, the sun does, indeed, turn as it travels through space.
 
 

My comments: I was once told, in an email from a Muslim, that "one of the greatest mufassireen (one who explains) of the Qur’an was none other than the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)." This will be important for reasons that will be shown in a momtent. First of all, the verse Dr. Miller cited (surah al-Anbiya' 21:33) mentions both the sun and the moon in the same proverbial breath, and then states "they float, each in an orbit." Essentially the verse is using the same word to describe the movemement of both the sun and the moon. The reality is, the respective movements of these two bodies are drastically different. Dr. Miller is trying to reinterpret science into the text. However, it seems to me that the author of this verse assumed the sun and the moon have the same movements (i.e. orbiting around the earth). This is realized further when one notes that surah al-Kahf 18:85-86 insinuates that the sun sets here on earth (though Muslim apologists try to explain this away by saying it is a metaphore), as well as surah Ya Sin 36:38 which speaks of the sun "running on a fixed course." This is actually explained in the following hadith: Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:  Narrated Abu Dhar:  The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (36.38)  Now, I don't assume that this is definitely something Muhammad said (the ahadith are of a very unreliable nature), but all of this gives us a better picture of what the early Muslims thought about the sun. The previously mentioned verses from the Qur'an, combined with this hadith which says the sun has to ask permission to rise again (at what point is the sun not shining on the earth?), shows that the original understanding of what the Qur'an taught about the sun is totally different from the modern reinterpretations of Dr. Miller.

And returning once again to the subject of good guesses, the odds of guessing correctly about both subjects - the sex of bees and the movement of the sun - are one in four!
 

Seeing as back fourteen centuries ago people probably did not understand much about time zones, the Qur'an's statements about this subject are considerably surprising. The concept that one family is having breakfast as the sun comes up while another family is enjoying the brisk night air is truly something to be marveled at, even in modern time. Indeed, fourteen centuries ago, a man could not travel more than thirty miles in one day, and thus it took him literally months to travel from India to Morocco, for example. And probably, when he was having supper in Morocco, he thought to himself, "Back home in India they are having supper right now." This is because he did not realize that, in the process of traveling, he moved across a time zone. Yet, because it is the words of Allah, the All-Knowing, the Qur'an recognizes and acknowledges such a phenomenon.

In an interesting verse it states that when history comes to an end and the Day of Judgement arrives, it will all occur in an instant; and this very instant will catch some people in the daytime and some people at night. This clearly illustrates Allah's divine wisdom and His previous knowledge of the existence of time zones, even though such a discovery was non-existent back fourteen centuries ago. Certainly, this phenomenon is not something which is obvious to one's eyes or a result of one's experience, and this fact, in itself, suffices as proof of the Qur'an's authenticity.
 
 

My comments: An interpretation of an interpretation? Did anyone else notice that Dr. Miller failed to cite a verse? Rather, all he did was paraphrase a verse, and then interpreted his own paraphrasing!

Returning one final time to the subject of good guesses for the purpose of the present example, the odds that someone guessed correctly about all three of the aforementioned subjects - the sex of bees, the movement of the sun and the existence of time zones - are one in eight!
 
 

My comments: To re-tally that count, let it be noted that the bee issue, by the seventh century, was already something understood by common folk for more than a thousand years. As for the sun, Dr. Miller was trying to put forth his own reinterpretation, while from another perspective it seems the Qur'an has actually made errors when it comes to the movement of the sun (18:85-86, 21:33, 36:38). As for the time zone issue, Dr. Miller gave us nothing to work with. So we have one that was already given, one that was wrong, and one undecided. I think the Qur'an's score is zero.

Certainly, one could continue on and on with this example, drawing up longer and longer list of good guesses; and of course, the odds would become higher and higher with each increase of subjects about which one could guess. But what no one can deny is the following: the odds that Muhammad (s), an illiterate, guessed correctly about thousands and thousands of subjects, never once making a mistake, are so high that any theory of his authorship of the Qur'an must be completely dismissed - even by the most hostile enemies of Islam!

Indeed, the Qur'an expects this kind of challenge. Undoubtedly, if one said to someone upon entering a foreign land, "I know your father. I have met him," probably the man from that land would doubt the newcomer's word, saying, "You have just come here. How could you know my father?" As a result, he would question him, "Tell me, is my father tall, short, dark, fair? What is he like?" Of course, if the visitor continued answering all of the questions correctly, the skeptic would have no choice but to say, "I guess you do know my father. I don't know how you know him, but I guess you do!"
 
 

My comments: For the umpteenth time, this is the argument from personal incredulity. To stay with the above analogy, could one then say "since I do not know how you know this information, any answer will do?" Could one assume that the foreigner recieved all his information from the Intellectual Blue Unicorn (IBU)? If not from the IBU, then who? Do you see the problem here? Before we can assume the IBU told this information to the foreigner, we have to prove the IBU exists! We can't work backwards and assume the IBU without proof.

The situation is the same with the Qur'an. It states that it originates from the One who created everything. So everyone has the right to say, "Convince me! If the author of this book really originated life and everything in the heavens and on the earth, then He should know about this, about that, and so on." And inevitably, after researching the Qur'an, everyone will discover the same truths. Additionally, we all know something for sure: we do not all have to be experts to verify what the Qur'an affirms. One's iman (faith) grows as one continues to check and confirm the truths contained in the Qur'an. And one is supposed to do so all of his life.

May God (Allah) guide everyone close to the truth.

An engineer at the University of Toronto who was interested in psychology and who had read something on it, conducted research and wrote a thesis on Efficiency of Group Discussions. The purpose of his research was to find out how much people accomplish when they get together to talk in groups of two, three, ten, etc. The graph of his findings goes up and down at places, but it reaches the highest point at the variable of two. The findings: people accomplish most when they talk in groups of two. Of course, this discovery was entirely beyond his expectations, but it is very old advice given in the Qur'an (Surah Saba 34:46):

"Say, 'I exhort you to one thing - that you stand for Allah, [assessing the truth] by twos and singly, and then reflect...'"

Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur'an (Surah al-Fajr 89:7) mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe it or not, there on the list was the name of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram!
 
 

My comments: First of all, wasn't Elba the Island Napoleon was onc exiled to? I think the good doctor means Ebla. Anyway, Dr. Miller doesn't tell us waht the article says about Iram and what the Qur'an says about Iram. The actual article says nothing about Iram, nor does it mention anything about pillars (you'd think they would if this is the same "city of pillars" as mentioned in the Qur'an). Regardless, what is the point? The article also mentions Sodom, Gamorrah, Beirut and Damascus. A semetic text (i.e the Qur'an) mentions an apparently semetic city, and we're supposed to be amazed?

In conclusion I ask you to consider with care the following (Surah 29:50-51):

"And they say, 'Why are not signs sent down to him from his Lord?' Say, 'Indeed, the signs are with Allah, and I am but a clear warner.' But it is sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book [i.e., Qur'an] which is rehearsed to them? Verily, in that is mercy and a reminder to people who believe."