Rant Back

Wednesday 10 September 2008

Power Of Suggestion

------------

Guest1214
: surah Al-Anbiya,ayat 21..big bang is already mentioned in the Al-Quran 1400 years ago

------------

Okay, let's look at this for a moment. Let's actually analyse this statement. And then analyse the Ayat this was taken from:

Here is the actual verse, from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ayat 31. By the way the Quran I'm using is translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, if you're interested, by Saba Islamic Media. So I'm taking this translation from an Islamic scholar, not from another atheist, or biased source. This is what the translation says.Oh, and Guest1214, check your sources. It's Ayat 31, not Ayat 21. Ayat 21 says "Or have they taken (for worship) gods from the earth who can raise (the dead)?" I seriously doubt that raising anyone from the dead has anything to do with the Big Bang Theory, so I'm assuming you meant Ayat 31.

To make it easier, I'll put the translation here for you:

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

And just to be nice, I'll stick another Ayat (Surah Fussilat, Ayat 11) concerning creation:

Here's the translation:

"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky as it has been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

There's a lot of problems with this attempt to link the Quran with the Big Bang Theory.

Heavens in one unit with the Earth? That's simply not the Big Bang Theory. To imply that Earth, or even earth (i.e. soil) existed combined with the heavens (which Muslims interpret as gases), is untrue because in the beginning there is no soil, simply because there are no matter in the beginning. And Earth is only one small part of the Universe. This verse is implying that there is only Earth, and the Heavens, hence disregarding the future existence of other stars and planets.

Earth was never one part with the heavens or the universe. It came millions of years after the creation of the universe.

And making every living thing from water? This contradicts with the Quran's claim that man are made out of clay (or mud, or soil, whichever verse you choose to read).

To suggest that smoke, of all things, was the foundation of all things, is wrong. Smoke is itself matter, made up of particles and atoms. And the use of the word 'dukhan' (meaning smoke) is a very inaccurate way of describing gas. To the casual reader or muslim, smoke is indiscernible from gas, but really, smoke is the suspension of solid particles propelled by hot air, and therefore not gas at all. If the Quran were to be really accurate, it would use the more accurate word, 'ghaz.' Smoke implies the presence of carbon, yet the founding particles were hydrogen and helium.

And besides, to discuss the thing more carefully, the imagery of one single unit being separated to create a universe is so common, it's really unoriginal for the Quran to be using that imagery.

Sumerians believed the two founding gods, An and Ki, symbolised heaven and earth.

The Egyptians believed that Heaven and Earth, or Nut (the Sky goddess) and Geb (the Earth god), was forced to be separated by the sun god, Ra.

These two civilisations existed thousands of years before Islam.

The thing about life coming from water is also unoriginal. Water has been the source of life for people since, well, the beginning. So it is reasonable to think that people would appreciate water as an ingredient for life. The Greeks especially thought life came from water. Aristotle and Anaximander thought so. Well, I think not really Aristotle, but he remarked that it was the popular belief at the time.

And there's the power of suggestion. People see what they want to see, and over-enthusiastic Muslims eager to associate themselves with Science, and hence overall acknowledgment of their religion, see the Big Bang Theory in what on closer inspection is really just vague, unoriginal accounts of what happened.

No comments:

Post a Comment